text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
The highly influential framework of conceptual spaces provides a geometric way of representing knowledge. Instances are represented by points in a high-dimensional space and concepts are represented by regions in this space. In this article, we extend our recent mathematical formalization of this framework by providing quantitative mathematical definitions for measuring relations between concepts: We develop formal ways for computing concept size, subsethood, implication, similarity, and betweenness. This considerably increases the representational capabilities of our formalization and makes it the most thorough and comprehensive formalization of conceptual spaces developed so far.
Conceptual Spaces Fuzzy Sets Concept Size Subsethood Implication Similarity Betweenness
author:
- 'Lucas Bechberger (0000-0002-1962-1777)'
- 'Kai-Uwe Kühnberger'
bibliography:
- '/home/lbechberger/Documents/Papers/jabref.bib'
title: 'Formal Ways for Measuring Relations between Concepts in Conceptual Spaces[^1]'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
One common criticism of symbolic AI approaches is that the symbols they operate on do not contain any meaning: For the system, they are just arbitrary tokens that can be manipulated in some way. This lack of inherent meaning in abstract symbols is called the “symbol grounding problem” [@Harnad1990]. One approach towards solving this problem is to devise a grounding mechanism that connects abstract symbols to the real world, i.e., to perception and action.
The cognitive framework of conceptual spaces [@Gardenfors2000; @Gardenfors2014] attempts to bridge this gap between symbolic and subsymbolic AI by proposing an intermediate conceptual layer based on geometric representations. A conceptual space is a similarity space spanned by a number of quality dimensions that are based on perception and/or subsymbolic processing. Regions in this space correspond to concepts and can be referred to as abstract symbols.
The framework of conceptual spaces has been highly influential in the last 15 years within cognitive science [@Douven2011; @Fiorini2013; @Lieto2017]. It has also sparked considerable research in various subfields of artificial intelligence, ranging from robotics and computer vision [@Chella2003] over the semantic web [@Adams2009a] to plausible reasoning [@Derrac2015].
One important aspect of conceptual representations is however often ignored by these research efforts: Typically, the different features of a concept are correlated with each other. For instance, there is an obvious correlation between the color and the taste of an apple: Red apples tend to be sweet and green apples tend to be sour. Recently, we have proposed a formalization of the conceptual spaces framework that is capable of representing such correlations in a geometric way [@Bechberger2017KI]. Our formalization not only contains a parametric definition of concepts, but also different operations to create new concepts from old ones (namely: intersection, unification, and projection).
In this article, we provide mathematical definitions for the notions of concept size, subsethood, implication, similarity, and betweenness. This considerably increases the representational power of our formalization by introducing measurable ways of describing relations between concepts.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section \[CS\] introduces the general framework of conceptual spaces along with our recent formalization. In Section \[Extension\], we extend this formalization with additional operations and in Section \[Example\] we provide an illustrative example. Section \[RelatedWork\] contains a summary of related work and Section \[Conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Conceptual Spaces {#CS}
=================
This section presents the cognitive framework of conceptual spaces as described by [@Gardenfors2000] and as formalized by [@Bechberger2017KI].
Dimensions, Domains, and Distance {#CS:DimensionsDomainsDistance}
---------------------------------
A conceptual space is a similarity space spanned by a set $D$ of so-called “quality dimensions”. Each of these dimensions $d \in D$ represents an interpretable way in which two stimuli can be judged to be similar or different. Examples for quality dimensions include temperature, weight, time, pitch, and hue. The distance between two points $x$ and $y$ with respect to a dimension $d$ is denoted as $|x_d - y_d|$.
A domain $\delta \subseteq D$ is a set of dimensions that inherently belong together. Different perceptual modalities (like color, shape, or taste) are represented by different domains. The color domain for instance consists of the three dimensions hue, saturation, and brightness. Distance within a domain $\delta$ is measured by the weighted Euclidean metric $d_E$.
The overall conceptual space $CS$ is defined as the product space of all dimensions. Distance within the overall conceptual space is measured by the weighted Manhattan metric $d_M$ of the intra-domain distances. This is supported by both psychological evidence [@Attneave1950; @Shepard1964; @Johannesson2001] and mathematical considerations [@Aggarwal2001]. Let $\Delta$ be the set of all domains in $CS$. The combined distance $d_C^{\Delta}$ within $CS$ is defined as follows: $$d_C^{\Delta}(x,y,W) = \sum_{\delta \in \Delta}w_{\delta} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_{d} \cdot |x_{d} - y_{d}|^2}$$ The parameter $W = \langle W_{\Delta},\{W_{\delta}\}_{\delta \in \Delta}\rangle$ contains two parts: $W_{\Delta}$ is the set of positive domain weights $w_{\delta}$ with $\textstyle\sum_{\delta \in \Delta} w_{\delta} = |\Delta|$. Moreover, $W$ contains for each domain $\delta \in \Delta$ a set $W_{\delta}$ of dimension weights $w_{d}$ with $\textstyle\sum_{d \in \delta} w_{d} = 1$.\
The similarity of two points in a conceptual space is inversely related to their distance. This can be written as follows : $$Sim(x,y) = e^{-c \cdot d(x,y)}\quad \text{with a constant}\; c >0 \; \text{and a given metric}\; d$$
Betweenness is a logical predicate $B(x,y,z)$ that is true if and only if $y$ is considered to be between $x$ and $z$. It can be defined based on a given metric $d$: $$B_d(x,y,z) :\iff d(x,y) + d(y,z) = d(x,z)$$
The betweenness relation based on $d_E$ results in the line segment connecting the points $x$ and $z$, whereas the betweenness relation based on $d_M$ results in an axis-parallel cuboid between the points $x$ and $z$. One can define convexity and star-shapedness based on the notion of betweenness:
\[def:Convexity\] (Convexity)\
A set $C \subseteq CS$ is *convex* under a metric $d \;:\iff$
$\forall {x \in C, z \in C, y \in CS}: \left(B_d(x,y,z) \rightarrow y \in C\right)$
\[def:StarShapedSet\] (Star-shapedness)\
A set $S \subseteq CS$ is *star-shaped* under a metric $d$ with respect to a set $P \subseteq S \;:\iff$
$\forall {p \in P, z \in S, y \in CS}: \left(B_d(p,y,z) \rightarrow y \in S\right)$
Properties and Concepts {#CS:PropertiesConcepts}
-----------------------
[@Gardenfors2000] observes that properties like “red”, “round”, and “sweet” can be defined on individual domains (e.g., color, shape, taste), whereas full-fleshed concepts like “apple” or “dog” involve multiple domains. Each domain involved in representing a concept has a certain importance, which is reflected by so-called “salience weights”. Another important aspect of concepts are the correlations between the different domains, which are important for both learning [@Billman1996] and reasoning [@Murphy2002 Ch 8].
Based on the principle of cognitive economy, Gärdenfors argues that both properties and concepts should be represented as convex sets. However, as we demonstrated in [@Bechberger2017KI], one cannot geometrically encode correlations between domains when using convex sets: The left part of Figure \[fig:ConvexityProblem\] shows two domains (age and height) with an intuitive sketch for the concepts of child and adult. As domains are combined with the Manhattan metric, a convex set corresponds in this case to an axis-parallel cuboid. One can easily see that this convex representation (middle part of Figure \[fig:ConvexityProblem\]) is not satisfactory, because the correlation of the two domains is not encoded. We therefore proposed in [@Bechberger2017KI] to relax the convexity criterion and to use star-shaped sets, which is illustrated in the right part of Figure \[fig:ConvexityProblem\]. This enables a geometric representation of correlations while still being only a minimal departure from the original framework.\
![Left: Intuitive way to define regions for the concepts of “adult” and “child”. Middle: Representation by using convex sets. Right: Representation by using star-shaped sets with central points marked by crosses.[]{data-label="fig:ConvexityProblem"}](ConvexityProblem.png){width="\columnwidth"}
We have based our formalization on axis-parallel cuboids that can be described by a triple $\langle \Delta_C, p^-, p^+ \rangle$ consisting of a set of domains $\Delta_C$ on which this cuboid $C$ is defined and two points $p^-$ and $p^+$, such that $$x \in C \iff \forall{\delta \in \Delta_C}:\forall{d \in \delta}: p_d^- \leq x_d \leq p_d^+$$ These cuboids are convex under $d_C^{\Delta}$. It is also easy to see that any union of convex sets that have a non-empty intersection is star-shaped [@Smith1968]. We define the core of a concept as follows:
\[def:SSSS\] (Simple star-shaped set)\
A *simple star-shaped set* $S$ is described as a tuple $\langle\Delta_S,\{C_1,\dots,C_m\}\rangle$. $\Delta_S \subseteq \Delta$ is a set of domains on which the cuboids $\{C_1,\dots,C_m\}$ (and thus also $S$) are defined. Moreover, it is required that the central region $P :=\textstyle\bigcap_{i = 1}^m C_i \neq \emptyset$. Then the simple star-shaped set $S$ is defined as $$S := \bigcup_{i=1}^m C_i$$
In order to represent imprecise concept boundaries, we use fuzzy sets [@Zadeh1965; @Bvelohlavek2011]. A fuzzy set is characterized by its membership function $\mu: CS \rightarrow [0,1]$ that assigns a degree of membership to each point in the conceptual space. The membership of a point to a fuzzy concept is based on its maximal similarity to any of the points in the concept’s core:
\[def:FSSSS\] (Fuzzy simple star-shaped set)\
A *fuzzy simple star-shaped set* $\widetilde{S}$ is described by a quadruple $\langle S,\mu_0,c,W\rangle$ where $S = \langle\Delta_S,\{C_1,\dots,C_m\}\rangle$ is a non-empty simple star-shaped set. The parameter $\mu_0 \in (0,1]$ controls the highest possible membership to $\widetilde{S}$ and is usually set to 1. The sensitivity parameter $c > 0$ controls the rate of the exponential decay in the similarity function. Finally, $W = \langle W_{\Delta_S},\{W_{\delta}\}_{\delta \in \Delta_S}\rangle$ contains positive weights for all domains in $\Delta_S$ and all dimensions within these domains, reflecting their respective importance. We require that $\textstyle\sum_{\delta \in \Delta_S} w_{\delta} = |\Delta_S|$ and that $\forall {\delta \in \Delta_S}:\textstyle\sum_{d \in \delta} w_{d} = 1$. The membership function of $\widetilde{S}$ is then defined as follows: $$\mu_{\widetilde{S}}(x) = \mu_0 \cdot \max_{y \in S}\left(e^{-c \cdot d_C^{\Delta}(x,y,W)}\right)$$
The sensitivity parameter $c$ controls the overall degree of fuzziness of $\widetilde{S}$ by determining how fast the membership drops to zero. The weights $W$ represent not only the relative importance of the respective domain or dimension for the represented concept, but they also influence the relative fuzziness with respect to this domain or dimension. Note that if $|\Delta_S| = 1$, then $\widetilde{S}$ represents a property, and if $|\Delta_S| > 1$, then $\widetilde{S}$ represents a concept. Figure \[fig:FSSSS\] illustrates this definition (the $x$ and $y$ axes are assumed to belong to different domains and are combined with $d_M$ using equal weights).
In our previous work [@Bechberger2017KI], we have also provided a number of operations, which can be used to create new concepts from old ones, namely intersection, unification, and projection: The intersection of two concepts can be interpreted as the logical “and” – e.g., intersecting the property “green” with the concept “banana” results in the set of all objects that are both green and bananas. The unification of two concepts can be used to construct more abstract categories (e.g., defining “fruit” as the unification of “apple”, “banana”, “coconut”, etc.). Projecting a concept onto a subspace corresponds to focusing on certain domains while completely ignoring others.
Defining Additional Operations {#Extension}
==============================
Concept Size {#Extension:Hypervolume}
------------
The size of a concept gives an intuition about its specificity: Large concepts are more general and small concepts are more specific. This is one obvious aspect in which one can compare two concepts to each other.
One can use a measure $M$ to describe the size of a fuzzy set. It can be defined in our context as follows (cf. [@Bouchon-Meunier1996]):
A measure $M$ on a conceptual space $CS$ is a function $M: \mathcal{F}(CS) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+_0$ with $M(\emptyset) = 0$ and $\widetilde{A} \subseteq \widetilde{B} \Rightarrow M(\widetilde{A}) \leq M(\widetilde{B})$, where $\mathcal{F}(CS)$ is the fuzzy power set of $CS$ and where $\widetilde{A} \subseteq \widetilde{B} :\iff \forall {x \in CS}: \mu_{\widetilde{A}}(x) \leq \mu_{\widetilde{B}}(x)$.
A common measure for fuzzy sets is the integral over the set’s membership function, which is equivalent to the Lebesgue integral over the fuzzy set’s $\alpha$-cuts: $$M(\widetilde{A}) := \int_{CS} \mu_{\widetilde{A}}(x)\; dx = \int_{0}^1 V(\widetilde{A}^{\alpha})\; d\alpha
\label{eqn:integral}$$ We use $V(\widetilde{A}^{\alpha})$ to denote the volume of a fuzzy set’s $\alpha$-cut $\widetilde{A}^{\alpha} = \{ x \in CS \;|\; \mu_{\widetilde{A}}(x) \geq \alpha\}$. We define for each cuboid $C_i \in S$ its fuzzified version $\widetilde{C}_i$ (cf. Definition \[def:FSSSS\]): $$\mu_{\widetilde{C}_i}(x) = \mu_0 \cdot \max_{y \in C_i}\left(e^{-c \cdot d_C^{\Delta}(x,y,W)}\right)$$ It is obvious that $\mu_{\widetilde{S}}(x) = \max_{C_i \in S} \mu_{\widetilde{C}_i}(x)$. It is also clear that the intersection of two fuzzified cuboids is again a fuzzified cuboid. Finally, one can easily see that we can use the inclusion-exclusion formula (cf. e.g., [@Bogart1989]) to compute the overall measure of $\widetilde{S}$ based on the measure of its fuzzified cuboids: $$M(\widetilde{S}) = \sum_{l=1}^m \left((-1)^{l+1} \cdot \sum_{\substack{\{i_1,\dots,i_l\}\\\subseteq\{1,\dots,m\}}}M\left(\bigcap_{i \in \{i_1,\dots,i_l\}} \widetilde{C}_i\right)\right)
\label{eqn:inclusionExclusion}$$ The outer sum iterates over the number of cuboids under consideration (with $m$ being the total number of cuboids in S) and the inner sum iterates over all sets of exactly $l$ cuboids. The overall formula generalizes the observation that $|\widetilde{C}_1 \cup \widetilde{C}_2| = |\widetilde{C}_1| + |\widetilde{C}_2| - |\widetilde{C}_1 \cap \widetilde{C}_2|$ from two to $m$ sets.
In order to derive $M(\widetilde{S})$, we first describe how to compute $V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$, i.e., the size of a fuzzified cuboid’s $\alpha$-cut. Using Equation \[eqn:integral\], we can then derive $M(\widetilde{C})$, which we can in turn insert into Equation \[eqn:inclusionExclusion\] to compute the overall size of $\widetilde{S}$.\
Figure \[fig:2DAlphaCut\] illustrates the $\alpha$-cut of a fuzzified two-dimensional cuboid both under $d_E$ (left) and under $d_M$ (right). Because the membership function is defined based on an exponential decay, one can interpret each $\alpha$-cut as an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the original cuboid C, where $\epsilon$ depends on $\alpha$: $$x \in {\widetilde{C}}^{\alpha} \iff \mu_0 \cdot \max_{y \in C}\left(e^{-c \cdot d_C^{\Delta}(x,y,W)}\right) \geq \alpha \iff \min_{y \in C} d_C^{\Delta}(x,y,W) \leq -\frac{1}{c} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}\right)$$
$V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$ can be described as a sum of different components. Let us use the shorthand notation $b_d := p_d^+ - p_d^-$. Looking at Figure \[fig:2DAlphaCut\], one can see that all components of $V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$ can be described by ellipses: Component I is a zero-dimensional ellipse (i.e., a point) that was extruded in two dimensions with extrusion lengths of $b_1$ and $b_2$, respectively. Component II consists of two one-dimensional ellipses (i.e., line segments) that were extruded in one dimension, and component III is a two-dimensional ellipse. Note that ellipses under $d_M$ have the form of streched diamonds.
Let us denote by $\Delta_{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}$ the domain structure obtained by eliminating from $\Delta$ all dimensions $d \in D\setminus\{d_1, \dots, d_i\}$. Moreover, let $V(r, \Delta, W)$ be the hypervolume of a hyperball under $d_C^\Delta(\cdot,\cdot, W)$ with radius $r$. In this case, a hyperball is the set of all points with a distance of at most $r$ (measured by $d_C^\Delta(\cdot,\cdot, W)$) to a central point. Note that the weights $W$ will cause this ball to have the form of an ellipse. For instance, in Figure \[fig:2DAlphaCut\], we assume that $w_{d_1} < w_{d_2}$ which means that we allow larger differences with respect to $d_1$ than with respect to $d_2$. This causes the hyperballs to be streched in the $d_1$ dimension, thus obtaining the shape of an ellipse. We can in general describe $V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$ as follows: $$V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha}) = \sum_{i=0}^n \left( \sum_{\substack{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}\\ \subseteq D}} \left( \prod_{\substack{d \in\\ D\setminus\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}} b_d \right) \cdot V\left( -\frac{1}{c} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}\right),\Delta_{\{d_1, \dots, d_i\}},W \right)\right)$$ The outer sum of this formula runs over the number of dimensions with respect to which a given point $x \in \widetilde{C}^{\alpha}$ lies outside of $C$. We then sum over all combinations $\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}$ of dimensions for which this could be the case, compute the volume $V(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ of the $i$-dimensional hyperball under these dimensions and extrude this intermediate result in all remaining dimensions by multiplying with $\prod_{d \in D\setminus\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}} b_d$.
Let us illustrate this formula for the $\alpha$-cuts shown in Figure \[fig:2DAlphaCut\]: For $i = 0$, we can only select the empty set for the inner sum, so we end up with $b_1 \cdot b_2$, which is the size of the original cuboid (i.e., component I). For $i = 1$, we can either pick $\{d_1\}$ or $\{d_2\}$ in the inner sum. For $\{d_1\}$, we compute the size of the left and right part of component II by multiplying $V\left( -\frac{1}{c} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}\right),\Delta_{\{d_1\}},W \right)$ (i.e., their combined width) with $b_2$ (i.e., their height). For $\{d_2\}$, we analogously compute the size of the upper and the lower part of component II. Finally, for $i = 2$, we can only pick $\{d_1, d_2\}$ in the inner sum, leaving us with $V\left( -\frac{1}{c} \cdot \ln\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}\right),\Delta ,W \right)$, which is the size of component III. One can easily see that the formula for $V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$ also generalizes to higher dimensions.
\[proposition:hyperball\] $V(r,\Delta, W) = \frac{1}{\prod_{\delta \in \Delta} w_{\delta} \cdot \prod_{d \in \delta} \sqrt{w_d}} \cdot \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(|\delta|! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{|\delta|}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{|\delta|}{2}+1\right)}\right)$
See Appendix A.
Defining $\delta(d)$ as the unique $\delta \in \Delta$ with $d \in \delta$, and $a_d := w_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d}} \cdot b_d \cdot c$, we can use Proposition \[proposition:hyperball\] to rewrite $V(\widetilde{C}^{\alpha})$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(\widetilde{C}^\alpha) &=
\frac{1}{c^n\prod_{d \in D} w_{\delta(d)} \sqrt{w_d}}
\sum_{i=0}^{n} \left(
\frac{(-1)^i \cdot \ln\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}\right)^i}{i!} \cdot
\sum_{\substack{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}\\ \subseteq D}}
\left(\prod_{\substack{d \in \\D \setminus \{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}} a_d\right) \cdot \right.\\
&\left.\hspace{4.5cm}\prod_{\substack{\delta \in \\ \Delta_{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}}} \left(
|\delta|! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{|\delta|}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{|\delta|}{2}+1\right)}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$ We can solve Equation \[eqn:integral\] to compute $M(\widetilde{C})$ by using the following lemma:
\[lemma:logIntegral\] $\forall n \in \mathbb{N}: \int_0^{1} \ln(x)^n dx = (-1)^n \cdot n!$
Substitute $x = e^t$ and $s = -t$, apply the definition of the $\Gamma$ function.
\[proposition:Measure\] The measure of a fuzzified cuboid $\widetilde{C}$ can be computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
M(\widetilde{C}) &= \frac{\mu_0}{c^n\prod_{d \in D} w_{\delta(d)} \sqrt{w_d}}
\sum_{i=0}^{n} \Bigg(
\sum_{\substack{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}\\ \subseteq D}}
\left(\prod_{\substack{d \in \\ D \setminus \{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}} a_d\right) \cdot\\
&\hspace{5cm}\prod_{\substack{\delta \in\\ \Delta_{\{d_1,\dots,d_i\}}}} \left(
|\delta|! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{|\delta|}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{|\delta|}{2}+1\right)}\right)\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$
Substitute $x = \frac{\alpha}{\mu_0}$ in Equation \[eqn:integral\] and apply Lemma \[lemma:logIntegral\].
Note that although the formula for $M(\widetilde{C})$ is quite complex, it can be easily implemented via a set of nested loops. As mentioned earlier, we can use the result from Proposition \[proposition:Measure\] in combination with the inclusion-exclusion formula (Equation \[eqn:inclusionExclusion\]) to compute $M(\widetilde{S})$ for any concept $\widetilde{S}$. Also Equation \[eqn:inclusionExclusion\] can be easily implemented via a set of nested loops. Note that $M(\widetilde{S})$ is always computed only on $\Delta_S$, i.e., the set of domains on which $\widetilde{S}$ is defined.
Subsethood {#Extension:Subsethood}
----------
In order to represent knowledge about a hierarchy of concepts, one needs to be able to determine whether one concept is a subset of another concept. For instance, the fact that $\widetilde{S}_{Granny Smith} \subseteq \widetilde{S}_{apple}$ indicates that Granny Smith is a hyponym of apple.
The classic definition of subsethood for fuzzy sets reads as follows: $$\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2 :\iff \forall {x \in CS}: \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) \leq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$$ We can derive the following set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for subsethood of concepts:
\[CF:proposition:CrispSubsethood\] Let $\widetilde{S}_1 = \langle S_1, \mu_0^{(1)}, c^{(1)}, W^{(1)}\rangle, \widetilde{S}_2 = \langle S_2, \mu_0^{(2)}, c^{(2)}, W^{(2)}\rangle$ be two concepts. Then, $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$ if and only if the following conditions are true: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{S_2} \subseteq \Delta_{S_1} &\text{ and } \mu_0^{(1)} \leq \mu_0^{(2)} \text{ and } S_1 \subseteq {\widetilde{S}_2}^{\mu_0^{(1)}} \\
&\text{ and }\forall d \in D_{S_2}: c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_d} \geq c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_d}\end{aligned}$$
See Appendix B.
Please note that $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$ either is true or false – which is a binary decision. It is however desirable to define a *degree* of subsethood in order to make more fine-grained distinctions. Many of the definitions for degrees of subsethood proposed in the fuzzy set literature [@Bouchon-Meunier1996] require that the underlying universe is discrete. The following definition [@Kosko1992] works also in a continuous space and is conceptually quite straightforward: $$Sub(\widetilde{S}_1,\widetilde{S}_2) := \frac{M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)}{M(\widetilde{S}_1)} \quad \text{with a measure } M$$ One can interpret this definition intuitively as the “percentage of $\widetilde{S}_1$ that is also in $\widetilde{S}_2$”. It can be easily implemented based on the measure defined in Section \[Extension:Hypervolume\] and the intersection defined in [@Bechberger2017KI]. If $\widetilde{S}_1$ and $\widetilde{S}_2$ are not defined on the same domains, then we first project them onto their shared subset of domains before computing their degree of subsethood.
When computing the intersection of two concepts with different sensitivity parameters $c^{(1)}, c^{(2)}$ and different weights $W^{(1)}, W^{(2)}$, one needs to define new parameters $c'$ and $W'$ for the resulting concept. In our earlier work [@Bechberger2017KI], we have argued that the sensitivity parameter $c'$ should be set to the minimum of $c^{(1)}$ and $c^{(2)}$. As a larger value for $c$ causes the membership function to drop faster, this means that the concept resulting from intersecting two imprecise concepts is at least as imprecise as the original concepts. Moreover, we defined the set of new salience weights $W'$ as a linear interpolation between $W^{(1)}$ and $W^{(2)}$.
Now if $c^{(1)} > c^{(2)}$, then $c' = \min(c^{(1)}, c^{(2)}) = c^{(2)} < c^{(1)}$. It might thus happen that $M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2) > M(\widetilde{S}_1)$, and that therefore $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1,\widetilde{S}_2) > 1$. As we would like to confine $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1,\widetilde{S}_2)$ to the interval $[0,1]$, we should use the same $c$ and $W$ for computing both $M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)$ and $M(\widetilde{S}_1)$.
When judging whether $\widetilde{S}_1$ is a subset of $\widetilde{S}_2$, we can think of $\widetilde{S}_2$ as setting the context by determining the relative importance of the different domains and dimensions as well as the degree of fuzziness. For instance, when judging whether tomatoes are vegetables, we focus our attention on the features that are crucial to the definition of the “vegetable” concept. We thus propose to use $c^{(2)}$ and $W^{(2)}$ when computing $M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)$ and $M(\widetilde{S}_1)$.
Please note that this ensures that $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \in [0,1]$ holds. However, by using the same $c$ and $W$ for both $M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)$ and $M(\widetilde{S}_1)$, we lose the guarantee that $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0 \Rightarrow \widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$: Let $\widetilde{S} = \langle S, \mu_0, c, W \rangle$ be a concept and define $\widetilde{S}' := \langle S, \mu_0, c', W \rangle$ with $c' < c$. One can easily see that $Sub(\widetilde{S}',\widetilde{S}) = 1.0$, but that $\widetilde{S}' \not\subseteq \widetilde{S}$. In practical applications, however, this is not necessarily a problem: If $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$, we can use Proposition \[CF:proposition:CrispSubsethood\] to decide whether $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$.
Implication {#Extension:Implication}
-----------
Implications play a fundamental role in rule-based systems and all approaches that use formal logics for knowledge representation. It is therefore desirable to define an implication function on concepts, such that one is able to express facts like $apple \Rightarrow red$ within our formalization.
In the fuzzy set literature [@Mas2007], a fuzzy implication is defined as a generalization of the classical crisp implication. Computing the implication of two fuzzy sets typically results in a new fuzzy set which describes the local validity of the implication for each point in the space. In our setting, we are however more interested in a single number that indicates the overall validity of the implication $apple \Rightarrow red$. We propose to reuse the definition of subsethood from Section \[Extension:Subsethood\]: It makes intuitive sense in our geometric setting to say that $apple \Rightarrow red$ is true to the degree to which $apple$ is a subset of $red$. We define: $$Impl(\widetilde{S}_1,\widetilde{S}_2) := Sub(\widetilde{S}_1,\widetilde{S}_2)$$
Similarity {#Extension:Similarity}
----------
The similarity relation of concepts can be a valuable source for common-sense reasoning: If two concepts are similar, they are expected to have similar properties and behave in similar ways (e.g., pencils and crayons).
Whenever two concepts are defined on two different sets of domains $\Delta_1 \neq \Delta_2$, we first project them onto their set of common domains $\Delta' = \Delta_1 \cap \Delta_2$ before computing their similarity value. We define their similarity to be 0 in case that $\Delta' = \emptyset$. This is motivated by the following example: The conceptual similarity of baseball and apple should not be zero, as both have similar shapes and sizes. However, while apples have a taste, the baseball concept does not include the taste domain. Thus, when judging the similarity of “baseball” and “apple”, we consider only their set of common domains.
\[def:Similarity\] A function $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \in [0,1]$ is called a similarity function, if it has the following properties for all concepts $\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2$:
1. $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0 \Rightarrow Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$
2. $\widetilde{S}_1 = \widetilde{S}_2 \Rightarrow Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$
3. $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2 \Rightarrow Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \geq Sim(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$
The first property in Defintion \[def:Similarity\] links perfect similarity to a strong semantic relationship (namely, subsethood) between the two concepts. The second property requires that the similarity of a given concept to itself is always maximal. The third property finally prevents supersets from having a higher similarity to their subsets than the other way around.\
If we base our definition of similarity on the distance between the two concepts’ cores (e.g., by computing their Hausdorff distance as proposed by [@Aisbett2001], or the distance of their prototypical points as proposed by [@Adams2009]), we always violate the first property: Consider $\widetilde{S} = \langle S, \mu_0, c, W \rangle$ and $\widetilde{S}' = \langle S, \mu_0', c, W \rangle$ with $\mu'_0 < \mu_0$. Clearly, $Sub(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{S}') < 1.0$. However, as the cores are identical, their distance is zero. If we use $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = e^{-c \cdot d(S_1, S_2)}$, then $Sim(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{S}') =1.0$, but $Sub(\widetilde{S}, \widetilde{S}') < 1.0$.
Also if we define $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = \max_{x \in S_1} \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$ (or analogously with $\min$), we automatically violate the second property for $\widetilde{S}_1 = \widetilde{S}_2$ with $\mu_0 < 1.0$. We therefore exclude these potential definitions from our consideration.\
The following two definitions fulfill all of our requirements:
$Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) := Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ is a similarity function according to Definition \[def:Similarity\].
See Appendix C.
$Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) := \frac{M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)}{M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cup \widetilde{S}_2)}$ is a similarity function according to Definition \[def:Similarity\].
See Appendix C.
$Sim_S$ simply reuses our definition of subsethood from Section \[Extension:Subsethood\] and $Sim_J$ is an implementation of the Jaccard index. Both proposed definitions are similar in the sense that they look at the overall fuzzy sets and not just at their cores. The symmetric nature of the Jaccard index $Sim_J$ might be more convincing from a mathematical perspective. On the other hand, the asymmetric nature of $Sim_S$ matches psychological evidence suggesting that similarity judgements by humans tend to be asymmetric [@Tversky1977].
Betweenness {#Extension:Betweenness}
-----------
Conceptual betweenness can be a valuable source for common-sense reasoning [@Derrac2015]: If one concept (e.g., “master student”) is conceptually between two other concepts (e.g., “bachelor student” and “PhD student”), then it is expected to share all properties and behaviors that the two other concepts have in common (e.g., having to pay an enrollment fee).
[@Derrac2014; @Derrac2015; @Schockaert2011a] have thoroughly studied betweenness in conceptual spaces as a basis for common-sense reasoning. They argue that betweenness is invariant under changes in context, which are typically reflected by changes of the salience weights in a conceptual space. [@Schockaert2011a] generalize the crisp betweenness relation from points to regions. [@Derrac2014] propose different soft notions of betweenness for points and subsequently generalize them to regions as well. However, they assume that each region can be described by a finite set of points. As the concepts in our formalization cannot be described by a finite set of points, their definitions are not directly applicable.\
Please note that a concept $\widetilde{S}_2$ can only be between two other concepts $\widetilde{S}_1$ and $\widetilde{S}_3$ if all of these concepts are defined on the same domains. One can for instance not say that “baseball” is conceptually between “apple” and “orange”, because it does not have a taste.
As stated in Section \[CS:DimensionsDomainsDistance\], we can define that a point $y$ is between two other points $x$ and $z$ like this: $$B(x,y,z) :\Leftrightarrow d(x,y) + d(y,z) = d(x,z)$$ [@Schockaert2011a] generalize $B(x,y,z)$ from points to sets: $$B(S_1, S_2, S_3) :\Leftrightarrow \forall {y \in S_2}: \exists {x \in S_1}: \exists {z \in S_3}: B(x,y,z)$$ In order to generalize from crisp to fuzzy sets, we can simply require that $B(\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha})$ is true for all $\alpha$-cuts: $$\begin{aligned}
B(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) :&\Leftrightarrow \forall {\alpha \in [0,1]}: B(\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha})\\
&\Leftrightarrow \forall {\alpha \in [0,1]}: \forall {y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}}: \exists {x \in \widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}}: \exists {z \in \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha}}: B(x,y,z)\end{aligned}$$ If $\widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha} = \emptyset$, then $B(\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha})$ is true independent of $\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}$ and $\widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha}$. If $\widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha} \neq \emptyset$, but $\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha} = \emptyset$ or $\widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha} = \emptyset$, then $B(\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}, \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha})$ is false, and therefore also $B(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$.
This definition is binary and thus allows only for relatively coarse-grained distinctions. In order to derive a *degree* of betweenness for fuzzy sets, we use the following soft notion of betweenness for points [@Derrac2014]: $$B_{soft}(x,y,z) := \frac{d(x,z)}{d(x,y) + d(y,z)}$$ Please note that $B(x,y,z) \Leftrightarrow B_{soft}(x,y,z) = 1.0$ and that $B_{soft}(x,y,z) \in [0,1]$.
We can use $B_{soft}(x,y,z)$ together with the extension principle [@Zadeh1975] to generalize $B(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$ to a soft notion $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$: $$B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) := \min_{\alpha \in [0,1]} \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}} \max_{x \in \widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}} \max_{z \in \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha}} B_{soft}(x,y,z)$$ We simply replaced $B(x,y,z)$ with $B_{soft}(x,y,z)$, each existence quantor with a $\max$, and each all quantor with a $\min$. One can easily see that $B(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) \Leftrightarrow B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) = 1.0$. Moreover, if $\widetilde{S}_2 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_1$, then $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) = 1.0$ as we can pick for each $y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}$ always $x = y \in \widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}$.
![Two problematic cases for $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$.[]{data-label="fig:BetweennessProblems"}](BetweennessProblems.png "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\
(a)(b)
Unfortunately, this definition yields some unintutive results: If we consider the three concepts in Figure \[fig:BetweennessProblems\]a, where $\mu_0^{(1)} = \mu_0^{(3)} = 0.80$ and $\mu_0^{(2)} = 0.81$, then we get that $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) = 0.0$, as for $\alpha = 0.81$, $\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha} = \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha} = \emptyset$. Also in the example shown in Figure \[fig:BetweennessProblems\]b, we get $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) = 0.0$: For $\alpha \rightarrow 0$, $\widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}$ becomes much larger than $\widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}$ and $\widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha}$ and we can select a point $y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}$ for which $B_{soft}(x,y,z)$ becomes arbitrarily small independent of the choices for $x$ and $z$.
In order to achieve a more generous degradation in cases like the ones depicted in Figure \[fig:BetweennessProblems\], we propose to aggregate over the $\alpha$-cuts not by taking the minimum, but through an integration. As we integrate over $\alpha$ in the interval $[0,1]$ and as the degree of betweenness computed for each $\alpha$-cut also lies in the interval $[0,1]$, the result of this integration is also a number between zero and one. We define: $$B_{soft}^{integral}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3) := \int_0^1 \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\alpha}} \max_{x \in \widetilde{S}_1^{\alpha}} \max_{z \in \widetilde{S}_3^{\alpha}} \frac{d(x,z)}{d(x,y) + d(y,z)} \; d\alpha$$
All of the properties discovered above for $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$ still hold for $B_{soft}^{integral}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$. However, in the examples from Figure \[fig:BetweennessProblems\] we do not get the unintuitive result of $B_{soft}^{integral}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_3, \widetilde{S}_3) = 0.0$.
Illustrative Example {#Example}
====================
A Conceptual Space and its Concepts {#Example:Definition}
-----------------------------------
We consider a very simplified conceptual space for fruits, consisting of the following domains and dimensions: $$\Delta = \left\{ \delta_{color} = \left\{d_{hue}\right\},\delta_{shape} = \left\{d_{round}\right\},\delta_{taste} = \left\{d_{sweet}\right\} \right\}$$ $d_{hue}$ describes the hue of the observation’s color, ranging from $0.00$ (purple) to $1.00$ (red). $d_{round}$ measures the percentage to which the bounding circle of an object is filled. $d_{sweet}$ represents the relative amount of sugar contained in the fruit, ranging from 0.00 (no sugar) to 1.00 (high sugar content). As all domains are one-dimensional, the dimension weights $w_{d}$ are always equal to 1.00 for all concepts. We assume that the dimensions are ordered like this: $d_{hue},d_{round},d_{sweet}$. Table \[tab:FruitSpace\] defines several concepts in this space and Figure \[fig:FruitSpace\] visualizes them.
--------- ---------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------- ------ ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Concept $\Delta_S$ $p^-$ $p^+$ $\mu_0$ $c$
$w_{\delta_{color}}$ $w_{\delta_{shape}}$ $w_{\delta_{taste}}$
Orange $\Delta$ (0.80, 0.90, 0.60) (0.90, 1.00, 0.70) 1.0 15.0 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lemon $\Delta$ (0.70, 0.45, 0.00) (0.80, 0.55, 0.10) 1.0 20.0 0.50 0.50 2.00
Granny
Smith
(0.50, 0.65, 0.35) (0.80, 0.80, 0.50)
(0.65, 0.65, 0.40) (0.85, 0.80, 0.55)
(0.70, 0.65, 0.45) (1.00, 0.80, 0.60)
Red $\{\delta_{color}\}$ (0.90, -$\infty$, -$\infty$) (1.00, +$\infty$, +$\infty$) 1.0 20.0 1.00 – –
--------- ---------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------- ------ ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
: Definitions of several concepts.
\
\[tab:FruitSpace\]
![Top: Three-dimensional visualization of the fruit space (only cores). Bottom: Two-dimensional visualizations of the fruit space (cores and 0.5-cuts). The concepts are labeled as follows: red (1), apple (2), lemon (3), orange (4), Granny Smith (5).[]{data-label="fig:FruitSpace"}](FruitSpace.png){width="\textwidth"}
Computations {#Example:Computations}
------------
[|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} $\widetilde{S}_1$ & $\widetilde{S}_2$ & $M(\widetilde{S}_1)$ & $M(\widetilde{S}_2)$ & $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ & $Sub(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$ & $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ & $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Granny Smith & Apple & 0.0042 & 0.1048 & 1.0000 & 0.1171 & 0.2570 & 0.2570\
Orange & Apple & 0.0127 & 0.1048 & 0.1800 & 0.0333 & 0.0414 & 0.0414\
Lemon & Apple & 0.0135 & 0.1048 & 0.0422 & 0.0054 & 0.0073 & 0.0073\
Red & Apple & 0.2000 & 0.1048 & 1.0000 & 0.3333 & 0.4286 & 0.4286\
\
[|c|c|c||c|c|]{} $\widetilde{S}_1$ & $\widetilde{S}_2$ & $\widetilde{S}_3$ & $B_{soft}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$ & $B_{soft}^{integral}(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_3)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Lemon & Apple & Orange & 0.0000 & 0.8623\
Lemon & Granny Smith & Orange & 0.8254 & 0.9161\
Granny Smith & Apple & Red & 0.0000 & 0.0000\
Apple & Granny Smith & Orange & 1.0000 & 1.0000\
\
\[tab:computations\]
Table \[tab:computations\] shows the results of using the definitions from Section \[Extension\] on the concepts defined in Section \[Example:Definition\]. Note that $M(\widetilde{S}_{lemon}) \neq M(\widetilde{S}_{orange})$ because the two concepts have different weights and different sensitivity parameters. Also all relations involving the property “red” tend to yield relatively high numbers – this is because all computations only take place within the single domain on which “red” is defined. The numbers computed for the subsethood/implication relation nicely reflect our intuitive expectations. The numbers also nicely illustrate the difference between the asymmetric $Sim_S$ and the symmetric $Sim_J$ similarity functions. The values of $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ are always between $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ and $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$ while tending towards the smaller of the two numbers. Please note that for none of the examples we get a value for $Sim_J$ that is close to one. The numbers derived for the two betweenness relations show that $B_{soft}^{integral}$ is always greater or equal than $B_{soft}$. They agree on borderline cases: When computing the betweenness of concepts defined on different sets of domains (e.g., Granny Smith, apple, and red) they return zero, and when the middle concept is a subset of one of the outer concepts (e.e.g, apple, Granny Smith, and orange), they return one. The first example (lemon, apple, orange) shows the more generous degradation of $B_{soft}^{integral}$ in a case similar to the one from Figure \[fig:BetweennessProblems\]b.
Related Work {#RelatedWork}
============
Our work is of course not the first attempt to devise an implementable formalization of the conceptual spaces framework.
An early formalization was done by [@Aisbett2001]. Like we, they consider concepts to be regions in the overall conceptual space. However, they stick with the assumption of convexity and do not define concepts in a parametric way. The only operations they provide are distance and similarity of points and regions. Their formalization targets the interplay of symbols and geometric representations, but it is too abstract to be implementable. [@Rickard2006] provides a formalization based on fuzziness. He represents concepts as co-occurence matrices of their properties. By using some mathematical transformations, he interprets these matrices as fuzzy sets on the universe of ordered property pairs. Operations defined on these concepts include similarity judgements between concepts and between concepts and instances. Rickard’s representation of correlations is not geometrical: He first discretizes the domains (by defining properties) and then computes the co-occurences between these properties. Depending on the discretization, this might lead to a relatively coarse-grained notion of correlation. Moreover, as properties and concepts are represented in different ways, one has to use different learning and reasoning mechanisms for them. His formalization is also not easy to work with due to the complex mathematical transformations involved. [@Adams2009] represent concepts by one convex polytope per domain. This allows for efficient computations while being potentially more expressive than our cuboid-based approach. The Manhattan metric is used to combine different domains. However, correlations between different domains are not taken into account and cannot be expressed in this formalization as each convex polytope is only defined on a single domain. Adams and Raubal also define operations on concepts, namely intersection, similarity computation, and concept combination. This makes their formalization quite similar in spirit to ours. [@Lewis2016] formalize conceptual spaces using random set theory. They define properties as random sets within single domains and concepts as random sets in a boolean space whose dimensions indicate the presence or absence of properties. In order to define this boolean space, a single property is taken from each domain. Their approach is similar to ours in using a distance-based membership function to a set of prototypical points. However, their work purely focuses on modeling conjunctive concept combinations and does not consider correlations between domains. As one can see, none of the formalizations listed above provides a set of operations that is as comprehensive as the one offered by our extended formalization.
Conclusion and Future Work {#Conclusion}
==========================
In this paper, we extended our previous formalization of the conceptual spaces framework by providing ways to measure relations between concepts: concept size, subsethood, implication, similarity, and betweenness. This considerably extends our framework’s capabilities for representing knowledge and makes it (to the best of our knowledge) the most thorough and comprehensive formalization of conceptual spaces developed so far. A python implementation of our formalization is publicly available on GitHub under <https://www.github.com/lbechberger/ConceptualSpaces> [@Bechberger2018GitHub1.2].
Our overall research goal is to use machine learning in conceptual spaces. Therefore, our future work will focus on putting this formalization to practical use in a machine learning context.
Concept Size {#concept-size}
============
Hyperballs under the Unweighted Metric {#Size:Hyperballs}
--------------------------------------
In general, a hyperball of radius $r$ around a point $p$ can be defined as the set of all points with a distance of at most $r$ to $p$: $$H = \{x \in CS \;|\;d(x,p) \leq r \}$$
![Left: Two-dimensional hyperball under the Euclidean metric. Middle: Two-dimensional hyperball under the Manhattan metric. Right: Three-dimensional hyperball under the combined metric (with domain structure $\Delta = \{ \delta_1 = \{d_1, d_2\}, \delta_2 = \{d_3\}\}$).[]{data-label="fig:hyperballs"}](hyperballs.png){width="\textwidth"}
If the Euclidean distance $d_E$ is used, this corresponds to our intuitive notion of a ball – a round shape centered at $p$. However, under the Manhattan distance $d_M$, hyperballs have the shape of diamonds. Under the combined distance $d_C^\Delta$, a hyperball in three dimensions has the shape of a double cone (cf. Figure \[fig:hyperballs\]).
As similarity is inversely related to distance, one can interpret a hyperball in a conceptual space as the set of all points that have a minimal similarity $\alpha$ to the central point $p$, where $\alpha$ depends on the radius of the hyperball.
In this section, we assume an unweighted version of $d_C^\Delta$: $$d_C^\Delta(x,y) = \sum_{\delta \in \Delta} \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} |x_{d} - y_{d}|^2}$$
In order to derive a formula for the hypervolume of a hyperball under $d_C^\Delta$, we need to use the following three lemmata:
\[lemma:AngleIntegral\] $$\int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^\pi \int_0^\pi \dots \int_0^\pi \sin^{n-2}(\phi_1) \sin^{n-3}(\phi_2) \dots \sin(\phi_{n-2}) d\phi_1 \dots d\phi_{n-1} = 2 \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}$$ where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is Euler’s Gamma function and $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
I &=\int_0^{2\pi} \int_0^\pi \int_0^\pi \dots \int_0^\pi \sin^{n-2}(\phi_1) \sin^{n-3}(\phi_2) \dots \sin(\phi_{n-2}) d\phi_1 \dots d\phi_{n-1}\\
&= \left(\int\displaylimits_{0}^{2\pi} 1 \;d\phi_{n - 1}\right)
\left(\int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi \sin(\phi_{n-2}) \;d\phi_{n - 2}\right)
\cdots
\left(\int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi \sin^{n-2}(\phi_{1}) \;d\phi_{1}\right)\\
&= \left(4 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} 1 \;d\phi_{n - 1}\right)
\left(2 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin(\phi_{n-2}) \;d\phi_{n-2}\right)
\cdots
\left(2 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin^{n-2}(\phi_{1}) \;d\phi_{1}\right)\end{aligned}$$
We can now use the definition of the Beta function, which is $$B(x,y) = 2 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin^{2x-1}(\phi) \cos^{2y-1}(\phi)\; d\phi$$ Using $y = \frac{1}{2}$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
I &= \left(4 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} 1 \;d\phi_{n - 1}\right)
\left(2 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin(\phi_{n-2}) \;d\phi_{n-2}\right)
\cdots
\left(2 \cdot \int\displaylimits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin^{n-2}(\phi_{1}) \;d\phi_{1}\right)\\
&= 2 \cdot B\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \cdot B\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right) \cdots B\left(\frac{n-2}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \cdot B\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Next, we use the identity $B(x,y) = \frac{\Gamma(x)\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)}$ with Euler’s Gamma function $\Gamma$ and the fact that $\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}) = \sqrt{\pi}$. We get: $$I = 2 \cdot \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(1)} \cdot \frac{\Gamma(1)\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})} \cdots \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n-2}{2})\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})} \cdot \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
= 2 \cdot \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})^{n}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}
= 2 \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}$$
\[lemma:IntegralBetaFunction\] For any natural number $j > 0$ and any $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$, the following equation holds: $$\int_0^{r-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}r_i} r_j^{a-1} \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^j r_i\right)^b dr_j = B(a,b+1) \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)^{a+b}$$
We can make a variable change by defining $r_j = \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)\cdot z$ which gives $dr_j = \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)\cdot dz$. This results in: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^{r-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}r_i} r_j^{a-1} \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^j r_i\right)^b dr_j\\
&=\int_0^{1} \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)^{a-1} \cdot z^{a-1} \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i - \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)\cdot z\right)^b \cdot\left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right) dz\\
&= \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)^{a-1+b+1} \int_0^{1} z^{a-1} (1-z)^b dz = \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} r_i\right)^{a+b} \cdot B(a,b+1)\end{aligned}$$ The last transformation uses the fact that $B(x,y) = \int_0^1 t^{x-1} (1-t)^{y-1} dt$.
\[lemma:RadiusIntegral\] For any natural number $k > 0$, any $r_1,\dots,r_k,n_1,\dots,n_k > 0$, $n = \sum_{i=0}^k n_i$, $r = \sum_{i=0}^k r_i$, the following equation holds: $$\int_0^r r_1^{n_1 - 1} \int_0^{r-r_1} r_2^{n_2 - 1} \dots \int_0^{r-\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i} r_k^{n_k - 1} dr_k \dots dr_1 = \frac{r^n}{\Gamma(n+1)} \prod_{i=1}^k \Gamma(n_i)$$
Using Lemma \[lemma:IntegralBetaFunction\], we can solve the innermost integral by setting $j=k, a= n_k, b=0$, which gives us $B(n_k,1) \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i\right)^{n_k}$. Therefore: $$\begin{aligned}
I &= \int_0^r r_1^{n_1 - 1} \int_0^{r-r_1} r_2^{n_2 - 1} \dots \int_0^{r-\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i} r_k^{n_k - 1} dr_k \dots dr_1\\
&= B(n_k,1) \cdot \int_0^r r_1^{n_1 - 1} \dots \int_0^{r-\sum_{i=1}^{k-2} r_i} r_{k-1}^{n_{k-1} - 1} \cdot \left(r- \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i\right)^{n_k} dr_{k-1} \dots dr_1\end{aligned}$$ As one can see, we can again apply Lemma \[lemma:IntegralBetaFunction\] to the innermost integral. Repeatedly applying Lemma \[lemma:IntegralBetaFunction\] finally results in: $$I = B(n_k,1)\cdot B(n_{k-1},n_k + 1) \cdot \dots \cdot B(n_1, n_2+\dots+n_k+1)\cdot r^{n_1+\dots+n_k}$$ We use that $B(x,y) = \frac{\Gamma(x)\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)}$ in order to rewrite this equation: $$I = r^{n_1+\dots+n_k} \cdot \frac{\Gamma(n_k)\Gamma(1)}{\Gamma(n_k+1)} \cdot \frac{\Gamma(n_{k-1})\Gamma(n_k+1)}{\Gamma(n_{k-1}+n_k+1)} \cdots \frac{\Gamma(n_1)\Gamma(n_2+\dots+n_k+1)}{\Gamma(n_1+n_2+\dots+n_k+1)}$$ Because $\Gamma(1) = 1$ and because most of the terms cancel out, this reduces to: $$I = r^{n_1+\dots+n_k} \cdot \Gamma(n_k) \cdots \Gamma(n_1) \cdot \frac{1}{\Gamma(n_1+\dots+n_k+1)} = \frac{r^n}{\Gamma(n+1)} \prod_{i=1}^{k} \Gamma(n_i)$$
Using these three lemata, we can now derive the size of a hyperball in a conceptual space without domain and dimension weights:
\[lemma:HyperballVolume\] The hypervolume of a hyperball with radius $r$ in a space with the unweighted combined metric $d_C^{\Delta}$ and the domain structure $\Delta$ can be computed in the following way, where $n$ is the overall number of dimensions and $n_\delta$ is the number of dimensions in domain $\delta$: $$V(r,\Delta) = \frac{r^n}{n!} \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(n_\delta! \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{n_\delta}{2}+1\right)}\right)$$
The hyperball can be defined as the set of all points that have a distance of maximally $r$ to the origin, i.e., $$H = \Big \{x \in CS \;|\;d_C^\Delta(x,0) = \sum_{\delta \in \Delta} \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} x_{d}^2} \leq r\Big \}$$ If we define $\forall \delta \in \Delta: r_\delta := \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} x_{d}^2}$, we can easily see that $\sum_{\delta \in \Delta} r_\delta \leq r$. The term $r_\delta$ can be interpreted as the distance between $x$ and the origin within the domain $\delta$. The constraint $\sum_{\delta \in \Delta} r_\delta \leq r$ then simply means that the sum of domain-wise distances is less than the given radius. One can thus interpret $r_\delta$ as the radius within domain $\delta$.
We would ultimately like to compute $$V(r,\Delta) = \int \dots \int_H 1\; dH$$ This integration becomes much easier if we use spherical coordinates instead of the Cartesian coordinates provided by our conceptual space.\
Let us first consider the case of a single domain $\delta$ of size $n_\delta$. A single domain corresponds to a standard Euclidean space, therefore we can use the standard procedure of changing to spherical coordinates (cf., e.g., [@DeRise1992]). Let us index the dimensions of $\delta$ as $d_1,\dots,d_{n_\delta}$. The coordinate change within the domain $\delta$ then looks like this: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{1} &= t \cdot \cos(\phi_{1})\\
x_{2} &= t \cdot \sin(\phi_{1}) \cdot \cos(\phi_{2})\\
&\hspace{0.2cm}\vdots\\
x_{{n_\delta}-1} &= t \cdot \sin(\phi_{1}) \cdots \sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2}) \cdot \cos(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1})\\
x_{{n_\delta}} &= t \cdot \sin(\phi_{1}) \cdots \sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2}) \cdot \sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1})\end{aligned}$$
In order to switch the integral to spherical coordinates, we need to calucalate the volume element. This can be found by looking at the determinant of the transformation’s Jacobian matrix. The Jacobian matrix of the transformation of a single domain $\delta$ can be written as follows:
$$\begin{gathered}
J_{\delta} =
\left[ {\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{\delta x_{1}}{\delta t} & \frac{\delta x_{1}}{\delta \phi_{1}} & \dots & \frac{\delta x_{1}}{\delta \phi_{{n_\delta}-1}} \\
\frac{\delta x_{2}}{\delta t} & \frac{\delta x_{2}}{\delta \phi_{1}} & \dots & \frac{\delta x_{2}}{\delta \phi_{{n_\delta}-1}} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\delta x_{{n_\delta}}}{\delta t} & \frac{\delta x_{{n_\delta}}}{\delta \phi_{1}} & \dots & \frac{\delta x_{{n_\delta}}}{\delta \phi_{{n_\delta}-1}} \\
\end{array} } \right] =\\[1ex]
\hspace{-0.2cm}\left[ {\tiny\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cos(\phi_{1}) &-t\sin(\phi_{1}) &0 &0 &\dots &0 \\
\sin(\phi_{1})\cos(\phi_{2}) &t\cos(\phi_{1})\cos(\phi_{2}) &-t\sin(\phi_{1})\sin(\phi_{2}) &0 &\dots &0\\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots\\
\sin(\phi_{1})\cdots\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2})\cos(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1}) &\dots &\dots &\dots &\dots &-t\sin(\phi_{1})\cdots\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2})\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1})\\
\sin(\phi_{1})\cdots\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2})\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1}) &\dots &\dots &\dots &\dots &t\sin(\phi_{1})\cdots\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2})\cos(\phi_{{n_\delta}-1})
\end{array} } \right]\end{gathered}$$
The determinant of this matrix can be computed like this: $$det(J_{\delta}) = t^{{n_\delta}-1}\cdot\sin^{{n_\delta}-2}(\phi_1)\cdot\sin^{{n_\delta}-3}(\phi_2)\cdots\sin(\phi_{{n_\delta}-2})$$ We can now perform the overall switch from Cartesian to spherical coordinates by performing this coordinate change for each domain individually. Let us index the Cartesian coordinates of a point $x$ in domain $\delta$ by $x_{\delta,1},\dots,x_{\delta,n_\delta}$. Let us further index the spherical coordinates of domain $\delta$ by $r_\delta$ and $\phi_{\delta,1},\dots,\phi_{\delta,n_\delta-1}$. Let $k = |\Delta|$ denote the total number of domains.
Because $x_{\delta,j}$ is defined independently from $r_{\delta'}$ and $\phi_{\delta',j'}$ for different domains $\delta \neq \delta'$, any derivative $\frac{x_{\delta,j}}{r_{\delta'}}$ or $\frac{x_{\delta,j}}{\phi_{\delta',j'}}$ will be zero. If we apply the coordinate change to all domains at once, the Jacobian matrix of the overall transformation has therefore the structure of a block matrix:
$$J=
\left[ {\begin{array}{cccc}
J_1 & 0 & \dots & 0 \\
0 & J_2 & \dots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \dots & J_k \\
\end{array} } \right]$$
The blocks on the diagonal are the Jacobian matrices of the individual domains as defined above, and all other blocks are filled with zeroes because all cross-domain derivatives are zero. Because the overall $J$ is a block matrix, we get that $det(J) = \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} det(J_\delta)$ (cf. [@Silvester2000]). Our overall volume element is thus $$det(J) = \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} det(J_\delta) = \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} r_\delta^{n_\delta-1}\sin^{n_\delta-2}(\phi_{\delta,1})\sin^{n_\delta-3}(\phi_{\delta,2})\cdots \sin(\phi_{\delta,n_\delta-2})$$
The limits of the angle integrals are $[0,2\pi]$ for the outermost and $[0,\pi]$ for all other integrals. Based on our constraint $\sum_{\delta \in \Delta} r_\delta \leq r$, we can derive the limits for the integrals over the $r_\delta$ as follows, assuming an arbitrarily ordered indexing $\delta_1,\dots,\delta_k$ of the domains: $$\begin{aligned}
r_1 &\in [0,r]\\
r_2 &\in [0,r - r_1]\\
r_3 &\in [0,r - r_1 - r_2]\\
&\hspace{0.2cm}\vdots\\
r_k &\in [0,r - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i]\end{aligned}$$ The overall coordinate change therefore looks like this: $$\begin{aligned}
V&(r,\Delta) = \int \dots \int_H 1\; dH \\
&=
\underbrace{\int\displaylimits_{\phi_{1,n_1-1}=0}^{2\pi} \int\displaylimits_{\phi_{1,n_1-2}=0}^\pi
\cdots \int\displaylimits_{\phi_{1,1}=0}^\pi \int\displaylimits_{r_1 = 0}^r}_{\delta = 1}
\cdots
\underbrace{\int\displaylimits_{\phi_{k,n_k-1}=0}^{2\pi} \int\displaylimits_{\phi_{k,n_k-2}=0}^\pi
\cdots \int\displaylimits_{\phi_{k,1}=0}^\pi \int\displaylimits_{r_k = 0}^{r - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i}}_{\delta = k}\\[2ex]
&\hspace{0.8cm}\underbrace{r_1^{n_1-1}\sin^{n_1-2}(\phi_{1,1})\cdots \sin(\phi_{1,n_1-2})}_{\delta = 1}
\cdots
\underbrace{r_k^{n_k-1}\sin^{n_k-2}(\phi_{k,1})\cdots \sin(\phi_{k,n_k-2})}_{\delta = k}\\[2ex]
&\hspace{0.8cm}\underbrace{dr_k d\phi_{k,1}\dots d\phi_{k, n_k - 1}}_{\delta = k}
\dots
\underbrace{dr_1 d\phi_{1,1}\dots d\phi_{1, n_1 - 1}}_{\delta = 1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=
\underbrace{\int\displaylimits_{0}^{2\pi} \int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi \cdots \int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi \sin^{n_1-2}(\phi_{1,1})\cdots \sin(\phi_{1,n_1-2}) \;d\phi_{1,1}\dots d\phi_{1, n_1 - 1}}_{\delta = 1} \\[2ex]
&\hspace{1cm}\cdots\quad
\underbrace{\int\displaylimits_{0}^{2\pi} \int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi
\cdots \int\displaylimits_{0}^\pi \sin^{n_k-2}(\phi_{k,1})\cdots \sin(\phi_{k,n_k-2})\;d\phi_{k,1}\dots d\phi_{k, n_k - 1}}_{\delta = k}\\[2ex]
&\hspace{1cm}\int\displaylimits_{0}^r r_1^{n_1-1}\cdots\int\displaylimits_{0}^{r - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} r_i} r_k^{n_k-1} \; dr_1\dots dr_k\end{aligned}$$ By applying Lemma \[lemma:AngleIntegral\] and Lemma \[lemma:RadiusIntegral\], we can write this as: $$\begin{aligned}
V(r,\Delta) &= \left(2 \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_1}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_1}{2})}\right) \cdots \left(2 \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_k}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_k}{2})}\right) \cdot \frac{r^n}{\Gamma(n+1)} \prod_{i=1}^{k} \Gamma(n_i)\\
&= \frac{r^n}{\Gamma(n+1)} \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{k} \left(2 \cdot \pi^{\frac{n_i}{2}} \cdot \frac{\Gamma(n_i)}{\Gamma(\frac{n_i}{2})}\right)\end{aligned}$$ We can simplify this formula further by using the identity $\forall n \in \mathbb{N}: \Gamma(n+1) = n!$ and the rewrite $\prod_{i=0}^k \widehat{=} \prod_{\delta \in \Delta}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
V(r,\Delta) &= \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(2 \cdot \pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}} \cdot \frac{(n_\delta - 1)!}{\Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2})}\right)
= \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(\frac{2}{n_\delta} \cdot n_\delta! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2})}\right)\\
&= \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(n_\delta! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\frac{n_\delta}{2} \cdot \Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2})}\right)
= \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(n_\delta! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2}+1)}\right)\end{aligned}$$
The last transformation uses the fact that $\forall x \in \mathbb{R}^+: \Gamma(x) \cdot x = \Gamma(x+1)$.
Hyperballs under the Weighted Metric {#Size:Hyperellipses}
------------------------------------
We now generalize our results from the previous section from the unweighted to the weighted combined metric $d_C^ \Delta$.
The hypervolume of a hyperball with radius $r$ in a space with the weighted combined metric $d_C^\Delta$, the domain structure $\Delta$, and the set of weights $W$ can be computed by the following formula, where $n$ is the overall number of dimensions and $n_\delta$ is the number of dimensions in domain $\delta$: $$V(r,\Delta, W) = \frac{1}{\prod_{\delta \in \Delta} w_{\delta} \cdot \prod_{d \in \delta} \sqrt{w_d}} \cdot \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(n_\delta! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2}+1)}\right)$$
As [@Gardenfors2000 Chapter 1.6.4] has argued, putting weights on dimensions in a conceptual space is equivalent to stretching each dimension of the unweighted space by the weight assigned to it.
If the overall radius of a ball is $r$, and some dimension has the weight $w$, then the farthest away any point $x$ can be from the origin on this dimension must satisfy $w\cdot x = r$, i.e., $x = \frac{r}{w}$. That is, the ball needs to be stretched by a factor $\frac{1}{w}$ in the given dimension, thus its hypervolume also changes by a factor of $\frac{1}{w}$. A hyperball under the weighted metric is thus equivalent to a hyperellipse under the unweighted metric.
In our case, the weight for any dimension $d$ within a domain $\delta$ corresponds to $w_{\delta} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d}}$: If we look at a point $x$ with coordinates $(0, \dots, 0, x_d, 0, \dots, 0)$, then $d(0,x) = w_\delta \cdot \sqrt{w_d \cdot x_d^2} = w_\delta \cdot \sqrt{w_d} \cdot |x_d|$ (with $\delta$ being the domain to which the dimension $d$ belongs). If we multiply the size of the hyperball by $\frac{1}{w_\delta \cdot \sqrt{w_d}}$ for each dimension $d$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
V(r,\Delta,W) &= \frac{1}{\prod_{\delta \in \Delta}\prod_{d \in \delta} w_{\delta} \sqrt{w_{d}}} \cdot V(r, \Delta)\\
&=\frac{1}{\prod_{\delta \in \Delta}\prod_{d \in \delta} w_{\delta} \sqrt{w_{d}}} \cdot \frac{r^n}{n!} \cdot \prod_{\delta \in \Delta} \left(n_\delta! \cdot \frac{\pi^{\frac{n_\delta}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n_\delta}{2}+1)}\right)\end{aligned}$$ This is the hypervolume of a hyperball under the weighted combined metric.
Subsethood {#Subsethood}
==========
\[CF:proposition:CrispSubsethood\] Let $\widetilde{S}_1 = \langle S_1, \mu_0^{(1)}, c^{(1)}, W^{(1)}\rangle, \widetilde{S}_2 = \langle S_2, \mu_0^{(2)}, c^{(2)}, W^{(2)}\rangle$ be two concepts. Then, $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$ if and only if the following conditions are true: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{S_2} \subseteq \Delta_{S_1} &\text{ and } \mu_0^{(1)} \leq \mu_0^{(2)} \text{ and } S_1 \subseteq {\widetilde{S}_2}^{\mu_0^{(1)}} \\
&\text{ and }\forall d \in D_{S_2}: c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_d} \geq c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_d}\end{aligned}$$
We show the two directions individually.\
\
Let $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$, i.e., $\forall {x \in CS}: \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) \leq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$. We show the different parts of the implication individually:
- $\boldsymbol{\mu_0}$: If $\mu_0^{(1)} > \mu_0^{(2)}$, then $\exists x \in S_1: \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) = \mu_0^{(1)} > \mu_0^{(2)} \geq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$, which is a contradiction to $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$. Therefore, $\mu_0^{(1)} \leq \mu_0^{(2)}$.
- $\boldsymbol{S}$: If $S_1 \not\subseteq {\widetilde{S}_2}^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$, then $\exists x \in S_1: \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) = \mu_0^{(1)} > \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$, which is a contradiction to $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$. Therefore, $S_1 \subseteq {\widetilde{S}_2}^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$.
- $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$: If $\Delta_{S_2} \not\subseteq \Delta_{S_1}$, then $\exists \delta \in \Delta_{S_2}: \delta \notin \Delta_{S_1}$. Pick any $d \in \delta$ and any $x \in CS$. Even if $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) \leq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x)$, we can modify $x_d$ in such a way that $x_d \gg p_d^+$ for all $C \in S_2$. Thus, even for small $w_\delta, w_d$, we can arbitrarily increase $d_C^\Delta(x, S_2, W^{(2)})$ by choosing $x_d$ large enough. As $\delta \notin \Delta_{S_1}$, the modification of $x_d$ does not change $d_C^{\Delta}(x, S_1, W^{(1)})$. Therefore, at some point we get $d_C^\Delta(x, S_2, W^{(2)}) \gg d_C^\Delta(x, S_1, W^{(1)})$ and thus $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) > \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$, which is a contradiction to $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$. Therefore, $\Delta_{S_2} \subseteq \Delta_{S_1}$.
- $\boldsymbol{W}$: We know that for all $x \in CS$: $$\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) = \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{-c^{(1)}\cdot d_C^{\Delta_{S_1}}(x, S_1, W^{(1)})} \leq \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)}\cdot d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(x, S_2, W^{(2)})} = \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$$ Assume for some $d^* \in D_{S_2}$ that $c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_{d^*}} < c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_{d^*}}$. Assume for now also that $S_1 = S_2$. Pick $y^{(1)} = y^{(2)} \in S_1 = S_2$ on the upper border of $S_1$ with respect to $d^*$ and define $\forall d \in D \setminus \{d^*\}: x_d := y_d$ and $x_{d^*} > y_{d^*}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x) &= \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)}\cdot \min_{y \in S_2} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} w_\delta^{(2)} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_d^{(2)} \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&= \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-\min_{y \in S_2} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} \left(c^{(2)} \cdot w_\delta^{(2)} \cdot \sqrt{w_d^{(2)}}\right)^2 \cdot \left|x_d - y_d\right|^2}}\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{=} \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{- \left( c^{(2)} \cdot w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(2)} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(2)}} \right) \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|}\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{=} \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{- \left( c^{(1)} \cdot w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}} + \epsilon \right) \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|}\\
&= \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{- \left(c^{(1)} \cdot w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}}\right) \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|} \cdot e^{- \epsilon \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|}
\end{aligned}$$ In step $(i)$ we used that $\forall d \in D \setminus \{d^*\}: x_d = y_d$ and in step $(ii)$ we used that $c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_{d^*}} < c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_{d^*}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x) < \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{- \left(c^{(1)} \cdot w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}}\right) \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|} = \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x)\\
&\Leftrightarrow \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{- \epsilon \cdot \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right|} < \mu_0^{(1)} \Leftrightarrow \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}\right| > -\frac{1}{\epsilon} \ln \left(\frac{\mu_0^{(1)}}{\mu_0^{(2)}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ If we pick $x_{d^*}$ large enough, then $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) > \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$, which is a contradiction to $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$.\
Let us now remove the simplifying assumption of $S_1 = S_2$. If we construct $x$ based on $y^{(1)} \in S_1$ then we still know that $\forall d \in D \setminus \{d^*\}: \left|x_{d} - y_{d}^{(1)}\right| = 0$. However, for the optimal $y^{(2)} \in S_2$, we only know that $\left|x_{d} - y_{d}^{(2)}\right| \geq 0 = \left|x_{d} - y_{d}^{(1)}\right|$. This means that the distance from $x$ to the closest $y^{(2)} \in S_2$ with respect to all dimensions $d \in D \setminus \{d^*\}$ is as least as large as its distance to the closest $y^{(1)} \in S_1$. However, we can no longer assume that $\left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(1)}\right| = \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(2)}\right|$. We can still ensure that $$\begin{aligned}
c^{(1)} w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}} \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(1)}\right| &< c^{(2)} w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(2)} \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(2)}} \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(2)}\right|\\
&\quad= \left(c^{(1)} w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}} + \epsilon\right) \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(2)}\right|
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if $$\epsilon \left(x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(2)} \right) > c^{(1)} w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}} \underbrace{\left(\left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(1)}\right| - \left|x_{d^*} - y_{d^*}^{(2)}\right| \right)}_{=:a}$$ In the formula above, $a$ is a constant indepentent of $x_{d^*}$ and $c^{(1)} w_{\delta(d^*)}^{(1)} \sqrt{w_{d^*}^{(1)}}$ is positive and constant as well. Also $\epsilon$ is guaranteed to be positive. If $a$ is negative, then the right hand side of the formula becomes negative as well and we can pick any $x_{d^*} \geq y_{d^*}^{(2)}$ in order to make the formula true. If $a$ is positive, we can still choose $x_{d^*} \gg y_{d^*}^{(2)}$ large enough to make the above inequality true.
So if $c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_{d^*}} < c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d^*)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_{d^*}}$ for any $d^* \in D_{S_2}$, then we can find an $x \in CS$ with $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x) < \mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x)$, thus $\widetilde{S}_1 \not\subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$. Therefore, $\forall d \in D_{S_2}: c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_d} \geq c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_d}$.
\
Let $\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2$ with the properties as proposed, and let $x \in CS$ be arbitrary but fixed. $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) &= \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{-c^{(1)}\cdot \min_{y \in S_1} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_1} w_\delta^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_d^{(1)} \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{\leq} \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{-c^{(1)}\cdot \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_1} w_\delta^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_d^{(1)} \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{\leq} \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{-c^{(1)}\cdot \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} w_\delta^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_d^{(1)} \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&= \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{- \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} \left(c^{(1)}\cdot w_\delta^{(1)} \cdot \sqrt{w_d^{(1)}}\right)^2 \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&\stackrel{(iii)}{\leq} \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{- \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} \left(c^{(2)}\cdot w_\delta^{(2)} \cdot \sqrt{w_d^{(2)}}\right)^2 \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}}\\
&= \mu_0^{(1)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)} \cdot \min_{y \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}} \sum_{\delta \in \Delta_2} \cdot w_\delta^{(2)} \cdot \sqrt{\sum_{d \in \delta} w_d^{(2)} \cdot |x_d - y_d|^2}} =: f(x)\end{aligned}$$ In step (i) we use that $S_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$ and in step (ii) that $\Delta_{S_2} \subseteq \Delta_{S_1}$. In step (iii) we use that $\forall d \in D_{S_2}: c^{(1)} \cdot w^{(1)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(1)}_d} \geq c^{(2)} \cdot w^{(2)}_{\delta(d)} \cdot \sqrt{w^{(2)}_d}$.
For all $x \in \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$ we get that $f(x) = \mu_0^{(1)} \leq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$. Let now $x \notin \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$. It is easy to see that for the point $y \in S_2$ with the smallest distance to $x$, there is an $z \in CS$ with $B(x,z,y)$ and $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(z) = \mu_0^{(1)}$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x) &= \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)} \cdot d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(x,y,W^{(2)})} = \mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)} \cdot \left(d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(x,z,W^{(2)}) + d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(z,y,W^{(2)})\right)}\\
&= \underbrace{\mu_0^{(2)} \cdot e^{-c^{(2)} \cdot d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(z,y,W^{(2)})}}_{= \mu_0^{(1)}}\; \cdot\; e^{- c^{(2)} \cdot d_C^{\Delta_{S_2}}(x,z,W^{(2)})}\end{aligned}$$ Instead of calculating $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$ based on the distance between $x$ and $S_2$, we can calculate $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$ based on the distance between $x$ and $\widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$ and rescale the result such that it is at most $\mu_0^{(1)}$. Therefore, for $x \notin \widetilde{S}_2^{\mu_0^{(1)}}$, we get that $f(x) = \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$. Thus, $\mu_{\widetilde{S}_1}(x) \leq f(x) \leq \mu_{\widetilde{S}_2}(x)$ for all $x \in CS$ and therefore $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$.
Similarity {#Similarity}
==========
\[def:Similarity\] A function $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \in [0,1]$ is called a similarity function, if it has the following properties for all concepts $\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2$:
1. $Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0 \Rightarrow Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$
2. $\widetilde{S}_1 = \widetilde{S}_2 \Rightarrow Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$
3. $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2 \Rightarrow Sim(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \geq Sim(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$
$Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) := Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ is a similarity function according to Definition \[def:Similarity\].
We show the different properties individually.
1. Trivial.
2. Let $\widetilde{S}_1 = \widetilde{S}_2$. Then also $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$ and thus $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$
3. $\widetilde{S}_1 \subseteq \widetilde{S}_2$ implies that $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$ which means by definition that $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$. As $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1) \in [0,1]$, we get that $Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) \geq Sim_S(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$.
$Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) := \frac{M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cap \widetilde{S}_2)}{M(\widetilde{S}_1 \cup \widetilde{S}_2)}$ is a similarity function according to Definition \[def:Similarity\].
We show the different properties individually.
1. Let $\widetilde{S}_I := I(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ be the intersection of $\widetilde{S}_1$ and $\widetilde{S}_2$ as defined in [@Bechberger2017KI] and $\widetilde{S}_U := U(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$ their unification. As we know from the definitions of intersection and unification [@Bechberger2017KI], $c^{(I)} = c^{(U)}$ and $W^{(I)} = W^{(U)}$. It is easly to see that $\mu_0^{(I)} \leq \mu_0^{(U)}$ and that $|S_I| \leq |S_U|$. Therefore, $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = 1.0$ can only happen if $\widetilde{S}_I = \widetilde{S}_U$ (which implies that also $\mu_0^{(I)} = \mu_0^{(U)}$). The observation that $\mu_0^{(I)} = \mu_0^{(U)}$ implies that $\mu_0^{(1)} = \mu_0^{(2)}$ (as $\mu_0^{(I)} \leq \min(\mu_0^{(1)}, \mu_0^{(2)})$ and $\mu_0^{(U)} = \max(\mu_0^{(1)}, \mu_0^{(2)})$) and that $S_1 \cap S_2 \neq \emptyset$. If $\widetilde{S}_I = \widetilde{S}_U$, then also $S_I = S_U$. Then, $I(S_1, S_2) = S_I$ (because $S_1 \cap S_2 \neq \emptyset$ and $\mu_0^{(1)} = \mu_0^{(2)}$) and $U(S_1, S_2) = S_U$ (by definition of the unification). Thus, $I(S_1, S_2) = U(S_1, S_2)$. This is only possible if $S_1 = S_2$. Then, $Sub(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = \frac{M(I(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2))_2}{M(\widetilde{S}_1)_2} = \frac{M(\widetilde{S}_1)_2}{M(\widetilde{S}_1)_2} = 1.0$ (where we use $M(\widetilde{S})_i$ to denote that $W^{(i)}$ and $c^{(i)}$ are used for computing the measure, cf. Section 3.2).
2. Let $\widetilde{S}_1 = \widetilde{S}_2$. Obviously, $I(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = \widetilde{S}_1 = U(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2)$. We therefore get $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = \frac{M(I(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2))}{M(U(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2))} = 1.0$.
3. Because $I(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = I(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$ and $U(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = U(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$, we get that $Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2) = Sim_J(\widetilde{S}_2, \widetilde{S}_1)$ for all $\widetilde{S}_1, \widetilde{S}_2$. Thus the consequent of the implication is always true.
[^1]: This article is a revised and considerably extended version of a conference paper presented at SGAI 2017 [@Bechberger2017SGAI].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Hall coefficient data for cuprates show that number of carriers exceeds external doping $x$ at higher $x$ and varies with temperature. Hence, spins on the Cu-sites are not conserved. Activation energy for thermally excited carriers equals the energy between the Fermi surface “arc” and the band bottom near the van Hove singularities. Crossover from marginal Fermi liquid- to pseudogap- regime happens at temperatures at which number of activated carriers gets comparable with the number of externally doped holes. Implications for the $(T,x)$-phase diagram of cuprates are discussed.'
author:
- 'Lev P. Gor’kov'
- 'Gregory B. Teitel’baum'
title: Charge carriers of different origin in cuprates as revealed by experiment
---
The unifying feature for all cuprates is the presence of one or more CuO$%
_{2} $ –planes. The consensus is that the in-plane electronic constituents, namely, the Cu $d^{9}$ levels and the oxygen $p$-orbitals determine all cuprates’ physics [@1; @2]. Even this simplified model turns out to be difficult for complete theoretical analysis, and properties of cuprates remain far from being understood. Below, from the experimental stand-point, we address mainly properties of the single-plane cuprates, La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ (LSCO), the materials best studied by now.
Transition from the Mott insulating state into a metallic and superconducting (SC) state is driven in cuprates by external doping. We emphasize from the very beginning that doping, rigorously speaking, is *not* the thermodynamic path for Metal-Insulator (MI) transition.
It is often assumed that initially holes go onto the oxygen sites, since the Cu($d^{9}$)- and the oxygen’s levels in the parent antiferromagnet (AFM) La$%
_{2}$CuO$_{4}$ are separated by a “charge transfer gap” of order $\sim $1.2-1.5 eV [@3]. It becomes less obvious with the increase of concentration, $x$, because charges of dopant ions result in important changes in the system’s energy balance. Indeed, already at rather small concentrations (as seen from the ARPES data at $x\sim 0.03$ [@4]) it is more proper to resort to bands’ description, at least, for the oxygen bands. This gives rise to the hybridization between oxygen and Cu levels, although the Cu($d^{9}$) level tends to partially conserve its local character owing to strong tendency to the Jahn-Teller polaron formation inherent in the $%
d^{9}$- configuration. Occupied neighboring Cu($d^{9}$)-sites experience strong interactions via mutual local lattice distortions. As to the exchange spin interactions, it is now clear that they play a secondary role by coupling spins on the adjacent sites antiferromagnetically [@5; @6].
In what follows we discuss some recent experiments that have shed more light on the problem of the nature and actual number of carriers and on the stability of the Cu $d^{9}$-hole configuration, the latter being responsible for existence of local spin $S=1/2$ at a given Cu-site.
There are may be some concerns how to formulate such a question. Indeed, the ($T$,$x$) plane for cuprates, e.g., La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, is sub- divided into two main parts by a crossover line, $T^{\ast }(x)$ (see, e.g., in [@7]). To the right from $T^{\ast }(x)$ lies the so-called marginal Fermi liquid (MFL) regime [@8] that seems to merge with the traditional FL at even larger $x$. Area on the left hand side is known in the literature as a “pseudogap regime”(PG). Although no consensus exists yet regarding details, the pseudogap regime seems to be spatially inhomogeneous. In particular, it was suggested (see discussion and references in [@9]) that the $T^{\ast }(x)$ is the *line* for start of a 1st order transition frustrated by the electroneutrality condition in the presence of rigidly embedded dopants. If so, the area between the $T$-axis $(x=0)$ and $%
T^{\ast }(x)$ could be considered as a miscibility gap for solution of strontium holes into the La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$ network, if it were not for the long range Coulomb forces on the part of rigid Sr$^{2+}$ ions that prohibit the phase separation on a macroscopic scale. Therefore, at elevated temperatures this area emerges as the regime of a *dynamical* competition between two sub-phases (magnetic and metallic), as it was first suggested in [@5]. Such two-component character of the PG side of the cuprates phase diagram has been firmly established at the analysis of the NMR experiments in \[9\]. It turned out that the $^{63}$Cu nuclear relaxation rate comes about from two independent dissipative processes, related to the dynamically coexisting phases –islands of incommensurate antiferromagnetic (ICAF) phase (”stripe phase” seen in the inelastic neutron’s scattering experiments as IC-peaks near ($\pi $,$\pi $) [@10]), and metallic islands (the latter probably being of a MFL character).
Numerous evidences currently fully confirm such picture for PG regime. For instance, the motion of phases may be slow down by different defects which results in the so-called “Cu wipe-out” effect observed in [@11; @12; @13], provided frequencies of fluctuations get low enough to approach the NMR frequency window. Gradual “freezing” of fluctuations and subsequent glassy localization of heterogeneities has been demonstrated in [@13A]. Static stripes are known for the Nd- and Eu- doped LSCO [@14; @15; @16] and in LCO doped by barium, Ba, near the Ba concentration $x=1/8$ commensurate to the periodicity of the low temperature tetragonal lattice phase [@17]. Finally, the unequivocal confirmation in favor of two phase coexistence comes from the very fact that at low enough temperature (usually below $T_{c}
$) the ICAF is seen in the neutron diffraction experiments [@18], proving onset of their static coexistence in the real space at low temperatures [@19; @20] (fraction of the ICAF phase increases with applied fields).
As it was mentioned, below we make an attempt to derive from the experimental data indications whether the amount of the Sr- doped holes determines the *total* number of charge carriers in cuprates. Our conclusion is that the number of carriers increases faster than $x$ at higher $x$ and $T$. For the electronic spectrum of cuprates, it also signifies that the Cu($d^{9}$)-levels mix together with the holes on the oxygen ions into a common band that is studied by the ARPES experiments.
We considered the available experimental data on the Hall coefficient at elevated (up to 1000K) temperatures [@21; @22; @24]. We have found that in a broad range of $x$ and temperatures the data for carriers concentration from the Hall measurements, $n_{Hall}$, can be presented surprisingly well in a form $$n_{Hall}=n_{0}(x)+n_{1}(x)\exp (-\Delta (x)/T) \label{eq1}$$(It turnes out that Eq. (1) also describes new results [@23]). The $x$-dependence of the temperature independent component, $n_{0}$, is given in Fig.1. Aside from the scattering at small $x$ $n_{1}(x)$ is practically
![The doping dependence of $n_{o}(x)$, obtained by the fitting of Eq.(1) to the experimental Hall coefficient temperature dependence [@21; @22; @24] for LSCO.](fig1.eps){height="8cm"}
constant ($\sim 2.8)$ up to the vicinity of $x=0.2$, where it drops down abruptly. Note considerable deviations from the linear in $x$ behavior in $%
n_{0}$! Although numerous factors (anisotropy, the temperature dependent scattering processes, etc.) can complicate the theoretical interpretation of the Hall effect data, it is known, however, that interactions drop out for the isotropic Fermi-liquid model [@25] and even for a non-parabolic but isotropic shape of the FS [@26]. Meanwhile, it is seen in Fig.1 that deviations from the linear dependence begin rather early, already at $x=0.07$. The hole-like FS “locus” seen by ARPES, being centered at $(\pi ,\pi )$, is practically isotropic up to $x=0.11$ [@27; @28]. Therefore even the temperature independent amount of carriers grows faster than $x$ with doping (similar results have been reported [@29] for Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2-x}$La$_{x}$CuO$_{6}$).
Unlike the Hall effect data for $n_{0}(x)$ where common interpretation becomes unreliable at larger $x$, the activation character of the temperature-dependent term in Eq. (1), however, is the thermodynamic feature and, as such, should not be sensitive to model scattering mechanisms. The exponential contribution describes the thermally activated carriers that come from levels lying deeply below the chemical potential.
In principle, such a term could come from different regions of the material because of its inherent non-homogeneity in the real space. We assume, however, that activated carriers are excited from some deeper parts of the LSCO energy bands. Indeed, according to the ARPES data [@4; @28; @30], in addition to the “coherent” states corresponding to an “arc” on the locus of FS at the chemical potential, in the vicinity of $(0,\pi )$ and other symmetric points there are seen deeply-lying energy bands featured by the high density of electron states (so called van Hove “troughs”, or van Hove singularities). We suggest that electrons are thermally activated from the van Hove “troughs” at $(0,\pi )$ and the rest of the symmetric points, and go into the vicinity of the nodal “arc” at the chemical potential on the FS “locus” [@4; @28], where the activated electrons join the liquid of mobile carriers. In order to check this suggestion we have plotted in Fig. 2 data for the energy gap $\Delta (x)$ of Eq.(1) together with the energy separating the underlying van Hove bands from the Fermi level which was deduced from Fig. 3 of [@4] and Fig. 3b in [@28] for various Sr
![The activation energy $\Delta (x),$obtained by the fitting of Eq.1 to the experimental Hall coefficient temperature dependence [21,22,24]{} for LSCO (open circles and triangles), $vs$ the energy separating the underlying van Hove bands from the Fermi level (binding energy) which was deduced from Fig. 3b of [@4] and Fig. 3 in [@28] for various Sr concentrations (shown with filled circles.](fig2.eps){height="8cm"}
concentrations (shown with red circles). For both quantities the extracted values are in an excellent agreement, thus giving the strong argument in favor of our interpretation.
A mere band singularity in density of states at the van Hove point by itself, of course, would be not enough to account for the thermodynamic activation contribution. We argue that in ARPES one measures only one component of the total energy of an electron imbedded into the lattice. In other words, implicitly, we invoke a localization of electrons near the vicinity of the van Hove points. Although from a different point of view, importance of lattice/polaronic effects at the interpretation of ARPES data has been pointed out also in [@Shen]. (We estimate the order of magnitude for the lattice component as a few tens meV, see below).
Eq. (1) describes well the Hall data [@21; @22; @23] practically in the whole available temperature interval without revealing sharp features or changes in the behavior near the line of the hypothetical 1st order transition, $T^{\ast }(x)$, mentioned above. It is worth to emphasize that there are no reasons for appearance of such features at the onset of the transition, because the transition does not realize itself: the frustrations caused by the Coulomb forces allow only fluctuations corresponding to a dynamical two-phase coexistence in the PG regime, instead of the macroscopic phase segregation. Consequently, $T^{\ast }(x)$ marks only a crossover between the left- and right hand sides of the $(T,x)$-phase diagram for LSCO cuprates. A good fit for $T^{\ast }(x)$ is obtained just from the comparison when the number of doped carriers, $x$, and activated ones become approximately equal: $$T^{\ast }(x)\approx T_{0}(x)=-\Delta (x)/\ln x \label{eq2}$$In Fig. 3 we plotted $T^{\ast }(x)$ defined according to Eq.(2) and the crossover temperatures obtained differently from other experiments.
The fact that the decomposition into two contributions given by Eq.(1) covers the PG regime at smaller temperatures [@22] and even reproduces well the low temperatures Hall measurements in the high fields normal state of LSCO [@31] raises questions. In fact, to which of the two PG sub-phases one is to correlate the Hall effect data? The same question concerns the ARPES measurements.
It seems reasonable to connect the Hall coefficient, $R_{H}$, with properties of the metallic component. Indeed, if stripes were pinned by
![The psedogap crossover temperature $T^{\ast }(x)$ obtained: with the help of Eq.(1) with the activation energy $\Delta (x)$ shown in Fig. 2 (filled circles); from the crossover temperature of the resistivity curves (open circles); as the temperature $(T_{m})$ corresponding to the maximum of the magnetic susceptibility measured in [@31A] ( filled triangles) and [@31B](open triangles).](fig3.eps){height="8cm"}
defects, and the conductivity along the stripes were expected to bear the one-dimensional character, that should suppress conduction in the transverse direction. These arguments have been tested [@32] for the temperature dependence of the Hall coefficient in the Nd-doped LSCO material with different Sr content. The Hall coefficient, $R_{H}(T,x)$ [@32] has a characteristic drop at temperatures $T\sim 70-100K$, at least for under-doped compositions. One finds similar features in the data [@31] that even are characterized by approximately the same temperature scale. It is important that this effect is strongest for $x=0.12$, where the fraction of the stripe phase should be maximal.
As to the second question, since the ARPES experiment is a fast measurement, it provides the instant snapshot of deep energy levels for metallic islands and probably does not change essentially when taken above or below $T^{\ast
}(x)$ [@32A]. Making use of the excellent agreement in Fig.2 of the Hall activation energy with the ARPES results [@4; @28], we have extended our gap analysis in terms of Eq.(1) to the data [@22] at higher $x$. Notable, the result shows a plateau at $x$ just above $\sim 0.2$ in Fig.2. According to [@4; @27; @28], the FS “locus” experiences the topological change from the hole-like “FS” centered at $(\pi ,\pi )$ to the electron-like one centered at $(0,0)$ very close to $x=0.2$. “Gap” seen in Fig.2, obtained from the interpolation of Eq.(1) into this concentration range, in our opinion produces the estimate for characteristic energy scales of the lattice effects ($\sim 10$meV).
As it is known, in the ARPES experiments one start seeing the FS “locus” in LSCO already at concentration as small as $x=0.03$. However the “FS” obtained in this way covers a large area of Brillouine zone that then changes in “agreement” with the “Luttinger count”, $1-x\ $[@27]. Since currently it is established [@4] that the propagating (coherent) excitations come about only in a narrow “arc” near the nodal directions, there are no contradiction between [@27] and the trend seen in Fig.1 that shows that actual number of mobile carriers grows faster than $x$ even at lower temperatures.
Since we have already touched above some issues related to resistivity of cuprates, it is worth mentioning a peculiar feature that, in a sense, is fully consistent with our general line of arguing. For extremely small Sr doping the thermal excitation of carriers gives rise to very interesting transport behavior - the temperature independent contribution to conductivity. It comes about due to the fact mentioned above that each thermally activated charge creates a local defect at the CuO$_{2}$ plane. These defects play the role of scattering centers and contribute to resistivity at high temperatures. The density of these defects equals to the density of charge carriers produced by thermal activation. Hence the same activation energy governs the lifetime of charge carriers. It results in temperature independent resisitvity. This property manifests itself experimentally as saturation of the temperature dependence for resistivity at extremely low doping [@24].
Contributions to the activated component of the Hall coefficient in Eq.(1) come from the vicinity of the van Hove bands that have a pronounced 1D behavior. Therefore the emptied sites should reveal a localized behavior. We suggest that activated carriers in Eq.(1) may add a temperature independent contribution into resistivity at high temperatures as well.
A simple consideration that does not compromise the ideas of the MFL [@8], but may still be essential for understanding of the linear in T resistivity *well below* $T^{\ast }$ (e.g. for such doping level as $%
x=0.15$ [@33; @34], is that deeply inelastic scattering processes, by removing one of the conservation laws’ constraints in the ordinary FL approach, would immediately produce such linear dependence.
Finally, we note by passing the specific features in the behavior $n_{0}(x)$ in Fig.1 near $x\sim 0.2$ (we mentioned above the drop of $n_{1}(x)$ at the same $x$). This concentration has already been identified in a number of publications as an emerging QCP for cuprates [@35; @36]. Appearance of the plateau in Fig. 3 at exactly the same concentration is in the agreement with this expectation.
To summarize, we found the quantitative agreement between the activation energies in the high temperatures Hall data and the ARPES measurements. It also has been shown that the actual concentration of mobile carriers is not equal to the number of the externally introduced holes, even more, the carriers concentration increases with doping and temperatures. In turn, it signifies that Cu spins are not fixed at a given Cu-site. In other words, spins may move along, in agreement with other arguments [@9] that consider PG region as a region of dynamically coexisting and competing sub-phases.
The authors are grateful to Y. Ando for sharing with us the recent Hall measurements data [@23] prior to publication. We also appreciate helpful discussion with D. Pines. The work of L.P.G. was supported by the NHMFL through NSF cooperative agreement DMR-9527035 and the State of Florida, that of G.B.T. through the RFBR Grant N 04-02-17137.
Emery, V. J., 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 2794 Varma, C. M., S. Schmitt-Rink, and E. Abrahams , Solid State Commun. **62**, 681 (1987) Zaanen, J., G. A. Sawatzky, and J. W. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **55**, 418 (1985) T.Yoshida *et al.*, cond-mat/0510608 L.P. Gor’kov and A.V. Sokol, JETP Lett. **46**, 420 (1987) J.Tranquada *et al.*, cond-mat/0603763 T. Timusk and B. Statt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **62**, 61 (1999) Varma, C. M. *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **63**, 1996 (1989) L.P.Gor’kov, G.B.Teitel’baum, JETP Letters, **80**, 221 (2004) H. Aeppli *et al.*, Science **278**, 1432 (1997) A. Hunt *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 4300 (1999) N. Curro *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 642 (2000) G. Teitel’baum *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **B 63**, 020507(R) (2001) C. Panagopoulos, V. Dobrosavljevic, Phys. Rev. **B 72**, 014536 (2005) J.M. Tranquada *et al.*, Nature **375**, 561 (1995) J.M. Tranquada *et al.*, Phys. Rev.Lett. **78**, 338 (1997) G. Teitel’baum *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2949 (2000) M. Fujita *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **B 70**, 104517 (2004); M.Huecker *et al.*, cond-mat/0503417 K.Yamada *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **B 57**, 6165 (1998) A.T.Savichi *et al*., Phys.Rev., **B 66**, 014524 (2002) B. Lake *et al.*, Nature **415**, 299 (2002) T. Nishikawa, J. Takeda, M. Sato, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **6**3, 1441 (1994) Y.Ando *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 197001 (2004) W. J. Padilla *et al.*, cond-mat/0509307 S. Ono, Seiki Komiya, Yoichi Ando (to be published) D. Pines and P. Nozieres, The Theory of Quantum Liquids (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, MA, 1989), Vol. 1 M. Khodas, A. M. Finkel’stein, Phys. Rev. **B 68**, 155114 (2003) A.Ino *et al.*, Phys.Rev.**B 65**, 094504 (2002) T. Yoshida *et al.*, Phys.Rev.Lett. **91**, 027001 (2003) F.Balakirev *et al.*, Nature **424**, 912, (2003) M R Norman and C Pepin, Rep. Prog. Phys. **66** 1547 (2003) K.M.Shen *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 267002 (2004) R. Yoshizaki *et al.*, Physica **166C**, 417 (1990) T. Nakano *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **B 49**, 16 000 (1994) F. Balakirev *et al.* NHMFL, Annual Report 2005 T. Noda *et al.*, Science **286**, 265 (1999) compare with [@24]: based on the analysis of their optical data the authors \[24\] came to the conclusion that “the local environment of mobile holes remains unaltered by doping” H. Takagi *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 2975 (1992). M.Gurvich and A.T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. **59**, 1337 (1987) C. Panagopoulos *et al.*, Phys. Rev. **B 66**, 064501 (2002) S. Sachdev, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 913 (2003)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss some generalities about the spin gap in cuprate superconductors and in detail, how it arises from the interlayer picture. It can be thought of as spinon (uncharged) pairing, which occurs independently at each point of the 2D Fermi surface because of the momentum selection rule on interlayer superexchange and pair tunneling interactions. Some predictions can be made.'
address: |
Joseph Henry Laboratories of Physics\
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
author:
- 'Philip W. Anderson'
---
14[[La\_2 Cu 0\_4]{}]{}
[ The “Spin Gap” in Cuprate Superconductors]{}
The problem with the Spin Gap[@1] is that there are too many right ways to understand it within the interlayer theory[@2] not too few: when one realizes what is going on it seems all too obvious in several ways that one should have known all along.
\(1) The most obvious: spinon pairing. We have realized all along that the normal state has charge-spin separation, so why didn’t we expect two pairings, one for spin and the second for charge?
\(2) Also obvious: there is no phase transition, hardly even a crossover. So the gap opens without change of symmetry or condensation. It must be not a self-consistent mean field but a property of the separate Fermi surface excitations.
\(3) Finally, when one looks at the interlayer theory, and takes it seriously, one realizes that the phenomenon jumps out at you and is a trivial consequence of the interlayer interaction. The Strong-Anderson[@3] model is not a complete theory, but can be used to calculate with: $\chi(T)$, for instance.
Let me start, then, in the inverse of chronological order and try to make the synthetic argument first. We start from the fact that every experimental, computational, and theoretical bit of evidence we have supports the dogma that the 2D interacting electron gas in the cuprates is a liquid of Fermions with a Fermi surface, and with little or no tendency to superconductivity or to exhibit antiferromagnetism, once it is metallic—i.e., there is no clear indication of “antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations”, as relatively soft bosonic modes, in the isolated plane. Rather, in the plane the magnetic interaction modifies the elementary excitation spectrum as it does in the ferromagnetic case. The symmetry of this state is the Haldane-Houghton[@4] Fermi liquid symmetry $(U(2))^Z=(U(1)\times SU(2))^Z$, one of “Z” for each point on the Fermi surface. This large symmetry is the general description of a liquid of Fermions with a Fermi surface, which is necessarily a surface in $k$-space on which the Fermion lifetime becomes infinitely long in the limit as one approaches the surface, hence particles at the surface are conserved. Every point on the Fermi surface is independent, and charge and spin are separately conserved. The reference shows that this description includes, but is not confirmed to, the Landau Fermi liquid. For the Fermi liquid, $U(2)$ applies: the two spin components are uncoupled; but the basic symmetry is spin and charge separately conserved, in the general case.
Our theory$^7$ postulates that in fact the $U(2)$ $\rm\underline { is
}$ broken into $U(1)\times SU(2)$ with the charge and spin excitations having different Fermi velocities and the charge also having anomalous dimension, i.e., the charge bosons are a Luttinger liquid; but this does not change the symmetry argument. What is little realized is that the spin excitations are $\rm\underline { always}$ describable as spinons, even for free electrons, $$\psi^*_{\widehat k} (r)\simeq s^+_{\widehat k} (r)
e^{i\theta_{\widehat k}(r)}$$ The spin part is always a spinon, the charge is a bosonized Luttinger liquid. This, then, is our high-temperature, high energy state above temperatures and energies where the interplane interactions come into play.
Spinons in 2D are paired but gapless. What the non-existence of a phase transition when we lower $T$ to the interplanar scale tells us is that the spin gap state has the same symmetry. It must leave the crucial fact of Fermi or Luttinger liquids intact: the independence of different Fermi surface points. Then all that can happen is that the spectrum at each point changes, and the simplest way for that to happen is for the spinon to acquire a “mass”, i.e., the spinons which used to have a free electron like linear spectrum $$v_s(k-k_F) \ \ {\rm or}\ \ v_s \sin{\pi\over 2}{(k-k_F)\over k_F}$$ open a gap and have energies $$E^2=\Delta^2(\hat k) +v^2_s(k-k_F)^2.\eqno(1)$$ This is possible because of the peculiar nature of spinons, that they are BCS quasi-particle like even in the normal state (as shown long ago by Rokshar[@5]). That is, they are semions, or Majorana Fermions, which have no true antiparticles (we use the convention $-k=-k,-\sigma\ \ k=k,\sigma$) $$s^+_k=s_{-k}\qquad s_k=s^+_{-k}$$ so that the Hamiltonian for free spinons may be written $$v_s(k-k_F)(s^+_ks^+_{-k}+s_{-k}s_k)\eqno(2)$$ just as well as in terms of $s_k^+s_k$ and it is $\rm\underline { not \ a \ symmetry \ change }$ to add a term $$\Delta_k\ s^+_k\ s^+_{-k}.$$ Spinons are always effectively paired. (Strong and Talstra[@6]) It is natural that spinons are more easily paired in the underdoped regime, because the spinon velocity becomes progressively lower ($J$ smaller) as we go toward the Mott insulator; therefore the density of states is higher, $\chi_{\rm
pair}$ larger, on the underdoped side.
Finally, let me make one last remark of a synthetic, rather than analytic, nature. As I have already said the basic description either of a Fermi or a Luttinger liquid is the independence of different Fermi surface points. If we are to go smoothly from a two-dimensional electron liquid to a gapped state $\rm\underline { without \ change\ of \ symmetry}$—without introducing any new correlations—we must do so without coupling the different Fermi surface points, that is we need interactions which conserve two dimensional momenta $k_x\ k_y$. There is only one source of such interactions, namely the interlayer tunneling. $${\cal H}_{IL}=\sum_{k,\sigma,i,j}\
t_\perp(k) \ c^+_{ki\sigma} \ c_{kj\sigma}\eqno(3)$$ which, in second order, leads to two types of interlayer coupling:
Pair tunneling $${\cal H}_{PT}=\lambda_J(k)\sum_{(ij),k,k'}\ c^+_{k\up i}\ c^+_{-k'\down i}\
c_{-k'\down j}\ c_{k\up j}\eqno(4)$$ and superexchange $${\cal H}_{SE}=\lambda_S(k_)\sum_{(ij) k,k'}\ c^+_{k\up i}\ c^+_{-k'\down j}\
c_{-k'\down i}\ c_{k\up j}\eqno(5)$$ (In both, $k'\simeq k$) which represent exchange of charge and spin, respectively, between two layers. The empirical (and theoretical) fact that coherent single-particle hopping does not take place in the cuprates leaves these as the two second-order terms which can lead to coherent interactions—such as we are looking for—between two layers.
It is important to recognize that (4) and (5) have one extra conservation relative to conventional interactions. This seems to be very difficult for many theorists to grasp.
\(5) does not involve any charge exchange between planes hence can be thought of as an exchange of a spinon pair, if one likes, but as we shall see it is formally unnecessary to write it in terms of spinons. (4) only conserves total charge of the two planes, hence is not a true spinon operator at all. Nonetheless we find that (4) and (5) together can be described in a sense as pairing spinon states[@7]
This superexchange interaction does not much resemble that used by Millis and Monien,$^1$ and it does not have anything to do with the “J” of the $t-J$ model. Superexchange occurs as a result of frustrated kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy which is frustrated in the cuprate layer compounds is only the c-axis kinetic energy $t_\perp$. They are very like Mott insulators in one of 3 spatial dimensions: and they exhibit superexchange in that dimension. But they retain no Mott character in the 2 dimensions of the planes.
It is an unpublished conjecture of Baskaran that $\lambda_S/ \lambda_J$ increases as we approach the insulating phase, i.e., as “$\alpha$”, the Fermi surface exponent, increases. This may be one other reason why underdoped materials show the spin gap.
Now, finally, let us do the calculational problem. At this point we have to stop talking in generalities and make some rather severe assumptions in order to make progress. They seem innocuous, and are quite standard in conventional BCS theory, but here we have no particular reason to believe that they will serve as better than a rough guide. These assumptions are: (1) the Schrieffer pairing condition, i.e., we use only the BCS reduced interaction $-k'=-k$. This is justified at high enough $T$ by the fact that a given state $k$ can only pair with one other $-k'$ to give a quasicoherent matrix element; our picture of the kind of process involved is that a transition into a high-energy state intervenes between two low-energy states which are connected by two—and only two—single-particle tunneling processes, $k_a\to
k_b;\ -k_b\to-k_a$. It is perhaps best to think of the pairing as always $k, -k$ but with center of mass momentum thermally fluctuating. (2) More orthodox but more serious: We neglect $|v_c-v_s|$ and treat $c^+_k$ as though it were an eigenoperation, i.e.
$${\cal H}_K=\sum_k\epsilon_kn_k\eqno(6)$$ Actually we use the Nambu-PWA form $${\cal H}_K(k)=\eps_k(n_k+n_{-k}-1)\quad = \eps_k\tau_{3k}\ \ .$$ Now we have a straightforward Hamiltonian which is trivially diagonalized, because it separates into separate Hamiltonians for every $k$. $${\cal H}=\sum_k{\cal H}_k$$ $${\cal H}_k={\cal H}_K(k)+\lambda_j\ c^+_{k1}\ c^+_{-k1}\ c_{-k2}\
c_{k2}+1\leftrightarrow 2+\lambda_S\ c^+_{k1}\ c^+_{-k2}\
c^+_{-k1}\ c_{k2}$$ (Here we use the convention $k=k\up$ $-k=-k\down$). The first attempt was made by Strong and Anderson neglecting $\lambda_s$ and this leads to a beautiful spin gap. The $KE$ spectrum of the 4 fermions 1,2, $k, -k$ has $16=2^4$ states which are grouped into 5 sets, $n_{\rm tot}=0,1,2,3,4$. (See Fig. 1) Of these only the $n=2$ states are affected by the interactions, and of these 2 will be split off by $H_J$ and 2 by $H_S$. In either case, these gaps are completely $T$-independent and are simply manifested as the individual states drop out: $$Z=16\ cosh^4 {\beta\eps_k\over 2}+2\ (cosh\ \beta\lambda_J-1)$$ (because with the added “-1” $n=2$ states are at 0 energy.
$\chi$ for this case is $$\chi=\int^\infty_{-\infty} d\eps\ {cosh^2\beta \eps/2\over
cosh^4\ \beta\,{\eps\over 2}+{1\over 8}\,(cosh\ \beta\, J-1)}$$ A second calculation may be carried out with both terms, $\lambda_J\simeq\lambda_S$ and the result is to split out two levels rather than one and to replace 1/8 with 1/4. This is the curve for susceptibility I show in Fig. 3 and it is not a bad fit to susceptibility data.
But actually I am not totally convinced that this is the right formalism, although it may be the right arithmetic. The reason it works seems clearly to me to be that we have picked a form for the pairing Hamiltonian that connects states which are “neutral”—i.e., only the $n=2$ states are connected to each other within the $k$ manifold. But in some real sense these are states with the spinons paired but with no holon pairing—no charge pairing—at all, even though nominally different layers are connected. I think it is more nearly valid to describe the correct state by rewriting ${\cal H}_j+{\cal H}_s$ as $$({\cal H}_J+{\cal H}_S)_k \simeq c^+_{ke}\ c^+_{-ke}\ c_{-ke}\ c_{ke}$$ where $c^+_{ke}=
{ c_{k1}+c_{k2} \over \sqrt{2} }$ That is, the spin-gap state is a state in which spinons belonging to the $\rm\underline { even }$ linear combination are paired, the $\rm\underline { odd }$ unpaired. This has a strong relationship to the Keimer neutron selection rule observed for the superconducting state.[@8] Keimer has begun neutron investigations on spin-gap material, but his results are completely preliminary. I anticipate that he will see peaks at energies corresponding to the spin gap and that they will satisfy his even$\leftrightarrow $odd sum rule, which results from this pairing.
One consequence of the assumption of Fermi rather than Luttinger liquid is the $T$-independence of the spin gap. Actually, the broadening of single-particle states $\propto kT$ will damp out the spin gap when $KT>\Delta_{SG}$, as seems to be observed. But at low $T$, $\Delta_{SG}$ will not vary with $T$.
This has been a very preliminary account of this work, which is emphatically in progress. I have benefitted from discussions with many people, especially Steve Strong, but also T.V. Ramakrishnan, S. Sarker, G. Baskaran, D. Clarke; S-D. Liang helped me with the integral.
For a general description of the spin gap, see A.J. Millis and H. Monien, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 16606 (1994); Phys. Rev. Lett [**70**]{}, 2810 (1993); or Chapter IV of my book. P.W. Anderson, forthcoming book (Princeton University Press, (1997) chapters are available on request. S. Strong and P.W. Anderson, Proceedings of the Taiwan International Conference, Chinese Journal of Physics, Vol. 34, No. 2-II, p. 159, April 1996. F.D.M. Haldane, “Luttinger’s Theorem and Bosonization of the Fermi Surface”, Proceedings of the International School of Physics, “Enrico Fermi”, Varenna, Italy 1992, eds. R. Broglia and J.R. Schrieffer, (North Holland, Amsterdam 1994, pp. 5–30. S.A. Kivelson, D.S. Rokshar, J.P. Sethna, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{} 8867 (1987) J.C. Talstra, S. P. Strong and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 5256 (1995). P.W. Anderson, et al, preprint (1996) H.L. Fong, B. Keimer, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 316 (1995)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Mathematical Institute, Copenhagen University, Universitatsparken, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA'
author:
- Ryszard Nest
- Boris Tsygan
---
\[subsection\] \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Claim]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{}
\[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{}
[^1]
**[Remarks on modules over deformation quantization algebras]{}**
Ryszard Nest and Boris Tsygan
To Boris Feigin on his fiftieth birthday
Introduction
============
The aim of this paper is to provide a link between deformation quantization theory of [@BFFLS] and [@Fe] and Lagrangian analysis. By the latter we mean Maslov’s theory of canonical operator [@M], [@MSS], [@NSS], [@L] and Hörmander’s theory of distributions given by oscillatory integrals [@GS], [@H]. Though it was always clear that such links exist (cf., for example, [@Kar]), and though the creators of deformation quantization were probably partially motivated by Lagrangian analysis, we are not aware of any works that relate the two subjects explicitly.
Here are three reasons why, in our view, such a link may be desired. First of all, there is a pedagogical reason: it is natural to look for a more unified approach to the two important subjects that are clearly related. Secondly, there is a motivation from index theory. Namely, one can try to extend the Atiyah-Singer index theorem from pseudo-differential operators to a more general class of so called Guillemin-Sternberg operators which are Fourier integral operators of special kind [@GS1], [@GU]. (This is the authors’ joint project with A. Gorokhovsky). To prove such a theorem, one would try to reduce it to a general index theorem for deformation quantization like in [@BNT], [@NT]. For that, one needs to answer questions which are studied in the present paper: how to relate Lagrangian analysis to deformation quantization and, more precisely, how to pinpoint the resulting algebra in terms of the general classification of deformation quantizations of a symplectic manifold given by the construction of Fedosov.
Finally, our third motivation is related to mirror symmetry. It is a general feeling among the experts that the Fukaya category of a symplectic manifold is somehow, in a very nontrivial way, related or analogous to the derived category of modules over a deformation quantization of this manifold (cf., for example, [@BS] or [@KS]; the idea that deformation quantization should be related to Lagrangian intersection theory was communicated to the second author by Boris Feigin in the mid 80s). We think that our constructions may suggest new structures on modules over deformed algebras, which would lead to modified versions of the derived category of modules which might be related to the Fukaya category somewhat more closely.
More precisely, when our symplectic manifold has the first Chern class equal to zero, then its deformation quantization leads to an additional structure, namely to a groupoid ${\widetilde{G}}$ which, roughly speaking, consists of expressions $\exp ({\frac{i}{\hbar}}H)$ where $H$ is a function (cf. \[ss:groupoid tG\]). Our feeling is that the kinds of modules which appear in deformation theory from Lagrangian analysis are something like objects of a new derived category of complexes of locally free modules; in that new category, localizing with respect to quasi-isomorphisms is modified so that elements of ${\widetilde{G}}$ are included into the set of quasi-isomorphisms by which we allow to localize. Such a construction could be a somewhat better approximation to the Fukaya category because it is not local, i.e. not purely sheaf-theoretical. Also, those modules would be in a closer relation to the Maslov phenomena which are cental to Lagrangian intersections [@Se] but cannot be seen by the ordinary homological algebra of modules over deformation quantizations.
Let us describe the contents of the paper in more detail. After some preliminaries on Lagrangian subspaces, Lagrangian submanifolds, the Maslov index, and an algebraic version of the Weil representation, we review the Fedosov construction and classification of deformation quantizations. Then we remind how to construct a deformation quantization of ${T^*X}$ starting from differential operators on $X$. We then compute this deformation quantization in terms of Fedosov’s classification [@Fe]. Our version of this construction essentially follows [@BNT], but we design a modified Fedosov construction which streamlines the exposition. More precisely, the Fedosov construction provides a deformation quantization starting from a multiplication preserving connection on the Weyl bundle of a symplectic manifold. We show that differential operators on half-densities lead to a product which is defined directly on the bundle of jets. This product is preserved by the canonical connection on the jet bundle. This is the canonical bundle of algebras ${\cal W}$ which is isomorphic to the Weyl bundle $W$ of Fedosov. This isomorphism is canonical up to a canonical connection-preserving inner automorphism. (This means, here and below, that the isomorphism canonically depends on a choice of an auxiliary datum; isomorphisms corresponding on two different choices differ by a conjugation by an element which is canonically constructed from the pair of data. Next we review Lagrangian analysis, in particular Hörmander’s construction of distributions whose wave front is a given Lagrangian submanifold $L$. We show that, after an extension of the ring of scalars, the asymptotics of this construction leads to a module over the deformation quantization of ${T^*X}$ discussed above. Our exposition here is close to Maslov’s method of canonical operator, cf. [@NSS].
We would like to express this module in more familiar deformation-theoretic terms. There are two equivalent ways of doing that. First, one can express it in terms of the Fedosov construction of deformations of symplectic manifolds. Second, we can apply Darboux-Weinstein theorem and identify an open neighborhood of $L$ in $T^*X$ with an open neighborhood of $L$ in $T^*L$. By the classification theorem for deformations of a symplectic manifold, the deformed algebra on $T^*X$, restricted to the neighborhood, becomes isomorphic to the standard deformation on $T^*L$. Moreover, as we show in \[prop:can up to in\], this isomorphism is canonical up to a canonical inner automorphism. We prove that, after identifying the two deformed algebras using this isomorphism, the Lagrangian module corresponding to $L$ in $T^*X$ becomes isomorphic to the similar module corresponding to $L$ in $T^*L$, tensored by the flat bundle given by a certain Čech one-cocycle (Theorem \[thm:main\]). This cocycle involves the Maslov class of $L$ and the cohomology class of $\alpha |L$ where $\alpha$ is the standard one-form on $T^*X$ such that $d\alpha =
\omega$.
Our key observation is that modules of the type we consider are still perfectly well described by Gelfand’s formal differential geometry. Namely, one can construct the bundle of jets of sections of such a module, which is a bundle of modules over the algebra of jets of functions. This is, in a sense, a second microlocalization: after having localized the distributions to a Lagrangian submanifold, we now further localize them to any point of this submanifold.
Once the jet formalism for our modules is established, one can compare them to each other. More precisely, using local phase functions of $L$, we see that the Lagrangian jet bundle is isomorphic to the vector bundle induced by the algebraic Weil representation of the universal cover of the symplectic group. The isomorphism is given, essentially, by the Maslov canonical operator at the jet level. This bundle, in turn, is easy to compare to the Lagrangian jet bundle of $L$ in $T^*L$.
We believe that most of the contents of the paper are well known to experts in some form. The second author is greatly indebted to Boris Feigin for introducing him to the topic (and to deformation quantization in general, as well as to many other things). He is also grateful to Alexander Karabegov for sharing a key idea how to establish a direct connection between the stationary phase method and deformation quantization. We are grateful to B. Sternin for a masterful exposition of the theory of canonical operator. We are grateful to D. Arinkin, A. Beilinson, R. Bezrukavnikov, P. Bressler, V. Drinfeld, K. Fukaya, D. Gaitsgori, A. Gorokhovsky, M. Kashiwara, D. Kazhdan, Yu. Manin, and D. Tamarkin for helpful remarks and discussions.
Preliminaries from symplectic linear algebra {#section:linear
algebra}
============================================
Let ${{\Bbb R}}^{2n}$ be the standard symplectic vector space with the symplectic form $d\xi \wedge dx = \sum d\xi ^k \wedge dx ^k$. Let ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ be the set of Lagrangian subspaces of ${{\Bbb R}}^{2n}$. One has $U(n)/O(n)
{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$. It is well known that the map $$u \in U(n) \mapsto \det (u) ^{2} \in S ^{1}$$ induces an isomorphism $\pi _1 ({\operatorname{\Lambda}}) {\overset{\sim}{\to}}\pi _1(S ^{1}) = {{\Bbb Z}}$.
For $N \in {{\Bbb Z}}$, $N > 0$, put
$${\tilde{U}^N}(n) = \{(u, \zeta) | u \in U(n), \zeta \in {{\Bbb C}}, \det(u) ^{2} =
\zeta ^N\}$$
This is a central extension of $U$ by ${{\Bbb Z}}/ N$. The space ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}^N}= {\tilde{U}^N}/ O$ is a cover of ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ with the deck transformation group ${{\Bbb Z}}/N$. Put also
$${\tilde{U}}(n) = \{(u, x) | u \in U(n), x \in {{\Bbb R}}, \det(u)^{2} = \exp(2\pi
ix)\}$$ The space ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}}= {\tilde{U}}/ O$ is the universal cover of ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$.
Let us describe a Čech one-cocycle determining the covering ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}}\to
{\operatorname{\Lambda}}$. For $I \subset \{1,\ldots , n\}$, let $ { x}_1 = (x^k | k \in I)$, $ {
x}_2 = (x^k | k \in {\overline {I}})$, $ { \xi }_1 = (\xi^k | k \in I)$, $ {
\xi} _2 = (\xi ^k | k \in {\overline {I}})$ where ${\overline{I}} $ is the complement of $I$. Let $L_I$ be the Lagrangian subspace $\{ { x}_2 = 0,\, {
\xi}_1 = 0\}$. Let $U _I$ be the open subset of those $L$ for which the projection onto $L _I$ along $L _{\overline {I}}$ is an isomorphism. In other words, $U_I$ consists of those $L$ which are defined by equations $$\label{eq: parametrization of l_I 1}
\xi _1 = Ax_1 + B \xi _2$$ $$\label{eq: parametrization of l_I 2}
x _2 = -B^t x_1 - C \xi _2$$ where $A$, $C$ are self-adjoint matrices and $t$ means transposition.
Now let us describe intersections $U_I \cap U_{J}$. Let $I = I_3 \cup I_4$, $J = I_2 \cup I_4$, where $I_p$, $ p=1, \ldots, 4$, are disjoint and cover $
\{1,\ldots , n\}$. Put $x_p = (x^k | k \in I_p )$ and $\xi _p = (\xi ^k | k
\in I_p )$. A Lagrangian subspace $L$ is in $U_I \cap U_{J}$ if and only if it can be described by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\xi _1 & = & \ldots \nonumber\\
\xi _2 & = & \ldots + Ax_2 + B\xi _3 + \ldots \nonumber\\
x_3 & = & \ldots -B^t x_2 - C \xi _3 + \ldots \nonumber\\
x _4 & = & \ldots \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the matrix $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} A& B\\ ^tB& C
\end{array} \right]$ is nondegenerate.
\[thm: Maslov cocycle, linear case\] ( [@H], [@GS]). The formula $$c_{IJ} = \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{signature}\left[ \begin{array}{cc} A&
B\\ B^t& C
\end{array} \right]$$ defines a $\frac{1}{2} {{\Bbb Z}}$-valued Čech 1-cocycle for the cover $\{U_I\}$. This cocycle is cohomologous to a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued 1-cocycle whose cohomology class is the class of the universal cover of ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$.
Here by the signature of a self-adjoint nondegenerate matrix we mean the signature of the corresponding quadratic form.
There is a central extension ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$ of ${\operatorname{Sp}}$ by ${{\Bbb Z}}/N{{\Bbb Z}}$ of which ${\tilde{U}^N}$ is a subgroup. It is defined by $${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}= \{(g,\gamma)\}$$ where $g \in {\operatorname{Sp}}$ and $\gamma$ is a homotopy class of a path in ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ connecting $L_0$ and $g (L_0)$. Similarly, one constructs a central extension ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$ of ${\operatorname{Sp}}$ by ${{\Bbb Z}}$.
The Weil representation {#sss:weil}
-----------------------
Here we recall in a slightly more algebraic form the standard construction of the Weil representation (cf., for example,[@L] and [@GS]). Let $V^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ be the vector space $$V^{\operatorname{Weil}} = \bigoplus _{T} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar}){{{\Bbb C}}}[[{\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar]],$$ i.e. a free ${{{\Bbb C}}}[[{\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar]]$-module with the basis indexed by all complex symmetric $n\times n$ matrices $T$ such that $\operatorname{Im} T$ is positive definite.The group ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}^4$ acts on $V^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ as follows. Let $$F({\widehat{x}}) = \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar})f({\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar)$$ where $f$ is a formal power series. Then $$\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&
A\\ 0& 1
\end{array} \right]: F({\widehat{x}}) \mapsto \exp(\frac{iA{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar})F({\widehat{x}})$$ for a real symmetric $n\times n$ matrix $A$; $$\left[ \begin{array}{cc} B&
0\\ 0&{ B^{-1}}^t
\end{array} \right]: F({\widehat{x}}) \mapsto |{\operatorname{det}}B|^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}F(B^{-1}{\widehat{x}})$$ for $B \in {\operatorname{GL}}(n, {{\Bbb R}})$; $$\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&
1\\ -1& 0
\end{array} \right]: F({\widehat{x}}) \mapsto {\operatorname{Fourier}}F({\widehat{x}});$$ the generator of the center of ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}^4$ acts by multiplication by the imaginary unit $i$. Here $ {\operatorname{Fourier}}$ stands for the Fourier transform at the level of power series as explained in [@K]; cf. [@L], [@GS] for a related definition of the Fourier transform of asymptotics. Namely, $${\operatorname{Fourier}} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar})f({\widehat{x}}, \hbar)=f({\widehat{\xi}}, \hbar) {\operatorname{Fourier}} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar})$$ where ${\widehat{\xi}}_k = i\hbar {\frac{\partial}{\partial {\widehat{x}}^k}}$ and $${\operatorname{Fourier}} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar}) = (\operatorname{det}(-iT ^{-1}))^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}\exp(-\frac{iT^{-1}{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar})$$ Since the imaginary part of $T$ is positive definite, the square root is well defined.
There is also a degenerate version of the Weil representation: $$V^{\operatorname{Weil}}_0 = \bigoplus _{T} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar}){{{\Bbb C}}}[[{\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar]],$$ where the sum is now taken over all real symmetric $n \times n$ matrices $T$. On this space, the representation is only partially defined. Namely, on the subspace $V_{T=0}$ one can define operators corresponding to elements of the open dense subset of ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}^4$ whose projection to ${\operatorname{Sp}}$ consists of matrices $$\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&
A\\ 0& 1
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&
B\\ {B^{-1}}^t& 0
\end{array} \right]
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&
C\\ 0& 1
\end{array} \right]$$ where $A$ is nondegenerate. On the other hand, the operators corresponding to elements whose projection is equal to $$\left[ \begin{array}{cc} B&
0\\ 0&{ B^{-1}}^t
\end{array} \right]$$ are defined everywhere. Those elements whose action is defined on the subspace corresponding to an arbitrary $T$ belong to the above set conjugated by $\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&
T\\ 0& 1
\end{array} \right]$. Now one has to be more careful about the square root. We define for a real symmetric nondegenerate matrix $T$ $$(\operatorname{det}(iT))^{{\frac{1}{2}}} = \prod _{k=1}^n {\sqrt{i\lambda _k}}$$ where $\lambda _k$ are the eigenvalues and we take the branch of the square root$${\sqrt{re^{i\varphi}} } = {\sqrt r} e^{i\varphi /2}$$ for $-\pi <\varphi <\pi$.
If the action of elements $g$, $h$, and $gh$ are defined on a vector, then the latter is equal to the composition of the former two. This can be seen by passing to the limit $T \to 0$ from $V^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ to $V^{\operatorname{Weil}} _0$.
Preliminaries from symplectic geometry
======================================
Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold. An ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure on $M$ is by definition a reduction of the structure group of the tangent bundle $T_M$ to ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$. The group $H ^{1}(M, {{\Bbb Z}}/N)$ acts transitively and freely on the set of isomorphism classes of such reductions. An ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure on $M$ exists if and only if the image of $2c_1(T_M)$ in $H ^{2}(M,
{{\Bbb Z}}/N)$ is equal to zero. Here $c_1(T_M)$ is the first Chern class of the tangent bundle viewed as a complex vector bundle (after choosing an almost complex structure compatible with the symplectic form).
An equivalent definition of a ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure is as follows. Let ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}_M$ be the bundle whose fiber over a point $x$ is the Grassmannian of Lagrangian subspaces of $T_x M$. To give an ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure on $M$ is the same as to give a bundle ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}^N}_M$ with fiber ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}}$, together with a morphism of bundles ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}^N}_M \to {\operatorname{\Lambda}}_M$ which is, at the level of the fibers, the morphism ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}^N}\to {\operatorname{\Lambda}}$ (cf. [@Se]).
If a distribution of Lagrangian subspaces is given on $M$, then one can define an associated ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure as follows: the distribution provides a base point in every ${\operatorname{\Lambda}}_x$, and one uses this base point to define ${\tilde{\operatorname{\Lambda}}^N}_x$. In the language of transition functions, observe that a distribution by Lagrangian subsets defines a reduction of the structure group from ${\operatorname{Sp}}$ to the subgroup stabilizing a fixed Lagrangian submanifold ${{\Bbb R}}^n$ of ${{\Bbb R}}^{2n}$. But this subgroup admits a canonical lifting to a subgroup of ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$, $g \mapsto (g,\:\gamma)$ where $\gamma $ is the constant path.
Given a Lagrangian submanifold $L$ of $M$, and given an ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure on $M$, one defines [*the Maslov class*]{} of $L$ as follows. On a tubular neighborhood of $L$, there are two ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structures. One is the restriction of the structure on $M$, the other comes from a Lagrangian distribution which is transverse to $L$ (its isomorphism class does not depend on a choice of such distribution). The two differ by an element of $H^ {1} (L, {{\Bbb Z}}/N)$ which we call the Maslov class. Similarly, for an ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$-structure on $M$ and for a Lagrangian submanifold $L$, we define the Maslov class in $H^ {1} (L, {{\Bbb Z}})$.
Let us now describe the Maslov class of a Lagrangian submanifold of $T^*X$ (where the ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$-structure comes from the distribution consisting of tangent spaces to fibers of the projection $T^* X \to X$) by a Čech one-cocycle of $L$. Let $\pi : T^* X \to
X$ be the projection. Consider an open cover $X = \cup U^0
_{\alpha}$ and a refinement $T^* X = \cup U_{\beta}$ of the cover by $\pi ^{-1} ( U^0 _{\alpha})$. Every $U_\beta$ is contained in some $\pi ^{-1} ( U^0 _{\alpha (\beta)})$. Using notation of section \[section:linear algebra\], subdivide the coordinates on each $ U^0 _{\alpha(\beta)}$ into two groups, $$\label{eq:local subdivision}
x = (x_1, x_2)$$ in such a way that $L \cap U_{\beta}$ is given by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{local parametrization1}
\xi_1 & = & F_{x_1}(x_1, \xi _2) \\
x_2 & = & -F_{\xi _2} (x_1, \xi _2)\end{aligned}$$ For an intersection $U_{\beta} \cap U_ {\gamma}$, our data can differ in two ways.
1\) They may differ by a choice of coordinates on $X$.
2\) They may differ by a choice of subdivision \[eq:local subdivision\] for the same coordinate system.
Now let us start to define a one-cocycle representing the Maslov class. In case 1), put $$\label{eq:Maslov cocycle 1}
c_{\beta \gamma} = 0$$ In case 2), using notation of section \[section:linear algebra\], let $I = I_3 \cup I_4$ for $U_\beta$ and $I = I_2 \cup
I_4$ for $U_\gamma$. On the intersection, $L$ can be described by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{local parametrization2}
\xi_1 & = & F_{x_1}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \\
\xi_2 & = & F_{x _2} (x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4)\\
x_3 & = & -F_{\xi _3}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4)\\
x_4 & = & -F_{\xi _4} (x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4)\end{aligned}$$ where the Hessian matrix $\operatorname{Hess}_{{\xi_2}, {x_3}}(F)$ is nondegenerate. Put $$\label{eq:Maslov cocycle 2}
c_{\beta \gamma} = \frac{1}{2}
\operatorname{signature}\operatorname{Hess}_{{\xi_2}, {x_3}}(F)$$
\[thm:Maslov cocycle 2\] ([@H], [@GS]) The cochain $c$ is a $\frac{1}{2} {{\Bbb Z}}$ - valued Čech one-cocycle of $L$ which is cohomologous to a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued cocycle representing the Maslov class.
The proof will be contained in the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Preliminaries from deformation quantization
===========================================
Let $(M, \omega)$ be a symplectic manifold. A [*deformation quantization*]{} of $M$ (cf. [@BFFLS]) is a formal power series $$\label{eq:deformation}
f*g = fg + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (i\hbar)^ k D_k (f,g)$$ where $D_k : C^{\infty}(M) \otimes C^{\infty}(M) \to C^{\infty}(M)$ are bilinear bidifferential expressions, $*$ is associative, $f*1 = 1*f = f$, and $$\label{eq:Poisson bracket}
\{f,g\} = D_1 (f,g) - D_1 (g,f)$$ is the Poisson bracket defined by the symplectic structure.
\[dfn:isomorphism\] An [*isomorphism*]{} between $*$ and $*'$ is a formal series $$\label{eq:isomorphism of deformations}
T(f) = f + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (i\hbar)^ k T_k (f)$$ where $T(f*g) = T(f) *' T(g)$ and $T_k$ are differential operators on $C^{\infty} (M)$.
\[example:Weyl\] For $M = {{\Bbb R}}^{2n}$ and $\omega = d\xi \wedge dx$, put $$\label{eq:Moyal product}
f*g = \exp
(\frac{i\hbar}{2}(\partial_{\xi}\partial_{y}-\partial_{\eta}\partial_{x}))f(x,
\xi)g(y, \eta) |_{ x=y,\xi=\eta}$$ (the Moyal product). This is a deformation quantization of ${{\Bbb R}}^{2n}$.
We will denote by $W$ (the Weyl algebra) the algebra ${{\Bbb C}[[\widehat{x}^{1}, \ldots , \widehat{x}^{n},
, \widehat{\xi}^{1}, \ldots , \widehat{\xi} ^{n}, \hbar]]}$ with the Moyal product (we always denote formal variables by ${\widehat{x}}$, ${\widehat{\xi}}$). One can identify $W$ with the ring of operators of the form $\sum A_{\alpha \beta}{\widehat{x}}^{\alpha}(i \hbar \frac{ \partial }{\partial {\widehat{x}}})^{\beta}$ on ${{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}},\hbar]]$. This identification takes ${\widehat{x}}^{\alpha}\xi
^{\beta}$ to the symmetrized product ${\widehat{x}}^{\alpha}(i\hbar
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\widehat{x}}}) ^{\beta}$ (the Weyl identification). Note that, if one puts $$\label{eq:grading of W}
|{\widehat{x}}^k| = |{\widehat{\xi}}^k| = 1 ,\, |\hbar| = 2,$$ then $W$ becomes a direct product of its graded components $$W = \prod _{k \geq 0} W _k$$ Put $$\label{eq:Lie algebra g}
{{{\frak{g}}}} = \frac{1}{i\hbar}W / \frac{1}{i\hbar} {{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$$ with the bracket $a*b-b*a$. This Lie algebra is isomorphic to the algebra of continuous derivations of $W$ via $a \mapsto \operatorname{ad}(a)$. The Lie algebra ${{\frak{g}}}$ splits into the product of its graded components $${{\frak{g}}}= \prod _{k \geq -1} {{\frak{g}}}_k$$ Note that ${{\frak{g}}}_{-1} = \frac{1}{i\hbar}{{\Bbb C}}^{2n}$ and ${{\frak{g}}}_0 =
{\frak {sp}} (2n, {{\Bbb C}})$. Also, the group ${\operatorname{Sp}}(2n, {{\Bbb C}})$ acts on $W$ by linear changes of coordinates. This action preserves the product. Its infinitesimal action coincides with the adjoint action of ${{\frak{g}}}_0$.
Put $$\label{eq:Lie algebra tg}
{\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}= \frac{1}{i\hbar}W$$ with the bracket $a*b-b*a$. One has $${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}= \prod _{k \geq -2} {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_k$$ where ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{-2} = \frac{1}{i\hbar}{{\Bbb C}},$ ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_ {-1} = \frac{1}{i\hbar}{{\Bbb C}}^{2n}$ and $${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_0 = {\frak{sp}} (2n, {{\Bbb C}}) \oplus {{\Bbb C}}$$ canonically. The subalgebra ${\frak{sp}} (2n, {{\Bbb C}})$ is formed by $\frac{1}{i\hbar} q({\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\xi}})$ where $q$ are quadratic functions.
Fedosov connections {#subsection:Fedosov}
-------------------
For any symplectic manifold $M$, we form a bundle of associative algebras $W = W_M$ and the bundles of Lie algebras ${{\frak{g}}}= {{\frak{g}}}_M$, ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}= {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_M$. We define them to be the bundles associated to the ${\operatorname{Sp}}$-equivariant algebras $W$, ${{\frak{g}}}$, etc. [*A Fedosov connection*]{} is an operator $$\nabla: \Omega ^{\bullet}(M, W) \to \Omega ^{\bullet+ 1}(M, W)$$ such that:
1. $$\nabla = A_{-1} + \nabla _0 + A_ 1 + \ldots$$ where $A_k \in \Omega ^{1}(M, {{\frak{g}}}_k)$ and $\nabla _0$ is a connection in $TM$ preserving $\omega$;
2. $$A_{-1} \in \Omega ^{1}(M, {{\frak{g}}}_{-1})= \Omega ^{1}(M, T^*_M)$$ is minus the map $T_M \to T^*_M$ defined by $\omega$;
3. $\nabla ^{2}$ = 0
[*A lifting*]{} of $\nabla$ is an expression $$\widetilde{\nabla} = {{\widetilde{A}}}_{-1} + \nabla _0 + {{\widetilde{A}}}_0 + {{\widetilde{A}}}_ 1 +
\ldots$$ where $\nabla _0$ is the same connection which is now viewed as ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_0$-valued, ${{\widetilde{A}}}_k \in \Omega ^{1}(M, {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_k)$, and the image of ${{\widetilde{A}}}_k$ under the map induced by the projection ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}\to {{\frak{g}}}$ is $A_k$. (For the sake of uniformity we put $A_0 = 0$).
The following theorem is essentially due to Fedosov [@Fe]. For expositions closer to ours, cf. [@BNT], [@NT1]. Another approach, which is valid for algebraic varieties, is contained in [@BK].
\[thm:classification of deformations\] 1) For any Fedosov connection $\nabla$, $${{\Bbb A}}_M = {{\Bbb A}}_M ^{\nabla}=\operatorname{ker}(\nabla:
C^{\infty} (M,W) \to \Omega ^{1}(M, W))$$ is an algebra which is isomorphic to $C^{\infty} (M)[[\hbar]]$ as a ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-module. The resulting product on $C^{\infty} (M)[[\hbar]]$ is a deformation quantization.
2\) Any $\nabla$ admits a lifting $\widetilde{\nabla}$, and $$\label{eq:Weyl curvature}
{\widetilde{\nabla}} ^{2} = \theta = \frac{1}{i\hbar} \omega + \sum _{k=0}
^{\infty}(i\hbar)^k \theta _k$$ where $\theta _k $ are closed two-forms. For two different liftings of $\nabla$, the forms $\theta$ are cohomologous.
3\) Deformation quantizations $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla)$ and $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla ')$ are isomorphic if and only if the curvatures of their liftings are cohomologous.
4\) Given two lifted Fedosov connections with the same curvature form $\theta$, there is an isomorphism between $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla)$ and $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla ')$ which is canonical up to a canonical inner isomorphism.
5\) Any deformation quantization is isomorphic to $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla)$ for some $\nabla$.
6\) For any closed $\theta$ such as in , there is a Fedosov connection $\nabla$ with a lifting ${\widetilde{\nabla}}$ such that ${\widetilde{\nabla}}^{2} =
\theta$.
Groups of automorphisms of $W$ and gauge transformations {#ss:groupoids}
--------------------------------------------------------
Put ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 1} = \prod _{k \geq 1}{\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{k}$. This is a pronilpotent Lie algebra, so one can define $${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1} = \exp {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 1}$$ Put also $$\label{eq:definition of bGN}
{\overline G} _{\geq 0} = {\operatorname{Sp}}(2n, {\operatorname{\bold R}}) \ltimes {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$$ $$\label{eq:definition of tGN}
{\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}^N = {\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}(2n, {\operatorname{\bold R}}) \ltimes {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$$ Note that ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$ acts on ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}$-valued connections by gauge transformations. One can show that
\[lemma:gauge equivalence\] Two Fedosov connections $\nabla$, $\nabla '$ define isomorphic star products if and only if they are gauge equivalent, if and only if they have gauge equivalent liftings. Two lifted Fedosov connections are gauge equivalent if and only if their curvature forms are equal.
This is the key part of the proof of the statements 3 and 4 of theorem \[thm:classification of deformations\]. For example, to prove 4, observe that a gauge equivalence defines an isomorphism of corresponding bundles with connection, hence of the algebras of horizontal elements; two gauge equivalences of lifted connections differ by a gauge auto-equivalence, which is by definition an invertible section of the bundle $W$ which is horizontal under $\nabla$, hence an invertible element of $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla)$.
### The Weil representation {#sssss:weil}
One can extend the Weil representation (cf. \[sss:weil\]) as follows. Introduce a filtration on ${{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar, \hbar ^{-1}]$ which is multiplicative, ${\widehat{x}}^k$ are in $F^1$, and $\hbar $ in $F^2$. Let $${\widehat{V}}^{\operatorname{Weil}} = \bigoplus _{T} \exp(\frac{iT{\widehat{x}}^2}{2\hbar}){\widehat{{{{\Bbb C}}}}[[{\widehat{x}}^1, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^n, \hbar, \hbar ^{-1}]},$$ where the completion on the right is with respect to the filtration $F$ and the summation is taken over all symmetric complex $n \times n$ matrices $T$ with positive definite imaginary part. Let ${\widehat{V}}_0 ^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ be a similar sum, but taken over all real $n\times n$ symmetric matrices. The action of ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$ on ${{V}}^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ extends to an action of ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$ on ${\widehat{V}}^{\operatorname{Weil}}$. Similarly, the partial action of ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$ on ${{V}}_0 ^{\operatorname{Weil}}$ extends to a partial action of ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$ on ${\widehat{V}}_0 ^{\operatorname{Weil}}$.
We treat ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$ as a Lie group whose Lie algebra is ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 0}/{{{\Bbb C}}}$.
\[lemma:estabilizadores\] The subgroup $P$ of ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$ preserving the subspace $V_{T=0}={{{\Bbb C}}}[[{\widehat{x}}, \hbar]]$ is the Lie group of the Lie subalgebra $\{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}f | f \in {\widehat{\xi}}W_{\geq 1}+\hbar W_{\geq 1}$}.
The subgroup $N$ of $P$ of those elements whose action on the subspace $V_{T=0}={{{\Bbb C}}}[[{\widehat{x}}, \hbar]]$ is identity modulo $\hbar$ is the Lie group of the Lie subalgebra $\{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}f | f \in {\widehat{\xi}}^2 W_{\geq 0}+\hbar {\widehat{\xi}}W_{\geq -1} + \hbar ^2 W\} $.
Fedosov construction and Lagrangian submanifolds {#ss:Fedosov construction and Lagrangian submanifolds}
------------------------------------------------
Let $L$ be a Lagrangian submanifold of a symplectic manifold $M$. We call a Fedosov connection $\nabla$ compatible with $L$ if the restriction of $\nabla$ to $L$ preserves the left ideal $WT_L^{\perp}$ where $T_L^{\perp} \subset T^*_M \subset W$ is the annihilator of $T_L$.
The group of gauge transformations $\exp {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 1}(L)$ acts on such connections, where $$\label {eq:Lie algebra g(L)}
{\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 1}(L) = \{ \sigma \in \Gamma(M, {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq 1}) \;:\; \sigma |_L \in {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}WT_L^{\perp} \}$$ The following is, essentially, a particular case of the statements contained in [@Bo], [@W].
\[lemma:gauge equivalence with L\] The map sending $\nabla$ to the cohomology class of ${\widetilde
{\nabla}}^2$ defines a bijection between the set of gauge equivalence classes of Fedosov connections compatible with $L$ and the affine set $${\frac{1}{i\hbar}}[\omega ] + H^2 (M,L)[[\hbar]]$$
The proof goes exactly as for usual Fedosov connections.
The jet bundle $J_M$ {#ss:the jet bundle}
--------------------
For any manifold $M$ of dimension $m$, let $J$ be the bundle of jets of $C^ {\infty}$ functions. If $ M = \cup U _{\alpha}$ is an open cover and a coordinate system $x^{1}, \ldots, x^m$ is chosen on every $U_ {\alpha}$, then we identify $J|U_ {\alpha}$ with $U_
{\alpha} \times {{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}]]$ where we denote by ${{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}]]$ the algebra ${{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}^{1}, \ldots, {\widehat{x}}^m]]$. The transition functions of the bundle $J$ are $$G_{\alpha \beta}: U _{\alpha} \cap U _{\beta } \to \operatorname{Aut}
{{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}]]$$ defined as follows: $$\label{eq:transition functions of jets}
G_{\alpha \beta}(x): {\widehat{x}}\mapsto g_{\alpha \beta} (\phi
_{\beta}(x) + {\widehat{x}}) - g_{\alpha \beta} (\phi_{\beta}(x))$$ where $$\phi _{\alpha}: U_{\alpha} \hookrightarrow {{\Bbb R}}^N$$ are the coordinate embeddings and $$g_{\alpha \beta} = \phi _{\alpha} \phi _{\beta} ^{-1}$$ The jet bundle is filtered by powers of the ideal $({\widehat{x}}^{1},
\ldots, {\widehat{x}}^m)$, and the associated graded bundle of algebras is $S[T^*_M]$, the symmetric algebra of the cotangent bundle. Using the fact that $C_M ^{\infty}$ is an acyclic sheaf, one shows that, noncanonically, $$\label{eq:isomorphism between jets and its gr}
J_M {\overset{\sim}{\to}}S[[T^*_M]]$$ (the completion of $S[T^*_M]$) as bundles of algebras.
If a deformation quantization is given on $M$, then $J_M[[\hbar]]$ becomes a bundle of algebras. Locally, using the grading as in , put $$F^k J[[\hbar]] = \prod _{p \geq k}J[[\hbar]]_p$$ The transition functions and the product preserve this filtration. The completed associated graded bundle of algebras is the Weyl bundle $W$. As above, one can show that $$\label{eq:isomorphism between jets and Weyl}
J_M[[\hbar]] {\overset{\sim}{\to}}W_M$$ as bundles of algebras.
For any $M$ there is the canonical flat connection $$\label{eq:canonical connection}
\nabla _{\operatorname{can}}: \Omega ^{\bullet}(M, J) \to \Omega
^{\bullet + 1}(M, J)$$ which preserves the product. In coordinates, $$(\nabla _{\operatorname{can}}f)(x,{\widehat{x}}) = \sum _{k=1}^m (\frac{\partial f
}{\partial {x^k}} - \frac{\partial f }{\partial {{\widehat{x}}^k}}) dx ^k$$ The kernel of $\nabla _{\operatorname{can}} | C^ {\infty}(M,J)$ is canonically isomorphic to the algebra $ C^ {\infty}(M)$.
If a deformation quantization is given on $M$, the image of $\nabla _{\operatorname{can}}$ under the isomorphism becomes a Fedosov connection. This proves the assertion 5) of theorem \[thm:classification of deformations\].
The groupoid ${\widetilde{G}}$ {#ss:groupoid tG}
------------------------------
This subsection is not used in the rest of the paper. We include it because we feel that its content might be useful in a modified theory of modules over deformation quantization algebras which is more suitable for applications.
Let $M$ be a symplectic manifold with an ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-structure. Let $\nabla$ be a Fedosov connection with a lifting $\widetilde{\nabla}$, and let ${{\Bbb A}}_M = \operatorname{ker} \nabla $ is the deformed sheaf of algebras of smooth functions. For two open subsets $U$ and $V$ of $M$, let $$G_{UV} = \operatorname{Iso} ({{\Bbb A}}_U, {{\Bbb A}}_V)$$ (the set of continuous isomorphisms of algebras). These sets form a groupoid whose objects are open subsets for $M$. In this subsection we define the groupoid ${\widetilde{G}}_{UV}$ together with a surjection $$\label{eq:tGNM}
{\widetilde{G}}_{UV} \to G _{UV}$$ such that there are central extensions $$\label{eq:tGNM 1}
0 \to {{\Bbb Z}}/ N \to {\widetilde{G}}_{UU} \to G _{UU} \to 1$$ Observe that ${\operatorname{Sp}}(2n,
{\operatorname{\bold R}})$ acts on the group ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$ by conjugations, therefore we can construct a bundle of groups on $M$. If an ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}(2n, {\operatorname{\bold R}})$-structure on $M$ is given, then one defines the induced groupoid ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}^N$ with the manifold of objects $M$. Locally in coordinates, for $x,y \in M$, ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}^N (x,y) =
{\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}^N$ (cf. ); the transition functions are left and right multiplications by the ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}^N}$-valued lifted transition functions of the tangent bundle $T_M$.
To define an element of ${\widetilde{G}}_{UV}$, start with a symplectomorphism $f: V
{\overset{\sim}{\to}}U$. Let $\widetilde{g} (x) \in {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0} ^N (fx, x)$, $x\in V$, be a smooth family. We require the induced family $g(x): W_{fx} {\overset{\sim}{\to}}W_x$ to preserve the Fedosov connection. By ${\widetilde{G}}_{UV}$ we denote the set of all such families $\widetilde{g} (x)$.
This construction is an extension of a similar construction for symplectomorphisms which was defined in [@Se].
Modified Fedosov construction {#4.7}
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we observe that the Fedosov construction can be extended as follows. Recall that Fedosov’s Weyl bundle $W_M$ is the bundle whose fiber is the Weyl algebra $W$ and whose transition functions are the images of the transition functions $g^T_{\alpha \beta} \in {\operatorname{Sp}}(2n)$ in the group $G_{\geq 0}$ of automorphisms of $W$. A Fedosov connection is a flat connection of a special kind on this bundle. To define its [*lifting*]{}, we used the fact that the transition functions of the bundle $W$ admit a lifting to ${\overline G}_{\geq 0} = {\operatorname{Sp}}(2n,
{\operatorname{\bold R}}) \ltimes {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$.
Now, let us start with any bundle of algebras ${\cal W}$ whose transition functions take values in $G_{\geq 0}$: $$G_{\alpha \beta} : U_{\alpha} \cap U_{\beta} \to G_{\geq 0}$$ We require that the projection of $G_{\alpha \beta}$ from $G_{\geq
0}$ to ${\operatorname{Sp}}(2n)$ coincide with $g^T_{\alpha \beta}$. A lifting of the transition functions is by definition a ${\overline G}_{\geq
0}$-valued Čech one-cocycle ${{\widetilde{G}}} _{\alpha \beta}$ whose image under the projection ${\overline G}_{\geq 0} \to {G}_{\geq
0}$ is $G _{\alpha \beta}$.
By definition, a Fedosov connection in ${\cal W}$ is a flat connection which preserves multiplication and whose $A_{-1}$ term is as in \[subsection:Fedosov\]. Given a lifting of the transition functions of ${\cal W}$, define a lifting of a Fedosov connection $\nabla$ to be a ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}$-valued connection $\widetilde{\nabla}$ whose image under the projection ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}\to {{\frak{g}}}$ is $\nabla$. More explicitly, it is a collection of forms $${\widetilde {A}}_{\alpha} = \sum _{k = -1}^{\infty} {\widetilde
{A}}_{\alpha , k};\;\; {\widetilde {A}}_{\alpha , k} \in \Omega ^1
(U_{\alpha}, {\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_k)$$ such that $${\widetilde {A}}_{\alpha} = {\operatorname{Ad}}({\widetilde{G}}_{\alpha
\beta})({\widetilde {A}}_{\beta}) - {{\widetilde{G}}} _{\alpha \beta} ^{-1}
d{{\widetilde{G}}} _{\alpha \beta}$$ The following is a straightforward generalization of \[thm:classification of deformations\].
\[thm:modified Fedosov construction\] 1) For any ${\cal W}$, there exist a Fedosov connection $\nabla$, a lifting ${{\widetilde{G}}} _{\alpha \beta}$ of the transition functions, and a lifting ${\widetilde {\nabla}}$ of $\nabla$. The algebra ${\operatorname {ker}}(\nabla :\Omega ^0 (M, {\cal{W}}) \to \Omega
^1 (M, {\cal{W}}))$ is isomorphic to a deformation quantization of $(M, \omega)$.
2\) For two bundles $\cal W$ and ${\cal W}'$ with lifted transition functions $\widetilde {G}_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\widetilde {G'}_{\alpha \beta}$ and for two lifted Fedosov connections $\widetilde {\nabla}$ and $\widetilde {\nabla '}$, if $\widetilde {\nabla} ^2 =( \widetilde {\nabla '}) ^2$ then the algebras $\operatorname{ker} (\nabla)$ and $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla ')$ are isomorphic. Moreover, the isomorphism is canonical up to a canonical inner automorphism.
3\) The curvature form $$\theta = {{\frac{1}{i\hbar}}}\omega + \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} (i\hbar )^k
\theta_k, \;\; \theta _k \in \Omega ^2 (M),$$ is closed. Its cohomology class is the complete invariant of the deformation up to isomorphism.
\[rmk:lifted bundles of jets\] In the construction above, one can take $G _{\alpha \beta}$ to be the transition functions of the bundle of jets, and $\nabla$ to be the canonical connection $\nabla _{\operatorname {can}}$. We will see an example of this in \[ss:Differential operators and the deformation quantization\].
The canonical stack on a symplectic manifold
--------------------------------------------
We can strengthen the statement of Theorem \[thm:modified Fedosov construction\] as follows.
\[prop:stack of connections\] 1) For two bundles $\cal W$ and ${\cal W}'$ with lifted transition functions $\widetilde {G}_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\widetilde {G'}_{\alpha \beta}$ and for two lifted Fedosov connections $\widetilde {\nabla}$ and $\widetilde {\nabla '}$, if $\widetilde {\nabla} ^2 =( \widetilde {\nabla '}) ^2$ then there is a canonical isomorphism of algebras $G({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}'): \operatorname{ker} (\nabla') \to \operatorname{ker}(\nabla )$.
2\) For three bundles $\cal W$ and ${\cal W}'$ with lifted transition functions $\widetilde {G}_{\alpha \beta}$, $\widetilde {G'}_{\alpha \beta}$, $\widetilde {G''}_{\alpha \beta}$, and for three lifted Fedosov connections $\widetilde {\nabla}$, $\widetilde {\nabla '}$, $\widetilde {\nabla ''}$, if $\widetilde {\nabla} ^2 =( \widetilde {\nabla '}) ^2=( \widetilde {\nabla ''}) ^2$ then there is a canonical element $c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')$ of $\operatorname{ker}(\nabla)$ which is congruent to 1 modulo $\hbar$, such that $$G({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}')G({\widetilde{\nabla}}', {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')=\operatorname{Ad}(c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}'') )G({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')$$
3\) $$c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}'', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}''')=
G({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}')(c({\widetilde{\nabla}}', \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}'', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}'''))c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, \;{\widetilde{\nabla}}', \; {\widetilde{\nabla}}''')$$
This provides a canonical stack of deformation quantizations on every symplectic manifold, as well as on any symplectic manifold with a pseudogroup of symplectomorphisms. Cf. [@Kas] and [@PS] for a more analytical construction which uses microdifferential operators, as well [@DP] for some further discussion and applications.
[**Proof of the Proposition**]{} For any ${\widetilde{\nabla}}$ and ${\widetilde{\nabla}}'$ with the same curvature form, there exists a gauge transformation $\sigma ({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}')$ between ${\widetilde{\nabla}}'$ and ${\widetilde{\nabla}}$. Let $G({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}')$ be the action of this gauge transformation reduced to horizontal sections. Put also $$c({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}', {\widetilde{\nabla}}'') = \sigma({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}')\sigma({\widetilde{\nabla}}', {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')\sigma({\widetilde{\nabla}}, {\widetilde{\nabla}}'')^{-1}$$ It is easy to see that these $G$ and $c$ satisfy all the properties stated in the Proposition.
Differential operators and the deformation quantization of $T^*
(X)$ {#ss:Differential operators and the deformation
quantization}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a manifold. For the sheaf of rings ${D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$ of differential operators on half-densities on $X$, let $F_p
{D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$ be the filtration by order. Let $$\label{eq:Rees ring}
{{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}= \bigoplus _{p\geq 0}\hbar ^p F_p {D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$$ be the Rees ring. Let $X = \cup _{\alpha} U_{\alpha}^0$ be an open cover. A choice of coordinates on $U _{\alpha}^0$ identifies ${{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_{U^0 _{\alpha}}}$ with the ring ${C^{\infty}}_{U_{\alpha}^0}[\xi ^{1}, \ldots, \xi ^n, \hbar]$ where $$\xi ^k = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}$$ The latter ring can be identified with the ring ${C^{\infty, \operatorname{poly}}}_{ \pi
^{-1}U_{\alpha}^0}$ where $\pi: T^*X \to X$ is the projection and ${C^{\infty, \operatorname{poly}}}$ stands for the sheaf of ${C^{\infty}}$ functions which are polynomial along the fibers. We use the Weyl identification, analogous to one that was used in the discussion after .
We get $$\phi _{\alpha}: {{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_{U^0 _{\alpha}}}{\overset{\sim}{\to}}{C^{\infty, \operatorname{poly}}}_{ \pi ^{-1}U_{\alpha}^0}$$ One checks that the product on ${{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_{U^0 _{\alpha}}}$ induces on the right hand side a star product which we denote by $* _{\alpha}$. This star product extends to ${C^{\infty}}_{\pi ^{-1}U_{\alpha}}$. Furthermore, $G_{\alpha \beta} = \phi _{\alpha}
\phi _{\beta}^{-1}$ extend to isomorphisms between $* _{\alpha}$ and $*
_{\beta}$ in the sense of definition \[dfn:isomorphism\]. Using partitions of unity, one constructs automorphisms $T_{\alpha}$ of $* _{\alpha}$ such that $G_{\alpha \beta} = T _{\alpha} T _{\beta}^{-1}$. This allows to define a star product on ${T^*X}$.
Let us recall how one identifies the above deformation in terms of the classification theorem \[thm:classification of deformations\].
\[prop:theta on T\*X\] The characteristic class $\theta$ of this deformation is ${\frac{1}{i\hbar}\omega}$ ($=0$).
[**Proof.**]{} The statement itself is straightforward. Indeed, one checks that our deformation is isomorphic to its opposite, and it is easy to see that the characteristic class of the opposite is minus the original characteristic class. We will need, however, an explicit description of our deformation in terms of Section \[4.7\].
Start with an open cover $\{\pi ^{-1}(U^0 _{\alpha})
\}$ of $T^*(X)$. A choice of coordinates $x_{\alpha} = (x_{\alpha}
^1, \ldots, x_{\alpha} ^n)$ on $U^0 _{\alpha}$ determines a coordinate system $(x_{\alpha}, \xi^{\alpha})$ on $\pi ^{-1}(U^0
_{\alpha})$. The transition functions between two different coordinate systems are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:transition functions for T*X}
x_{\alpha} & = & g_{\alpha \beta}(x_{\beta}) \nonumber \\
\xi^{\alpha} & = & ^t g_{\alpha \beta}'(x_{\beta}) ^{-1} \xi
^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ($^t g_{\alpha \beta}'(x_{\beta})$ stands for the transposed Jacobi matrix).
Now consider the bundle $\pi ^* {\operatorname{jets}}{{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$ with the canonical connection $\pi ^* \nabla
_{\operatorname{can}}$. (To construct the bundle of jets one acts as in \[ss:the jet bundle\]). This is a bundle of algebras with the fiber $$\label{eq:Wfin}
W_{\operatorname {fin}} = {{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}]][{\widehat{\xi}}, \hbar]$$ (again, we use the Weyl identification of the two sides). Its transition functions are given explicitly as follows: $$\label{eq:transition functions for lifted Rees}
{\widehat{x}}\mapsto g_{\alpha \beta}(x_{\beta}
+ {\widehat{x}}) - x_{\alpha}$$ $$\label{eq:transition functions for lifted Rees 2}
{\widehat{\xi}}\mapsto ^t g_{\alpha \beta}'(x_{\beta} + {\widehat{x}}) ^{-1}
{\widehat{\xi}}$$ Because of the presence of the half-densities, the product in the second equation is the commutative product, not the composition in the Weyl algebra (as always, we use the Weyl identification between functions and operators). The canonical connection is, in coordinates, given by $$\pi ^*\nabla _{\operatorname{can}}=d -\sum \frac{\partial}{\partial {\widehat{x}}^k}dx^k,$$ without a similar $\xi$ term. To correct that, apply the gauge transformation $$\label{eq:gauge transformation}
\sigma _{\alpha} = \exp \operatorname{ad}\frac{1}{i\hbar}\xi
^{\alpha} {\widehat{x}}\in \operatorname{Aut}(W_{\operatorname {fin}})$$ We get a new bundle of algebras whose transition functions are $$\label{eq:transition functions for cW}
{\widehat{x}}\mapsto g_{\alpha \beta}(x_{\beta}
+ {\widehat{x}}) - x_{\alpha}$$ $$\label{eq:transition functions for cW 2}
{\widehat{\xi}}^ \mapsto ^t g_{\alpha \beta}'(x_{\beta} + {\widehat{x}}) ^{-1}
(\xi^{\beta} + {\widehat{\xi}}) - \xi ^{\alpha}$$ Again, the multiplication in the second formula is the commutative multiplication of power series. Therefore, these transition functions coincide with the transition functions of the jet bundle $J_{T^*X}$ (compare with ). Note also that these transition functions admit a canonical lifting to ${\overline G}_{\geq 0}$ and even to ${\widetilde
G}_{\geq 0}$. Indeed, consider the group $K$ of formal automorphisms of the trivial line bundle on ${{\Bbb R}}^n$ acting by $$\label{eq:definition of K}
f({\widehat{x}}) \mapsto p({\widehat{x}}) f(g({\widehat{x}}))
|{\operatorname{det}}g'({\widehat{x}})|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ where $g$ is a formal diffeomorphism of the form $g:{\widehat{x}}\mapsto
a{\widehat{x}}+ o({\widehat{x}})$, $a\in \operatorname{GL}(n,{{\Bbb R}})$, and $p({\widehat{x}}) \in
{{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}]], \; p(0) = 0$. The group $K$ maps into $G_{\geq 0}$ as follows. We can represent $W$ as an algebra of operators on ${{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}, \hbar]]$ by identifying, as above, ${\widehat{x}}^n {\widehat{\xi}}^m$ with the symmetrized product ${\widehat{x}}^n (i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial
{\widehat{x}}})^m$. Then $K$ acts on these operators by conjugation. To check that there is a canonical lifting $K \to {\widetilde
G}_{\geq 0}$, observe that $$K = \operatorname{GL}(n,{{\Bbb R}}) \ltimes K_{\geq 1}$$ where $K_{\geq
1}$ is the group of elements for which $a=1$. But $\operatorname{GL}$ maps to $\operatorname{Sp}$, and this map lifts to ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$; on the other hand, $K_{\geq 1}$ has a canonical lifting to ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 1}$. Indeed, $$K_{\geq 1}=\exp({\frak{k}}_{\geq 1})$$ where $$\nonumber
{\frak{k}}_{\geq 1} = \{ {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}P({\widehat{x}}) {\widehat{\xi}}+ Q({\widehat{x}}) | P({\widehat{x}}) =
o({\widehat{x}});\; Q(0) = 0\}$$ and this pronilpotent Lie algebra is a subalgebra of ${\widetilde{{{\frak{g}}}}}_{\geq
1}$, not just of ${{\frak{g}}}_{\geq 1}$.
As for the connection, $\pi ^*\nabla _{\operatorname{can}}$ becomes a Fedosov connection after the gauge transformation $\sigma _{\alpha}$. It has a flat lifting which has an extra summand $\frac{i}{\hbar}\xi dx$. Subtract it, and we get a Fedosov connection, together with a lifting whose curvature is ${\frac{1}{i\hbar}\omega}$.
Therefore we are exactly in the situation of Theorem \[thm:modified Fedosov construction\] and Remark \[rmk:lifted bundles of jets\]. This proves the proposition.
Preliminaries from Lagrangian analysis
======================================
Let us recall the classical construction from [@H], [@GS] in terms that are suited for our purposes. Let $X$ be a manifold. Consider an open coordinate cover $X = \cup U _{\alpha}
^{0}$, and a refinement of the cover $\pi ^{-1}U_ {\alpha}$: ${T^*X}= \cup U_{\beta}$; $U_{\beta} \subset \pi ^{-1} U^{0} _{\alpha
(\beta)}$. Let $L\subset {T^*X}$ be a Lagrangian submanifold. Note that at this stage we do not assume any of the subsets to be conical. Denote by ${\cal E}_L$ the local system with the transition functions $\exp (\frac{i \pi}{2} c)$ where $c$ is a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the Maslov class of $L$.
1\) For any section $$a \in \Gamma _c ({U_{\beta}}, |\Omega _L| ^{\frac {1}{2}} \otimes {\cal E}_L)$$ and any $\hbar \neq 0$, one can construct a half-density
$$\label{eq:ahat}
\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar} \in \Gamma ({U^{0} _{\alpha (\beta)}}, |\Omega _X| ^{\frac
{1}{2}})$$
2\) For any smooth function $f$ on $\pi ^{-1} ({U^{0} _{\alpha}})$, polynomial along the fibers, and any $\hbar \neq 0$, one can construct a differential operator $\widehat {f}
_{\alpha, \hbar}$ on half-densities on ${U^{0} _{\alpha}}$.
3\) If $a$ is supported in ${U_{\beta}}\cap {U_{\gamma}}$ then $${\widehat{a}_{\gamma, \hbar}}= {\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar}}+ \sum _{k = 1}^{\infty} (i\hbar) ^k {\widehat{R_{\beta, \gamma, k} (a)}}_{\beta,
\hbar} + {O(\hbar ^{\infty})}$$ as $\hbar \to 0$, where ${R_{\beta, \gamma, k}}$ are differential operators on sections of $|\Omega _L| ^{\frac {1}{2}} \otimes {\cal E}_L)$.
4\) If $f$ is supported in ${U^{0} _{\alpha}}\cap U^{0} _{\alpha _1}$, then $${\widehat{f}_{\alpha _1, \hbar}}= {\widehat{f}_{\alpha, \hbar}}+ \sum _{k = 1}^{\infty} (i\hbar) ^k {\widehat{T_{\alpha, \alpha _{1}, k} (f)}}_{\alpha,
\hbar} +{O(\hbar ^{\infty})}$$ where ${T_{\alpha, \alpha _{1}, k}}$ are differential operators.
5\) $${\widehat{f}} _{\alpha (\beta), \hbar} ({ \widehat{a}}_{\beta, \hbar}) =
(f|_{L} \cdot a)_{\beta, \hbar} + \sum _{k = 1}^{\infty} (i\hbar) ^k {\widehat{P_{\beta, k} (f,a)}}_{\beta, \hbar} + {O(\hbar ^{\infty})}$$ where ${P_{\beta, k}}$ are bidifferential expressions depending on $a$ and on the jet of $f$ at $L$.
6\) $${\widehat{f_1}} _{\alpha, \hbar} \circ {\widehat{f_2}} _{\alpha, \hbar} =
{\widehat{f_1 \cdot f_2}} _{\alpha, \hbar} + \sum _{k = 1}^{\infty} (i\hbar)
^k {\widehat{D_{\alpha, k} (f_1, f_2)}}_{\alpha, \hbar} + {O(\hbar ^{\infty})}$$ where ${D_{\alpha, k}}$ are bidifferential expressions.
We see that the asymptotic expressions 3) - 6) define a deformation quantization of ${T^*X}$ and a sheaf of modules ${V ^H _L}$ over the deformed algebra ${{{\Bbb A}}} _{{T^*X}}= {C^{\infty}}_{{T^*X}}[[\hbar]]$, supported on $L$.
Let us briefly recall how to construct ${\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar}}$. Locally on ${U_{\beta}}$, consider [*a phase function*]{} of $L$: if $x = (x^{1},
\ldots,x^{n} )$ are coordinates on $U_{\alpha (\beta)} \subset X$, let $\theta$ be a variable in ${{\Bbb R}}^k$; a phase function is a function $\varphi (x,\theta)$ such that:
i\) $$L = \{(x,\xi) | d_{\theta} \varphi (x,\theta) = 0; \, \xi = d_{x} \varphi
(x,\theta) \}$$ ii) The Hessian $(\varphi _{x \theta}, \, \varphi _{\theta \theta})$ is of maximum rank $k$.
Given a phase function, the map $$i: \{(x,\theta) | d_{\theta} \varphi (x,\theta) = 0\} \to L;$$ $$\, (x,\theta) \mapsto (x, d_{x} \varphi (x,\theta))$$ is a local diffeomorphism. The left hand side is a submanifold in ${{\Bbb R}}^{n+k}$.
The function $\varphi (i ^{-1}x)$, which we still denote by $\varphi$, satisfies $d\varphi = \xi dx$, the right hand side being the canonical one-form on ${T^*X}$ (its differential is $\omega$, so it is closed on $L$).
The Hörmander construction is as follows. Start with a local section $a$ on ${U_{\beta}}$. Given a phase function $\varphi = \varphi
_{\beta}$ on ${U_{\beta}}$, and given local coordinates on $U_{\alpha
(\beta)}$, represent, locally, $a$ as a function on $\{(x,\theta)
| d_{\theta} \varphi (x,\theta) = 0\}$. Extend it to a function of $x, \theta$ which is zero away from a small neighborhood of $i
^{-1}L$ as follows. Subdivide the $n+k$ variables $(x,\theta)$ into two groups $y\in {{\Bbb R}}^n$, $z \in {{\Bbb R}}^k$, such that the Hessian $k\times k$ matrix ${\partial}^2 _{z\theta}\varphi$ is nondegenerate. Observe that the restriction of the map to the subspace $z=0$ is a local diffeomorphism with $L$; extend $a$ to a function in $y$ only, and multiply by a function in $y$ which is zero away from a neighborhood of the origin. Now define $$\label{eq:definition of a(beta)} {\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar}}= [\int e ^{\frac
{i}{\hbar} \varphi _{\beta}(x, \theta)} a(x,\theta)d\theta]|
dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ One can now proceed to generalize this to the case when $L$ is a homogeneous Lagrangian submanifold, $\varphi$ is homogeneous of degree one in $\theta$, and $a(x,\theta)$ satisfying certain standard growth conditions with respect to $\theta$. One can still define ${\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar}}$ as distributional half-densities, whose action on a test half-density $u(x)| dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$ is defined as $${\widehat{a}_{\beta, \hbar}}(u)= \int e ^{\frac {i}{\hbar} \varphi _{\beta}(x, \theta)}
a(x,\theta)u(x) d\theta dx$$ The latter integral is taken using the stationary phase method as explained in [@GS] and [@H].
Lagrangian analysis and deformation quantization {#s:Hormander in deformation quantization}
================================================
Let $L \subset {T^*X}$ be a Lagrangian submanifold. As above, let $X= \cup _{\alpha} {U^{0} _{\alpha}}$ and ${T^*X}= \cup _{\beta} {U_{\beta}}$, a cover which is a refinement of $ \{\pi ^{-1}{U^{0} _{\alpha}}\}$. Let $\varphi _{\beta}$ be a phase function of $L|_{{U_{\beta}}}$.Using these data, we will construct a sheaf of modules over ${{\Bbb A}}^{\hbar}_{{T^*X}} \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]}{{\Bbb K}}$ where ${{\Bbb A}}^{\hbar}_{{T^*X}} $ is the deformation quantization discussed in \[ss:Differential operators and the deformation quantization\] and ${{\Bbb K}}= {{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]][\hbar ^{-1}, e ^{\frac{i}{\hbar}a }|a
\in {{\Bbb R}}]$.
Denote by $V_{\beta}$ the space of formal expressions $$\label{eq:definition of local module V}
\frac{1}{({2 \pi \hbar})^{k/2} }[\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi (x, \theta)}
a(x, \theta) d\theta] |dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ where $a(x,\theta)$ is a ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-valued smooth function and $k$ is the dimension of the $\theta$ space (we will mostly use local phase functions of special kind for which $k=n$). More precisely, $$\label{eq:definition of local module V 1}
V _{\beta} = \{ a(x, \theta)) \} / {\sim}$$ where $$\label{eq:definition of local module V 2}
\varphi _{\theta} \cdot a {\sim}i\hbar a_{\theta}$$ and $a(x,\theta)$ is a ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-valued smooth function on the preimage of ${U_{\beta}}$ under the map $$\label{eq:map to L}
(x, \theta)
\mapsto (x, d_x \varphi (x, \theta))$$ Note that $V_{\beta}$ as a ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-module is isomorphic to ${C^{\infty}}(L \cap {U_{\beta}})[[\hbar]]$. Indeed, using the discussion before the formula , we see that the map $$a(y) \mapsto
(a \operatorname{mod} {\sim}) \in V_{\beta}$$ is an isomorphism.
Now we have to define the transition functions $$G_{\beta \gamma}: V_{\beta} | U_{\beta } \cap U_{\gamma}
{\overset{\sim}{\to}}V_{\gamma } | U_{\beta } \cap U_{\gamma}$$ and the action of $\pi ^* {{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_{U^0 _{\alpha}}}$ on $V_{\beta}$ where $\alpha = \alpha (\beta)$. Both are suggested by . The action is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:action of A on V}
x^m \cdot a & = & x^m a \nonumber \\
\xi ^m \cdot a & = & i\hbar \frac{\partial a}{\partial x^m} -
\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x^m} \cdot a\end{aligned}$$ for $m = 1, \ldots, n$. This action preserves the equivalence relation .
As for the transition functions, let us start, following Hörmander, by introducing coordinate changes $$\label{eq:coordinate change in a phase function}
\varphi(x, \theta) \mapsto \varphi(g(x), \rho(x,\theta))$$ where $g$ is a local diffeomorphism. It is straightforward that a phase function obtained by a coordinate change from $\varphi$ defines the same Lagrangian submanifold as $\varphi$. Hörmander proved that, locally on $U_{\beta}$, any two phase functions differ by such a coordinate change, followed by addition of $\pm \sum
_{i=1}^{c}\theta_i^2/2$. As we will see later, the numbers $\pm c
= \mu_{\beta \gamma}$ define a cocycle representing twice the Maslov class).
Let us write down the transition functions corresponding to the change where $$g = g_{\beta \gamma} = g_{\alpha(\beta) \alpha(\gamma)}$$ are the transition functions of the manifold $X$ and $\rho = \rho
_{\beta \gamma}$. They act on the equivalence classes of formal expressions as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:transition functions, 1}
G_{\beta \gamma}:\frac{1}{({2 \pi \hbar})^{k/2} }\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}{\varphi
(x,\theta)}}a(x_{\beta},\theta)d\theta
|dx_{\beta}|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \mapsto \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{({2 \pi \hbar})^{k/2} }\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi (g_{\beta
\gamma}(x_{\gamma}), \rho_{\beta \gamma}(x_\gamma,
\theta))}a(g_{\beta \gamma}(x_{\gamma}),
\rho_{\beta \gamma}(x_\gamma, \theta))\times \\
\times|\operatorname{det} \frac{\partial \rho_{\beta
\gamma}(x_\gamma, \theta))}{\partial{\theta}}|^{-1}
|\operatorname{det}g_{\beta \gamma}'(x_{\gamma})|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}d\theta
|dx_{\gamma}|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Each summand $\pm \theta _i^2$ contributes a multiple $$\frac{1}{({2 \pi \hbar})^{1/2} }\int e^{\pm \frac{ i\theta
^2}{2\hbar}}d\theta = e^{\mp
\frac{i\pi}{4}}$$
To show that $G_{\beta \gamma}G_{\gamma \delta} = G_{\beta \delta}$, note that, though two phase functions may differ from one another by more than one coordinate change, two different coordinate changes define the same transformation of the space $\{a(x,\theta)\}/{{\sim}}$, provided that the underlying changes of the coordinate $x$ are the same.
\[example:xi=kx\] Let $L$ be given by the equation $\xi=kx$ in ${{\Bbb R}}^2$. Assume that $k\neq 0$. Consider two phase functions of $x=x_{\beta}=x_{\gamma}$; $$\varphi _{\beta}(x)= k\frac{x^2}{2};$$ $$\varphi _{\gamma}(x,\theta) = x\theta - k^{-1}\frac{\theta
^2}{2}$$ The phase function $\varphi _{\gamma}$ can be obtained from $\varphi _{\beta} - \operatorname{sgn}(k) \frac{\theta ^2}{2}$ by a coordinate change $$g_{\beta
\gamma}(x)=x;$$ $$\rho _{\beta
\gamma}(x,\theta)=\sqrt{|k|}x-\frac{\operatorname{sgn}(k)}{\sqrt{|k|}}\theta$$ The transition functions act as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\frac{kx^2}{2}}a(x)|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \mapsto \nonumber
\\
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}e^{\operatorname{sgn}(k)\frac{\pi i}{4}}\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}(\frac{kx^2}{2} - \operatorname{sgn}(k)\frac{\theta ^2}{2})}a(x) d\theta
|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}
\mapsto \\
\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{{\frac{1}{2}}}}\sqrt{|k|}e^{\operatorname{sgn}(k)\frac{\pi
i}{4}}\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}(x\theta - \frac{\theta ^2}{2k})}a(x) d\theta
|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, an element of $V_{\beta}$ is a function of $x$ and $\hbar$. An element of $V_{\gamma}$ is a function of $x, \theta,$ and $\hbar$, modulo equivalence $$i\hbar \partial _{\theta}a {\sim}(x-k^{-1}\theta)a$$ In every equivalence class there is unique function depending on theta and $\hbar$ and not on $x$. The transition function acts by taking $a(x, \hbar)$, multiplying it by $\sqrt{|k|}e^{\operatorname{sgn}(k)\frac{\pi i}{4}}$, and then rewriting it as a function of $\theta $ and $\hbar$ using the above equivalence relation.
Let us introduce a special class of phase functions generalizing the above example, cf. [@GS]. For any $\beta$, choose coordinates on $U _{\alpha (\beta)}$ such that $x=(x_1, x_2)$ where $x_1 \in {{\Bbb R}}^{n_1}$, $x_2 \in {{\Bbb R}}^{n_2}$, $n_1 + n_2 = n$, such that $L$ can be defined by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:parametrization of L}
\xi _1 & = & F _{x_1}(x_1, \xi _2) \nonumber \\
x_2 & = & -F_{\xi _2}(x_1, \xi _2)\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi _1, \xi _2$ are coordinates dual to $x_1, x_2$. This is equivalent to the requirement that the projection of $L$ to $\{\xi
_1 = x_2 =0 \}$ along $\{\xi _2= x_1 =0 \}$ is an isomorphism on ${U_{\beta}}$.
Now, put $\theta = (\xi _1, \xi _2)$ and $$\label{eq:definition of a phase function}
\varphi _{\beta}(x, \theta) = \varphi (x, \theta) =x_2 \xi _2 +
F(x_1, \xi _2) + {\frac{1}{2}}(\xi _1 - F_{x_1})^2$$ This is a local phase function for $L$.
For the above phase functions, it is easy to see that $V_{\beta}$ as a ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-module is isomorphic to ${C^{\infty}}(L \cap
{U_{\beta}})[[\hbar]]$. Indeed, observe that the restriction of the above map to $\{x_1, 0, 0, \xi _2\}$ is a local diffeomorphism with $L$; on the other hand, the map $a(x_1, \xi _2) \mapsto (a
\operatorname{mod} {\sim}) \in V_{\beta}$ is an isomorphism.
More precisely, the equivalence relation for $a$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:equivalence relation for a, special
case}
i\hbar \frac{\partial a}{\partial \xi _1} {\sim}(\xi _1 -
F_{x_1})a \nonumber \\
i\hbar \frac{\partial a}{\partial \xi _2} {\sim}(x_2 + F_{\xi _2})a\end{aligned}$$ This equivalence allows to identify elements of $V_{\beta}$ with functions of $x_1$, $\xi _2$, $\hbar$. Under this identification, the algebra ${{\Bbb A}}^{\hbar}_{U_{\beta}}$ acts by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:action of A:special case} x_1 & \mapsto & x_1 \nonumber
\\
x_2 & \mapsto & i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi _2} -
\frac{\partial F}{\partial \xi _2} \nonumber \\
\xi _1 & \mapsto & i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} +
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_1} \\
\xi _2 & \mapsto & -\xi _2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In other words, locally, $$\label{eq:V as induced}
{{\Bbb A}}^{\hbar}_{U_{\beta}} / I_F$$ where $I_F$ is the left ideal generated by the local equations $x_2 + F_{\xi _2}$, $\xi _1 - F_{x_1}$ of $L$.
Now let us describe the transition functions for this special choice of the phase functions. This will generalize Example \[example:xi=kx\].
Assume that on ${U_{\beta}}$ $L$ is presented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L on intersections 1}
\xi _1 & = & F_{x_1}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \nonumber \\
\xi _2 & = & F_{x_2}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \nonumber \\
x_3 & = & - F_{\xi _3}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \\
x_4 & = & -F_{\xi _4}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4)\end{aligned}$$ and on $U _{\gamma}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L on intersections 2}
\xi _1 & = & G_{x_1}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \nonumber \\
x _2 & = &- G_{\xi_2}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \nonumber \\
\xi_3 & = & G_{x _3}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4) \\
x_4 & = & -G_{\xi _4}(x_1, x_2, \xi _3, \xi _4)\end{aligned}$$ This means that the Hessian matrix $\operatorname{Hess}_{{\xi_2},
{x_3}}(F)$ is nondegenerate. If $a_{\gamma} = G_{\beta \gamma}
(a_{\beta})$, then the following two expressions should be the same: $$\begin{aligned}
\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}(\xi _3 x _3 + \xi _4 x_4 + F + {\frac{1}{2}}(\xi _1 -
F_{x_1})^2 + {\frac{1}{2}}(\xi _2- F_{x_2})^2)} a_{\beta}(x_1, x_2, \xi
_3, \xi _4) d\xi _1 d\xi _2 d\xi _3 d\xi _4 = \nonumber \\
\int e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}(\xi _2 x _2 + \xi _4 x_4 + G + {\frac{1}{2}}(\xi _1 -
G_{x_1})^2 + {\frac{1}{2}}(\xi _3- G_{x_3})^2)} a_{\gamma}(x_1, x_3, \xi
_2, \xi _4) d\xi _1 d\xi _2 d\xi _3 d\xi _4 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, as above, we use the rule $$\label{eq:Gaussian integral}
\frac{1}{\sqrt {2 \pi \hbar}} \int e ^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}k x^2 /2} dx =
\frac{1}{\sqrt {ik}},$$ $k \neq 0$, where we choose the branch of the square root $$\sqrt {r e^{i\varphi}} = {\sqrt {r}} e ^{i\varphi /2}, \;
\varphi \neq \pi$$.
Thus, $$\label{eq:transition functions in terms of
Fourier}
e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}G}a_{\gamma} = e^{\frac{\pi i}{4}(n_3 -
n_2)}\operatorname{Fourier}_{\xi _3 \to x_3;\; x_2 \to -\xi _2}
(e ^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}F} a_{\beta})$$ Here, for $x \in {{\Bbb R}}^N$, $$\label{eq:Fourier}
(\operatorname{Fourier} f) (\xi) = \frac{1}{ ({2 \pi
\hbar})^{N/2}} \int e ^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}x\xi} f(x) dx$$ It remains to make sense of an expression $$\label{eq:Fourier 1}
\operatorname{Fourier} e^ {{\frac{i}{\hbar}}F(y)}a(y)$$ where $F$ is a smooth function with an isolated critical point $y_0$ at which the Hessian is nondegenerate. We define this via a well known asymptotic expansion
$$\label{eq:statfaza}
\operatorname{Fourier} e^ {{\frac{i}{\hbar}}F(y)}a(y) = e^ {{\frac{i}{\hbar}}G(\eta)}
\exp (\frac{\pi i}{4}\operatorname{sgn}\operatorname{Hess}
_{y_0}F)|\operatorname{Hess}
_{y_0}F)|^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sum _{k=0}^{\infty}b_k (\eta) \hbar ^k$$
Here $G(\eta)$ is defined by $$G(\eta) = \eta y + F(y),$$ $y$ being the solution of $$\eta + F'(y) = 0$$ (the Legendre transform of $F$).
\[rmk:Fourier for formal series\] Let us stress that the above expansion makes sense for a power series $F$ with nondegenerate Hessian and for a power series $a(y)$. Then $G$ and $b$ are also power series. For the Fourier transform this was already explained in \[sss:weil\] and \[sssss:weil\].
For open subsets ${U_{\beta}}$ and $U_{\gamma}$ put $$\label{eq:Maslov cocycle 2 1}
c_{\beta \gamma} = \frac{1}{2}
\operatorname{signature}\operatorname{Hess}_{{\xi_2}, {x_3}}(F)$$ By theorem \[thm:Maslov cocycle 2\], the cochain $c$ is a $\frac{1}{2} {{\Bbb Z}}$ - valued Čech one-cocycle of $L$ which is cohomologous to a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued cocycle representing the Maslov class of $L$.
Let $\alpha = \xi dx$ be the canonical one-form; since $d\alpha =
\omega$, $\alpha |L$ is closed. The choice of local phase functions allows us to represent it by a Čech one-cocycle $\alpha _L$ with values in ${{\Bbb R}}$: $$\label{eq:alpha}\alpha_{\beta \gamma} = \varphi _{\beta} - \varphi _{\gamma}$$ on $L$. The right hand side is locally constant since for all $\beta$ $d\varphi _{\beta} = \alpha$ on $L$. We have proven the following statement.
\[prop:classical approximation of V\] The sheaf $V$ defined via local modules $V_{\beta}$ and transition functions $G_{\beta \gamma}$ is a sheaf of ${{\Bbb A}}^{\hbar} \otimes
_{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {{{\Bbb K}}}$-modules supported on $L$. Locally, $V
{\overset{\sim}{\to}}|\Omega _L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}} {{\Bbb K}}$, and the transition functions are of the form $$G_{\beta \gamma} = e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L + \frac{\pi i}{2} \mu _L} g
_{\beta \gamma}(\hbar)$$ where $\mu _L$ is a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued cocycle defining the Maslov class of $L$ and $g_{\beta \gamma} = 1
(\operatorname {mod} \hbar)$
\[dfn:Hormander module\] We denote the above sheaf of modules by $V _L$.
The Lagrangian jet bundle
=========================
Next we observe that $V_L$ is the sheaf of horizontal sections of a module over the algebra of jets of functions on ${T^*X}$ with the star product constructed above. This module of jets will be equipped with a flat connection compatible with the canonical connection in the bundle of jet algebras.
First, define, for an open subset ${U_{\beta}}$ and a phase function $\varphi = \varphi _{\beta}$, $$\label{eq:module J}
J_{\beta} = \{e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi _{\beta}(x+{\widehat{x}}, \theta + {\widehat{\theta}})}
a(x, \theta;{\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}}; \hbar)|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}\}/ {\sim}$$ where $(x,\theta)$ are in the preimage of $L \cap {U_{\beta}}$ under the map $(x,\theta) \mapsto (x, d_x \varphi (x, \theta))$ and $$\label{eq:eqivalence for jet module}
e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi (x+{\widehat{x}}, \theta + {\widehat{\theta}})} \varphi _{\theta}
(x+{\widehat{x}}, \theta + {\widehat{\theta}})a|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} {\sim}i\hbar e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi
(x+{\widehat{x}}, \theta + {\widehat{\theta}})} a _{{\widehat{\theta}}} |dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ Locally, $J_{\beta}$ is isomorphic to the space of sections on ${U_{\beta}}$ of the bundle of jets of half-densities on $L$ (${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]$-valued).
One defines the transition functions $J_{\beta} {\overset{\sim}{\to}}J_{\gamma}$ on ${U_{\beta}}\cap {U_{\gamma}}$ and the action of $\pi ^*
\operatorname{jets} {{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$. The latter is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\widehat{\xi}}^m: e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi}a |dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \mapsto e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi}(i\hbar
\partial _{{\widehat{x}}^m}a - \varphi _{{\widehat{x}}^m}a)|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \nonumber \\
&{\widehat{x}}^m : e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi}a |dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \mapsto e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi}
{\widehat{x}}^m a |dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The transition functions corresponding to a change act by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eqivalence for jet module 1}
&a(x_{\beta}, \theta) \mapsto \\
&a(g_{\beta \gamma}(x_{\gamma}),
\rho_{\beta \gamma}(x_\gamma, \theta); g_{\beta \gamma}(x_{\gamma}
+ {\widehat{x}})-x_{\beta},
\rho_{\beta \gamma}(x_\gamma + {\widehat{x}}, \theta + {\widehat{\theta}})-\rho_{\beta
\gamma}(x_\gamma, \theta))\times \nonumber \\
&\times|\operatorname{det} \frac{\partial \rho_{\beta
\gamma}(x_\gamma + {\widehat{x}}, \theta +
\widehat{\theta}))}{\partial{\theta}}|^{-1}
|\operatorname{det}g_{\beta \gamma}'(x_{\gamma} + {\widehat{x}})|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
One defines also the flat connection $$\nabla = (\frac{\partial}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial}{\partial {\widehat{x}}}) dx = \sum (\frac{\partial}{\partial x^m } -
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\widehat{x}}^m }) dx^m$$
One gets a bundle of $\pi ^* \operatorname{jets} {{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}$-modules with a flat connection which is compatible with the canonical connection on the jet bundle. We would like to modify this construction as follows. Recall that we have constructed in the proof of proposition \[prop:theta on T\*X\] a multiplication on the jet algebra $J_{T^*X}[[\hbar]]$ and a Fedosov connection whose lifting has the curvature ${\frac{1}{i\hbar}}\omega$. We denote the resulting bundle of algebras by ${\cal{W}}_{{T^*X}}$. We would like to get a bundle of ${\cal{W}}_{{T^*X}}$-modules with a flat connection which is compatible with the Fedosov connection. To achieve that, we have to modify our module $J$.
\[dfn:Hormander jets\] For a point $\bf x$ of $L \cap U_{\beta}$ represented by $(x,\theta)$, put $$\label{eq:new J}
(J^H_L)_{\bf x} = \{e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi_{\beta}(x,\theta; {\widehat{x}},
{\widehat{\theta}}) }a(x, \theta; {\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}}; \hbar) \} / {\sim}$$ where $$\label{eq:phase function at a point}
\varphi _{\beta}(x,\theta; {\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}})=\varphi_{\beta}(x + {\widehat{x}},
\theta + {\widehat{\theta}})-\varphi_{\beta}(x,\theta) - {\widehat{x}}\partial _{x}\varphi_{\beta} (x,\theta) - {\widehat{\theta}}\partial _{\theta}\varphi
_{\beta}(x,\theta)$$ and $$\label{eq:equivalence in Hormander jets}
i\hbar \partial _{{\widehat{\theta}}} a - \partial _{{\widehat{\theta}}} \varphi
_{\beta}(x,\theta; {\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}}) {\sim}0$$ Define the action of ${\cal{W}}_{U_{\beta}}$ on the above space by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat{\xi}}:e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi_{\beta} }a \mapsto e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi_{\beta}
}(i\hbar \partial _{{\widehat{x}}} a - \partial _{{\widehat{x}}}\varphi _{\beta}a)
\nonumber \\
{\widehat{x}}:e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi_{\beta} }a \mapsto e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\varphi_{\beta}
}{\widehat{x}}a\end{aligned}$$
The transition functions define a structure of a bundle of ${\cal W}_L \otimes
{\mathbb{K}}$-modules on $J^H_L$. The formula $$\nabla = (\frac{\partial}{\partial x} - \frac{{\widehat{\xi}}}{i\hbar})dx +
(\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi} + \frac{{\widehat{x}}}{i\hbar})d\xi$$ defines a flat connection on $J^H_L$.
[**Proof.**]{} Let us check how the above definition differs from the one given by , . There are two differences, namely the constant term and the linear term of $\varphi (x+{\widehat{x}},
\theta+{\widehat{\theta}})$. But these two differences exactly mirror the differences between the two bundles of algebras with connection, namely $(\pi ^*{\operatorname{jets}}{{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}, \pi ^* \nabla _{\operatorname{can}})$ and $({\cal{W}}_{T^*X}, \nabla)$; they disappear after we modify the bundle and the connection as in \[ss:Differential operators and the deformation quantization\]. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
&\varphi
(x+{\widehat{x}}, \theta+{\widehat{\theta}}) = \varphi (x, \theta) + {\widehat{x}}\varphi _x(x,
\theta) +{\widehat{\theta}}\varphi _{\theta}(x, \theta) + \varphi(x,\theta;
{\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}}) = \nonumber \\
&=\varphi (x, \theta) + \xi {\widehat{x}}+ \varphi(x,\theta; {\widehat{x}},
{\widehat{\theta}})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ if the point $(x,\theta)$ corresponds to a point of $L$. After identifying ${\pi ^*{\operatorname{jets}}{{{\cal R}D^{\frac{1}{2}}_X}}}$ with $W^{\operatorname{fin}}$ (cf. ), we get a bundle of $W^{\operatorname{fin}}$-modules with a compatible connection; after the gauge transformation $\exp (
\frac{1}{i\hbar}\xi {\widehat{x}})$ is applied to the module, it becomes a bundle of ${\cal W} \otimes \mathbb{K}$-modules. In coordinates, the connection is equal to $$\nabla = {\frac{i}{\hbar}}d\varphi + (\partial _x - {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{\xi}})dx +
(\partial _{\xi} + {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{x}})d\xi.$$ But $d\varphi = \alpha $ on $L$; so, after adding ${\frac{1}{i\hbar}}\xi dx $ to the connection on $W$, the first term vanishes.
\[example:jets as W-module\] Let $L$ be given by the equation $\xi ^m = \varphi _{x^m}(x)$ on $T^*{{\Bbb R}}^n$. Then sections of the modified jet bundle are formal expressions $$e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}(\varphi (x+{\widehat{x}}) - \varphi (x) -{\widehat{x}}\varphi
_x(x))}a(x,{\widehat{x}})|dx|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ on which ${\widehat{x}}^m$ acts by multiplication and $\xi ^m$ by $i\hbar \partial _{{\widehat{x}}^m}$. The connection $$(\partial _x - {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{\xi}})dx +
(\partial _{\xi} + {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{x}})d\xi$$ acts at the level of $a(x,{\widehat{x}})$ by $(\partial _x - \partial
_{{\widehat{x}}})dx$.
\[example:jets as W-module 2\] Let $L$ be given by the equation $x ^m = -\psi _{\xi^m}(\xi)$ on $T^*{{\Bbb R}}^n$. Then sections of the modified jet bundle are formal expressions $$e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}({\widehat{x}}{\widehat{\theta}}+ \psi (\xi+{\widehat{\theta}}) - \psi(\xi) -{\widehat{\theta}}\psi _{\xi}(\xi))}a(\xi,{\widehat{x}}, {\widehat{\theta}})|d\xi|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}
\operatorname{mod}{\sim}$$ where $i\hbar \partial _{{\widehat{\theta}}}(e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\ldots}a \ldots) {\sim}0$.The space of such local sections is isomorphic to the space of expressions $$e^{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}({\widehat{x}}{\widehat{\theta}}+ \psi (\xi+{\widehat{\theta}}) - \psi(\xi) -{\widehat{\theta}}\psi _{\xi}(\xi))}a(\xi, {\widehat{\theta}})|d\xi|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ on which $W$ acts, at the level of the factor $a$, by $${\widehat{\xi}}^m: a \mapsto -i\hbar \partial _{{\widehat{\theta}}}a$$ $${\widehat{x}}^m: a \mapsto i\hbar \frac{\partial a}{\partial {\widehat{\theta}}} +
\psi (\xi + {\widehat{\theta}}) - \psi (\xi)$$
The connection $$(\partial _x - {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{\xi}})dx +
(\partial _{\xi} + {\frac{1}{i\hbar}}{\widehat{x}})d\xi$$ acts at the level of $a(\xi, {\widehat{\theta}})$ by $(\partial _{\xi} - \partial
_{{\widehat{\theta}}})d\xi$.
The above two examples generalize to the case of any special phase function . From this one deduces
\[prop:hormander jet bundle\] One has for the Lagrangian module $V_L$: $$V_L {\overset{\sim}{\to}}(J_L^H)^{\nabla} \otimes {\cal E}_{\frac{i}{\hbar}\alpha_L}$$ where the first factor in the right hand side stands for the sheaf of horizontal sections of $J_L^H$ and $\alpha _L$ is an ${{\Bbb R}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the cohomology class of $\alpha = \xi dx$ on $L$.
Furthermore, from the explicit formulas for the transition functions one observes the following
\[prop:filtration on Hormander jets\] The fiber of $J_L^H$ is isomorphic to ${{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar, {\widehat{x}}]] \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {{\Bbb K}}$. If we put $|{\widehat{x}}| = 1$ and $|\hbar | = 2$ and consider the filtration $F^m = \prod _{p \geq m}\{a|\,|a| = p\}$, then this filtration induces a filtration on $J_L^H$ which is compatible with the similar filtration on $W$.
The main statement {#section:main}
==================
We have defined a deformation quantization ${\mathbb{A}}_{T^*X}$ (subsection \[ss:Differential operators and the deformation quantization\]) and a sheaf of $\mathbb{A}_{T^*X} \otimes
\mathbb{K}$-modules $V_L$ (section \[s:Hormander in deformation quantization\]). Now, using Darboux-Weinstein theorem, we can identify a neighborhood of $L$ in $T^*X$ with a neighborhood ${\stackrel{0}{T^*}}L$ of $L$ in $T^*L$. We can construct the algebra ${\mathbb{A}}^0 _{T^*L}$ and the module $V^0_L$ using this identification, and choosing the zero section $L$ as a Lagrangian submanifold of $T^*L$.
\[prop:can up to in\] There exists an isomorphism of algebras on ${\stackrel{0}{T^*}}L$ $${\mathbb{A}}_{T^*X} {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\mathbb{A}}^0_{T^*L}$$ which is canonical up to a canonical inner automorphism.
Indeed, because of the remark in the end of the proof of \[prop:theta on T\*X\], one can apply Theorem \[thm:modified Fedosov construction\].
\[thm:main\] Let us identify the algebras ${\mathbb{A}}_{T^*X}$ and ${\mathbb{A}}^0_{T^*L}$ using Proposition \[prop:can up to in\]. There exists an isomorphism of modules $$V_L {\overset{\sim}{\to}}V^0_L \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {\cal E}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L +
\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$$ where $\alpha _L$ is an ${{\Bbb R}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the cohomology class of $\alpha = \xi dx$ on $L$, $\mu _L$ is a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the Maslov class of $L$, and ${\cal E}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L + \frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$ is the ${{\Bbb K}}$-valued local system on $L$ with the transition functions $\exp({{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L + \frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L})$.
[**[Proof.]{}**]{} We have proven that ${\mathbb{A}}_{T^*X}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of horizontal sections of the bundle of algebras ${\cal{W}}_{T^*X}$, and there is a compatible isomorphism of $V_L$ to the module of horizontal sections of the bundle of modules $J_L^H$. Similarly, ${\mathbb{A}}^0_{T^*L}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of horizontal sections of the bundle of algebras ${\cal{W}}^0_{T^*L}$, and that there is a compatible isomorphism of $V^0_L$ to the module of horizontal sections of the bundle of modules $J_L^{H, 0}$. (The algebra isomorphisms are canonical up to a canonical inner automorphism). Therefore the statement of the theorem follows from
\[prop:main\] 1). There is a connection-preserving isomorphism of bundles of algebras on ${\stackrel{0}{T^*}}L$ $${\cal{W}}_{T^*X} {\overset{\sim}{\to}}{\cal{W}}^0_{T^*L}$$ which is canonical up to a conjugation by a canonical invertible horizontal element.
2).There is a connection-preserving isomorphism of bundles of modules $$J_L^H {\overset{\sim}{\to}}J_L^{H,0} \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {\cal E}_{
\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$$ compatible with the above isomorphism of bundles of algebras.
[**[Proof of Proposition.]{}**]{} All our local phase functions will be of the special form . Start with the transition functions for the bundle of algebras ${\cal{W}}_{T^*X}$; $${\widetilde{G}}_{\alpha \beta} : U_{\alpha} \cap U_{\beta} \to K \to {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$$ Similarly, consider the lifted transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^0 _{\alpha \beta}$ for the bundle ${\cal{W}}^0 _{T^*L}$. The group $K$ and its embedding to ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$ are explained in the end of \[ss:Differential operators and the deformation quantization\]. The lifted Fedosov connection, in local coordinates, is given by the formula $$\label{eq: the canonical connection}
(\partial / \partial x - {\widehat{\xi}}/i\hbar) dx + (\partial / \partial \xi + {\widehat{x}}/i\hbar)d\xi$$ Here and below we call the connection given by this formula [*the canonical connection.*]{}
Now replace ${\widetilde{G}}_{\alpha \beta}$ by an equivalent set of transition functions $${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}} _{\alpha \beta} = {\widetilde{H}}_{\alpha} {\widetilde{G}}_{\alpha \beta} {\widetilde{H}}_{\beta}^{-1}$$ where $${\widetilde{H}}_{\alpha}: U_{\alpha} \to {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$$ are defined as follows.
Let $L\cap {U_{\alpha}}$ be given by . Define
$$\sigma_{\alpha}=\exp{\frac{i}{\hbar}}( F(x_1 + {\widehat{x}}_1, \xi _2 + {\widehat{\xi}}_2)- F(x_1, \xi _2 )-F_{x_1}(x_1 , \xi _2 ){\widehat{x}}_1 -F_{\xi_2}(x_1 , \xi _2 ){\widehat{\xi}}_2)$$ in ${\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$. Now consider the local coordinate change $$(x_1, x_2) \mapsto (x_1, \xi_2); \;\; (\xi _1, \xi _2) \mapsto (\xi _1, -x_2)$$ and a symplectic transformation (the partial Fourier transform) $${\bf F}_{\alpha}: {\widehat{x}}\mapsto ({\widehat{x}}_1, {\widehat{\xi}}_2); \;\; {\widehat{\xi}}\mapsto ({\widehat{\xi}}_1, -{\widehat{x}}_2)$$ We fix liftings ${\widetilde {\bf F}}_{\alpha}$ to ${\widetilde{\operatorname{Sp}}}$ (counterclockwise rotation in $({\widehat{x}}_2 , {\widehat{\xi}}_2)$ space). Put $${\widetilde{H}}_{\alpha} = {\widetilde {\bf F}_{\alpha}}\sigma_{\alpha}$$
Note that the above formula is precisely the Maslov canonical operator, defined here at the jet level.
We get the new bundle of algebras, which we denote by ${\cal{W}}^{\operatorname{new}}_{T^*X}$. The connection on $J^{H}_L$ is given by the same formula as the canonical connection. The action of ${\cal{W}}^{\operatorname{new}}_{T^*X}$ on $J^{H}_L$ is, in our new local coordinates, the standard one: ${\widehat{x}}$ acts by multiplication,and ${\widehat{\xi}}$ by $i\hbar
\frac{\partial}{\partial{{\widehat{x}}}}$. Note that, because of this, the transition functions of the module $J^L_H$ determine the transition functions of the bundle of algebras ${\cal{W}}^{\operatorname{new}}_{T^*X}$. The same is true about $J^{H,0}_L$ and ${\cal{W}}^{0}_{T^*L}$.
We claim that:
1\) The transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}}_ {\beta \gamma}$ take values in the subgroup $P$ (cf. Lemma \[lemma:estabilizadores\]; note also that $K$ is a subgroup of $P$).
2\) The image of ${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}}_ {\beta \gamma}$ in $P/N$ is equal to the image of $\mu _{\beta \gamma}{\widetilde{G}}^{0}_ {\beta \gamma}$.
Here $\mu _{\beta \gamma}$ is the cocycle representing the Maslov class, as in , with values in ${{\Bbb Z}}\subset {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0}$.
3\) The transition functions of the bundle of modules $J^H_L$ are equal to $\exp({\bf {\alpha}}_{\beta \gamma}) w({\widetilde{G}}^{0}_ {\beta \gamma})$ where ${\bf \alpha}_{\beta \gamma}$ is the specific cocycle representing the 1-cohomology class $\alpha$ of $L$ as in $$w: P \to \operatorname{Aut} ({{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}, \hbar]])$$ is the restriction of the degenerate Weil representation $$w: {\widetilde{G}}_{\geq 0} \to \operatorname{Aut}({\widehat{V}}^0_{\operatorname{Weil}})$$ to the subgroup preserving the subspace $V_{T=0} = {{\Bbb C}}[[{\widehat{x}}, \hbar]]$.
To prove the claim, observe first the following.
A\) The transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}}_ {\beta \gamma}$ and ${\widetilde{G}}^{0}_ {\beta \gamma}$ are the same if they correspond to a coordinate change $g_{\alpha(\beta) \alpha( \gamma)}$ on $X$, and $U_{\beta}$, $U_{\gamma}$ are such that the projections of $U_{\beta} \cap L$ and $U_{\gamma} \cap L$ to the base are bijective. Similarly, the transition functions of $J^{H}_L$ and $J^{H,0}_L$ are the same, and are the image of the above under $w$.
B\) The same is true modulo $N$ if the transition functions $G^{\operatorname{new}}_{\beta \gamma}$ correspond to a change of subdivision $x = (x_1, x_2)$. This follows from the formula , or rather from its version for the power series (cf. [@K]). More precisely, the transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}}_ {\beta \gamma}$ are given by $$\mu_ {\beta \gamma}\exp (\frac{1}{i\hbar}\sum \hbar ^{h_1 (\Gamma)} c_{\Gamma})$$ where $\Gamma$ are all connected graphs; the sum of the terms with ${h_1 (\Gamma)}=0,\;1$ is exactly the transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^{0}_ {\beta \gamma}$. Similarly, the transition functions of the module $J_L^H$ are given by $$\exp(\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu_ {\beta \gamma}) (\frac{1}{i\hbar}\sum \hbar ^{h_1 (\Gamma)} c_{\Gamma})$$ and the transition functions of the module $J^{H,0}_L$ are given by the sum of the terms with ${h_1 (\Gamma)}=0,\;1$. Again, we see directly that the transition functions of the bundle of modules are the image under $w$ of the transition function of the bundle of algebras.
C\) It remains to compare our transition functions for the rest of coordinate changes, namely, when the coordinate change corresponds to a coordinate change on the base and the subdivision $x = (x_1, x_2)$ has $n_2 > 0$. Observe that all the transition functions that we are considering are given by universal formulas in terms of two jets of coordinate systems on the base, a jet of a Lagrangian, and two subdivisions $x = (x_1, x_2)$. On an open dense subset, the transition functions of the type C) can be expressed through the transition functions of types A), B). But, because of the above arguments, all the equalities that we are proving are true on an open dense subset; therefore, they are true everywhere.
We see now that the transition functions ${\widetilde{G}}^{\operatorname{new}}_ {\beta \gamma}$ and ${\widetilde{G}}^{0}_ {\beta \gamma}$ differ by a Čech one-cocycle with values in $N$, invariant under the canonical connection $(\partial / \partial x - {\widehat{\xi}}/i\hbar) dx + (\partial / \partial \xi + {\widehat{x}}/i\hbar)d\xi$. But it is easy to see that any such cocycle is cohomologous to the identity. In fact, finding a zero-cochain of which it is a coboundary reduces to an iterative procedure whose individual steps are to trivialize a Čech one-cocycle with coefficients in a sheaf of smooth sections of a $C^{\infty}$ vector bundle.
The main statement in the Fedosov form
--------------------------------------
We finish by identifying the Maslov-Hörmander construction in deformation quantization in Fedosov terms. Our first goal is to determine the structure of the associated graded module $\operatorname{gr}_F
J_L^H$.
### The flat bundle $(W/WT_L ^{\perp})\otimes |\Omega
_L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$
For any symplectic $M$ and any Lagrangian submanifold $L$, let $T_L^{\perp}$ be the conormal bundle of $L$, viewed as a subbundle of the Weyl bundle $W_L$. Obviously, $W/WT_L ^{\perp}$ is a $W$-module. Let $\nabla$ be a Fedosov connection compatible with $L$. Choose a flat connection on the bundle of half-densities$ |\Omega
_L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$. The tensor product $(W/WT_L ^{\perp})\otimes |\Omega _L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}$ becomes a $W$-module with a flat connection which is compatible with the Fedosov connection on $W$.
The following is easy to see from the explicit definition of $J_L^H$.
\[prop:grJ\] There is an isomorphism of bundles of $W \otimes {{\Bbb K}}$-modules $$\operatorname{gr}_F (J_L^H \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {\cal E}^{-1}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L +
\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}){\overset{\sim}{\to}}(W/WT_L ^{\perp}\otimes |\Omega
_L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}})$$ where $\alpha _L$ is an ${{\Bbb R}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the cohomology class of $\alpha = \xi dx$ on $L$, $\mu _L$ is a ${{\Bbb Z}}$-valued one-cocycle representing the Maslov class of $L$, and ${\cal E}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L + \frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$ is the ${{\Bbb K}}$-valued local system on $L$ with the transition functions $\exp({{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L + \frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L})$.
\[thm:main1\]1) The deformed algebra ${{\Bbb A}}_{T^*X}$ is isomorphic to the algebra of horizontal sections of the bundle $W$. This isomorphism is canonical up to a canonical inner automorphism.
2\) Under the identification from the statement 1), the Lagrangian module $V_L^H$ is isomorphic to the sheaf of horizontal sections of $(W/WT_L ^{\perp}\otimes |\Omega
_L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}) \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {\cal E}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L +
\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$.
Statement 1) follows from Theorem \[thm:modified Fedosov construction\]. Statement 2) follows from Proposition \[prop:main\] and the following
\[prop:main1\] The bundles of $W_L$-modules with connections are isomorphic: $$J_L^H {\overset{\sim}{\to}}(W/WT_L ^{\perp}\otimes |\Omega
_L|^{{\frac{1}{2}}}) \otimes _{{{\Bbb C}}[[\hbar]]} {\cal E}_{{\frac{i}{\hbar}}\alpha _L +
\frac{\pi i}{2}\mu _L}$$
[**Proof.**]{} Proposition \[prop:main\] reduces this statement to the case when $L$ is the zero section of the cotangent bundle, where it is easy to see explicitly.
[ABCDEF]{}
F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, D. Sternheimer, [*Deformation theory and quantization*]{}, Ann. Phys. [**111**]{} (1977). p. 61-151
R. Bezrukavnikov, D. Kaledin, [*Fedosov quantization in algebraic context*]{}, math.AG/0309290.
M. Bordemann, [*(Bi)modules, morphismes et réduction des star-produits: le cas symplectique, feuilletages et obstructions*]{}, math.QA/0403334v1 (2004).
P. Bressler, R. Nest, B. Tsygan, [*Riemann-Roch theorems via deformation quantization. I, II*]{}, Adv. Math. [**167**]{} (2002), no. 1, 1–25, 26–73.
P. Bressler, Y. Soibelman, [*Mirror symmetry and deformation quantization*]{}, hep-th 0202128 A. D’Agnolo, P. Polescello, [*Stacks of twisted modules and integral transforms*]{}, math.AG/0307387 B. Fedosov, [*Deformation Quantization and Index Theorem*]{}, Akademie Verlag, 1994.
V. Guillemin, S. Sternberg, [*Symplectic techniques in physics*]{}, second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
V. Guillemin, S. Sternberg, [*Some problems in integral geometry and some related problems in microlocal analysis*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**101**]{} (1979), 915-955.
V. Guillemin, A. Uribe, [*Reduction and the trace formula*]{}, Journal Differential Geometry [**32**]{} (1990), 315-347. L. Hörmander, [*Fourier integral operators I*]{}, Acta Mathematica [**127**]{} (1971), no. 1-2, 79–183.
D. Kazhdan, in: Quantum fields and strings: a course for mathematicians, AMS, vol. 1, 1996. M. Kashiwara,[*Quantization of contact manifolds*]{}, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**32**]{}, 1 (1996), 1-7 M. Karasev, [*Quantization and coherent states over Lagrangian submanifolds*]{}, Russian J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1995), no. 3, 393–400. M. Kontsevich,Y. Soibelman,[*Homological mirror symmetry and torus fibrations*]{}, Symplectic geometry and mirror symmetry (Seoul, 2000), 203–263, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2001.
J. Leray, [*Lagrangian analysis and quantum mechanics,*]{} Studies in applied mathematics, [**7–9**]{}, Adv. Math. Suppl. Stud., 8, Academic Press, New York, 1983.
V. Maslov, [*Operational methods*]{}, Mir, Moscow, 1976.
R. Nest, B. Tsygan, [*Formal versus analytic index theorems*]{}, IMRN [**11**]{}, 1996, 557-564
A. Mishchenko, V. Shatalov, B. Sternin,[*Lagrangian manifolds and Maslov operator*]{}, Springer Lectures in Soviet Mathematics, Springer, 1990. V. Nazaikinskii, B.-W. Schulze, B. Sternin, [*Quantization methods in differential equations*]{}, Differential and Integral Equations and their applications, Taylor and Francis, Ltd, London, 2002.
R. Nest, B. Tsygan, [*Deformations of symplectic Lie algebroids, deformations of holomorphic symplectic structures, and index theorems*]{}, Asian J. Math. [**5**]{} (2001), no. 4, 599–635
P. Polescello, P. Schapira, [*Stack of deformation quantization modules on complex symplectic manifolds*]{}, math.AG/0305171.
P.Seidel, [*Graded Lagrangian submanifolds*]{}, Bull. Soc.Math.France,[**128**]{} (2000), no. 1, 103–149.
S. Waldmann, [*On the representation theory of deformation quantization*]{}, in: G. Halbout (ed.), Deformation Quantization, tome 1 in: IRMA Letters in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, De Gruyter, Berlin - New York (2002), 107–133.
[^1]: The second author is supported in part by NSF grant 0830-300-L830.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We argue that most commonly used models for nuclear scattering at ultra-relativistic energies do not treat energy conservation in a consistent fashion. Demanding theoretical consistency as a minimal requirement for a realistic model, we provide a solution for the above-mentioned problem, the so-called “Parton-Based Gribov-Regge Theory”.
In order to keep a clean picture, we do not consider secondary interactions. We provide a very transparent extrapolation of the physics of more elementary interactions towards nucleus-nucleus scattering, without considering any nuclear effects due to final state interactions. In this sense we consider our model a realistic and consistent approach to describe the initial stage of nuclear collisions.
author:
- |
**H.J. Drescher$ ^{1}\protect $, M. Hladik$ ^{1,3}\protect $, S. Ostapchenko$ ^{2,1}\protect $, T. Pierog$ ^{1}\protect $,**\
**and K. Werner**$ ^{1}\protect $\
\
\
*$ ^{1}\protect $ SUBATECH, Université de Nantes – IN2P3/CNRS – EMN, Nantes, France*\
*$ ^{2}\protect $ Moscow State University, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow, Russia*\
*$ ^{3}\protect $ now at SAP AG, Berlin, Germany*
bibliography:
- 'a.bib'
title: '**On the Role of Energy$ \: \protect $Conservation in High-Energy$ \: \protect $Nuclear$ \: \protect $Scattering**\'
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this paper is to provide the theoretical framework to treat hadron-hadron scattering and the **initial stage of nucleus-nucleus collisions** at ultra-relativistic energies, in particular with view to RHIC and LHC. The knowledge of these initial collisions is crucial for any theoretical treatment of parton thermalization and a possible parton-hadron phase transition, the detection of which being the ultimate aim of all the efforts of colliding heavy ions at very high energies.
So what are the currently used models? Quite popular are **semi-classical** treatments of either partons or hadrons, in any case completely ignoring quantum mechanical interference. This is certainly quite unrealistic, and we do not want to discuss such options any further.
There are as well considerable efforts to describe nuclear collisions via solving **classical Yang-Mills equations**, which allows to calculate inclusive parton distributions [@mcl94]. This approach is to some extent orthogonal to ours being based on the assumption of the perturbative nature of the triple Pomeron coupling [@gri83]. The physical picture which stays behind the construction of [@mcl94] was outlined in [@gri83] and corresponds to perturbative interactions between individual parton cascades in hadrons, i.e. to fusion of partons of virtualities $ Q^{2}>Q_{0}^{2} $, with $ Q_{0}^{2} $ being a reasonable cutoff for QCD being applicable. Contrary to that, we believe that parton cascades interact with each other in the non-perturbative region of parton virtualities $ Q^{2}<Q_{0}^{2} $ and consider it as the interaction **between soft Pomerons**. In our scheme a relatively big value of the soft triple-Pomeron coupling should provide the necessary screening corrections which finally prevent the large increase of parton densities in the small $ x $ limit and restore the unitarity, thus leaving little room for higher twist effects in the perturbative part of the interaction.
Another approach is the so-called **Gribov-Regge theory** (GRT) [@gri68; @gri69]. This is an effective field theory, which allows multiple interactions to happen “in parallel”, with the phenomenological object called “Pomeron” representing an elementary interaction. Using the general rules of field theory, one may express cross sections in terms of a couple of parameters characterizing the Pomeron. Interference terms are crucial, they assure the unitarity of the theory. Here one observes an **inconsistency**: the fact that energy needs to be shared between many Pomerons in case of multiple scattering is well taken into account when calculating particle production (in particular in Monte Carlo applications), but energy conservation is not taken care of in cross section calculations. This is a serious problem and makes the whole approach inconsistent. Related to the above problem is the fact that different elementary interactions in case of multiple scattering are usually not treated equally, so the first interaction is usually considered to be quite different compared to the subsequent ones.
Provided factorization works for nuclear collisions, one may employ the **parton model**, which allows to calculate inclusive cross sections as a convolution of an elementary cross section with parton distribution functions, with these distribution functions taken from deep inelastic scattering. In order to get exclusive parton level cross sections, some additional assumptions are needed, which follow quite closely the Gribov-Regge approach, encountering the same difficulties.
As a solution of the above-mentioned problems, we present a new approach which we call “**Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory**”: we have a consistent treatment for calculating cross sections and particle production considering energy conservation in both cases; in addition, we introduce hard processes in a natural way, and, compared to the parton model, we can deal with exclusive cross sections without arbitrary assumptions. A single set of parameters is sufficient to fit many basic spectra in proton-proton and lepton-nucleon scattering, as well as in electron-positron annihilation (with the exception of one parameter which needs to be changed in order to optimize electron-positron transverse momentum spectra).
The basic guideline of our approach is theoretical consistency. We cannot derive everything from first principles, but we use rigorously the language of field theory to make sure not to violate basic laws of physics, which is easily done in more phenomenological treatments (see discussion above).
There are still problems and open questions: there is clearly a problem with unitarity at very high energies, which should be cured by considering screening corrections due to so-called triple-Pomeron interactions, which we do not treat rigorously at present but which is our next project.
Problems
========
Before presenting new theoretical ideas, we want to discuss the open problems in the parton model approach and in Gribov-Regge theory.
### Gribov-Regge Theory {#gribov-regge-theory .unnumbered}
Gribov-Regge theory is by construction a multiple scattering theory. The elementary interactions are realized by complex objects called “Pomerons”, who’s precise nature is not known, and which are therefore simply parameterized: the elastic amplitude $ T $ corresponding to a single Pomeron exchange is given as $$T(s,t)\sim i\, s^{\alpha _{0}+\alpha 't}$$ with a couple of parameters to be determined by experiment. Even in hadron-hadron scattering, several of these Pomerons are exchanged in parallel, see fig. \[grt\].
Using general rules of field theory (cutting rules), one obtains an expression for the inelastic cross section, $$\label{sig-grt}
\sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{inel}}=\int d^{2}b\, \left\{ 1-\exp \left( -G(s,b)\right) \right\} ,$$ where the so-called eikonal $ G(s,b) $ (proportional to the Fourier transform of $ T(s,t) $) represents one elementary interaction (a thick line in fig. \[grt\]). One can generalize to nucleus-nucleus collisions, where corresponding formulas for cross sections may be derived.
In order to calculate exclusive particle production, one needs to know how to share the energy between the individual elementary interactions in case of multiple scattering. We do not want to discuss the different recipes used to do the energy sharing (in particular in Monte Carlo applications). The point is, whatever procedure is used, this is not taken into account in the calculation of cross sections discussed above. So, actually, one is using two different models for cross section calculations and for treating particle production. Taking energy conservation into account in exactly the same way will modify the cross section results considerably.
This problem has first been discussed in [@abr92],[@bra90]. The authors claim that following from the non-planar structure of the corresponding diagrams, conserving energy and momentum in a consistent way is crucial, and therefore the incident energy has to be shared between the different elementary interactions, both real and virtual ones.
Another very unpleasant and unsatisfactory feature of most “recipes” for particle production is the fact, that the second Pomeron and the subsequent ones are treated differently than the first one, although in the above-mentioned formula for the cross section all Pomerons are considered to be identical.
### The Parton Model {#the-parton-model .unnumbered}
The standard parton model approach to hadron-hadron or also nucleus-nucleus scattering amounts to presenting the partons of projectile and target by momentum distribution functions, $ f_{h_{1}} $ and $ f_{h_{2}} $, and calculating inclusive cross sections for the production of parton jets with the squared transverse momentum $ p_{\perp }^{2} $ larger than some cutoff $ Q_{0}^{2} $ as
$$\sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{incl}}=\sum _{ij}\int dp_{\perp }^{2}\int dx^{+}\int dx^{-}f^{i}_{h_{1}}(x^{+},p_{\perp }^{2})f_{h_{2}}^{j}(x^{-},p_{\perp }^{2})\frac{d\hat{\sigma }_{ij}}{dp_{\perp }^{2}}(x^{+}x^{-}s)\theta \! \left( p_{\perp }^{2}-Q^{2}_{0}\right) ,$$ where $ d\hat{\sigma }_{ij}/dp_{\perp }^{2} $ is the elementary parton-parton cross section and $ i,j $ represent parton flavors.
This simple factorization formula is the result of cancelations of complicated diagrams (AGK cancelations) and hides therefore the complicated multiple scattering structure of the reaction. The most obvious manifestation of such a structure is the fact that at high energies ($ \sqrt{s}\gg 10 $ GeV) the inclusive cross section in proton-(anti-)proton scattering exceeds the total one, so the average number $ \bar{N}^{pp}_{\mathrm{int}} $ of elementary interactions must be greater than one: $$\bar{N}_{\mathrm{int}}^{h_{1}h_{2}}=\sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{incl}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{h_{1}h_{2}}>1\: .$$ The usual solution is the so-called eikonalization, which amounts to re-introducing multiple scattering, based on the above formula for the inclusive cross section: $$\label{sig-part}
\sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{inel}}(s)=\int d^{2}b\, \left\{ 1-\exp \left( -A(b)\, \sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{incl}}(s)\right) \right\} =\sum \sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{m}(s),$$ with $$\label{sig-m}
\sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{m}(s)=\int d^{2}b\, \frac{\left( A(b)\, \sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{incl}}(s)\right) ^{m}}{m!}\exp \left( -A(b)\, \sigma ^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{incl}}(s)\right)$$ representing the cross section for $ n $ scatterings; $ A(b) $ being the proton-proton overlap function (the convolution of two proton profiles). In this way the multiple scattering is “recovered”. The disadvantage is that this method does not provide any clue how to proceed for nucleus-nucleus ($ AB $) collisions. One usually assumes the proton-proton cross section for each individual nucleon-nucleon pair of a $ AB $ system. We can demonstrate that this assumption is incorrect (see [@dre00]).
Another problem, in fact the same one as discussed earlier for the GRT, arises in the case of exclusive calculations (event generation), since the above formulas do not provide any information on how to share the energy between many elementary interactions. The Pythia-method [@sjo87] amounts to generating the first elementary interaction according to the inclusive differential cross section, then taking the remaining energy for the second one and so on. In this way, the event generation will reproduce the theoretical inclusive spectrum for hadron-hadron interaction (by construction), as it should be. The method is, however, very arbitrary, and - even more serious - we observe the same inconsistency as in the Gribov-Regge approach: energy conservation is not at all taken care of in the above formulas for cross section calculations.
A Solution: Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory
============================================
In this paper, we present a new approach for hadronic interactions and for the initial stage of nuclear collisions, which is able to solve several of the above-mentioned problems. We provide a rigorous treatment of the multiple scattering aspect, such that questions as energy conservation are clearly determined by the rules of field theory, both for cross section and particle production calculations. In both (!) cases, energy is properly shared between the different interactions happening in parallel, see fig. \[grtpp\]
for proton-proton and fig. \[grtppa\] for proton-nucleus collisions (generalization to nucleus-nucleus is obvious).
This is the most important and new aspect of our approach, which we consider to be a first necessary step to construct a consistent model for high energy nuclear scattering.
The elementary interactions, shown as the thick lines in the above figures, are in fact a sum of a soft, a hard, and a semi-hard contribution, providing a consistent treatment of soft and hard scattering. To some extend, our approach provides a link between the Gribov-Regge approach and the parton model, we call it “Parton-based Gribov-Regge Theory”.
Parton-Parton Scattering
========================
Let us first investigate parton-parton scattering, before constructing a multiple scattering theory for hadronic and nuclear scattering.
We distinguish three types of elementary parton-parton scatterings, referred to as “soft”, “hard” and “semi-hard”, which we are going to discuss briefly in the following. The detailed derivations can be found in [@dre00].
### The Soft Contribution {#the-soft-contribution .unnumbered}
Let us first consider the pure non-perturbative contribution, where all virtual partons appearing in the internal structure of the diagram have restricted virtualities $ Q^{2}<Q^{2}_{0} $, where $ Q_{0}^{2}\simeq 1 $ GeV$ ^{2} $ is a reasonable cutoff for perturbative QCD being applicable. Such soft non-perturbative dynamics is known to dominate hadron-hadron interactions at not too high energies. Lacking methods to calculate this contribution from first principles, it is simply parameterized and graphically represented as a ‘blob’, see fig. \[fig:dsoft\]. It is traditionally assumed to correspond to multi-peripheral production of partons (and final hadrons) [@afs62] and is described by the phenomenological soft Pomeron exchange amplitude $ T_{\mathrm{soft}}\! \left( \hat{s},t\right) $ [@gri68]. The corresponding profile function is expressed via the amplitude $ T_{\mathrm{soft}} $ as $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mathrm{soft}}(\hat{s},b) & = & \frac{1}{8\pi ^{2}\hat{s}}\int d^{2}q_{\perp }\, \exp \! \left( -i\vec{q}_{\perp }\vec{b}\right) \, 2\mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{soft}}\! \left( \hat{s},-q^{2}_{\perp }\right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{2\gamma _{\mathrm{part}}^{2}}{\lambda ^{\! (2)}_{\mathrm{soft}}\! (\hat{s}/s_{0})}\left( \frac{\hat{s}}{s_{0}}\right) ^{\alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}\! (0)-1}\exp \! \left( -\frac{b^{2}}{4\lambda ^{\! (2)}_{\mathrm{soft}}\! (\hat{s}/s_{0})}\right) ,\label{soft d} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\lambda ^{\! (n)}_{\mathrm{soft}}\! (z)=nR_{\mathrm{part}}^{2}+\alpha '\! _{\mathrm{soft}}\ln \! z,$$ where $ \hat{s} $ is the usual Mandelstam variable for parton-parton scattering. The parameters $ \alpha _{\mathrm{soft}}\! (0) $, $ \alpha '\! _{\mathrm{soft}} $ are the intercept and the slope of the Pomeron trajectory, $ \gamma _{\mathrm{part}} $ and $ R_{\mathrm{part}}^{2} $ are the vertex value and the slope for the Pomeron-parton coupling, and $ s_{0}\simeq 1 $ GeV$ ^{2} $ is the characteristic hadronic mass scale. The external legs of the diagram of fig. \[fig:dsoft\] are “partonic constituents”, which are assumed to be quark-anti-quark pairs.
### The Hard Contribution {#the-hard-contribution .unnumbered}
Let us now consider the other extreme, when all the processes are perturbative, i.e. all internal intermediate partons are characterized by large virtualities $ Q^{2}>Q^{2}_{0} $. In that case, the corresponding hard parton-parton scattering amplitude can be calculated using the perturbative QCD techniques [@alt82; @rey81], and the intermediate states contributing to the absorptive part of the amplitude can be defined in the parton basis. In the leading logarithmic approximation of QCD, summing up terms where each (small) running QCD coupling constant $ \alpha _{s}(Q^{2}) $ appears together with a large logarithm $ \ln (Q^{2}/\lambda ^{2}_{\mathrm{QCD}}) $ (with $ \lambda _{QCD} $ being the infrared QCD scale), and making use of the factorization hypothesis, one obtains the contribution of the corresponding cut diagram for $ t=q^{2}=0 $ as the cut parton ladder cross section $ \sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},Q_{0}^{2}) $ [^1], as shown in fig. \[fig:dval\],
where all horizontal rungs are the final (on-shell) partons and the virtualities of the virtual $ t $-channel partons increase from the ends of the ladder towards the largest momentum transfer parton-parton process (indicated symbolically by the ‘blob’ in the middle of the ladder): $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},Q_{0}^{2}) & = & \frac{1}{2\hat{s}}2\mathrm{Im}\, T^{jk}_{\mathrm{hard}}\! \! \left( \hat{s},t=0,Q_{0}^{2}\right) \\
& = & K\, \sum _{ml}\int dx_{B}^{+}dx_{B}^{-}dp_{\bot }^{2}{d\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}^{ml}\over dp_{\bot }^{2}}(x_{B}^{+}x_{B}^{-}\hat{s},p_{\bot }^{2})\\
& \times & E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{jm}(Q_{0}^{2},M_{F}^{2},x_{B}^{+})\, E_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{kl}(Q_{0}^{2},M_{F}^{2},x_{B}^{-})\theta \! \left( M_{F}^{2}-Q^{2}_{0}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ Here $ d\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}^{ml}/dp_{\bot }^{2} $ is the differential $ 2\rightarrow 2 $ parton scattering cross section, $ p_{\bot }^{2} $ is the parton transverse momentum in the hard process, $ m,l $ and $ x_{B}^{\pm } $ are correspondingly the types and the shares of the light cone momenta of the partons participating in the hard process, and $ M_{F}^{2} $ is the factorization scale for the process (we use $ M_{F}^{2}=p^{2}_{\perp }/4 $). The ‘evolution function’ $ E^{jm}_{\mathrm{QCD}}(Q^{2}_{0},M_{F}^{2},z) $ represents the evolution of a parton cascade from the scale $ Q_{0}^{2} $ to $ M_{F}^{2} $, i.e. it gives the number density of partons of type $ m $ with the momentum share $ z $ at the virtuality scale $ M_{F}^{2} $, resulted from the evolution of the initial parton $ j $, taken at the virtuality scale $ Q_{0}^{2} $. The evolution function satisfies the usual DGLAP equation [@alt77] with the initial condition $ E^{jm}_{\mathrm{QCD}}(Q^{2}_{0},Q_{0}^{2},z)=\delta ^{j}_{m}\; \delta (1-z) $. The factor $ K\simeq 1.5 $ takes effectively into account higher order QCD corrections.
In the following, we shall need to know the contribution of the uncut parton ladder $ T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},t,Q_{0}^{2}) $ with some momentum transfer $ q $ along the ladder (with $ t=q^{2} $). The behavior of the corresponding amplitudes was studied in [@lip86] in the leading logarithmic($ 1/x $ ) approximation of QCD. The precise form of the corresponding amplitude is not important for our application; we just use some of the results of [@lip86], namely that one can neglect the real part of this amplitude and that it is nearly independent on $ t $, i.e. that the slope of the hard interaction $ R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2} $ is negligible small, i.e. compared to the soft Pomeron slope one has $ R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2}\simeq 0 $. So we parameterize $ T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},t,Q_{0}^{2}) $ in the region of small $ t $ as [@rys92] $$\label{t-ladder}
T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},t,Q_{0}^{2})=i\hat{s}\, \sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},Q_{0}^{2})\: \exp \left( R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2}\, t\right)$$
The corresponding profile function is obtained by calculating the Fourier transform $ \tilde{T}_{\mathrm{hard}} $ of $ T_{\mathrm{hard}} $ and dividing by the initial parton flux $ 2\hat{s} $, $$D^{jk}_{\mathrm{hard}}\! \left( \hat{s},b\right) =\frac{1}{2\hat{s}}2\mathrm{Im}\tilde{T}^{jk}_{\mathrm{hard}}(\hat{s},b),$$ which gives
$$\begin{aligned}
D^{jk}_{\mathrm{hard}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) =\frac{1}{8\pi ^{2}\hat{s}}\int d^{2}q_{\perp }\, \exp \! \left( -i\vec{q}_{\perp }\vec{b}\right) \, 2\mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(\hat{s},-q^{2}_{\perp },Q_{0}^{2}) & & \nonumber \\
=\sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}\! \left( \hat{s},Q_{0}^{2}\right) \frac{1}{4\pi R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2}}\exp \! \left( -\frac{b^{2}}{4R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2}}\right) , & & \label{d-val-val} \end{aligned}$$
In fact, the above considerations are only correct for valence quarks, as discussed in detail in the next section. Therefore, we also talk about “valence-valence” contribution and we use $ D_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{val}} $ instead of $ D_{\mathrm{hard}} $: $$D^{jk}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{val}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) \equiv D^{jk}_{\mathrm{hard}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) ,$$ so these are two names for one and the same object.
### The Semi-hard Contribution {#the-semi-hard-contribution .unnumbered}
The discussion of the preceding section is not valid in case of sea quarks and gluons, since here the momentum share $ x_{1} $ of the “first” parton is typically very small, leading to an object with a large mass of the order $ Q^{2}_{0}/x_{1} $ between the parton and the proton [@don94]. Microscopically, such ’slow’ partons with $ x_{1}\ll 1 $ appear as a result of a long non-perturbative parton cascade, where each individual parton branching is characterized by a small momentum transfer squared $ Q^{2}<Q^{2}_{0} $ [@gri68; @bak76]. When calculating proton structure functions or high-$ p_{t} $ jet production cross sections this non-perturbative contribution is usually included in parameterized initial parton momentum distributions at $ Q^{2}=Q^{2}_{0} $. However, the description of inelastic hadronic interactions requires to treat it explicitly in order to account for secondary particles produced during such non-perturbative parton pre-evolution, and to describe correctly energy-momentum sharing between multiple elementary scatterings. As the underlying dynamics appears to be identical to the one of soft parton-parton scattering considered above, we treat this soft pre-evolution as the usual soft Pomeron emission, as discussed in detail in [@dre00].
So for sea quarks and gluons, we consider so-called semi-hard interactions between parton constituents of initial hadrons, represented by a parton ladder with “soft ends”, see fig. \[fig:dsemi\]. As in the case of soft scattering, the external legs are quark-anti-quark pairs, connected to soft Pomerons. The outer partons of the ladder are on both sides sea quarks or gluons (therefore the index “sea-sea”). The central part is exactly the hard scattering considered in the preceding section. As discussed in length in [@dre00], the mathematical expression for the corresponding amplitude is given as $$\begin{aligned}
iT_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}(\hat{s},t) & = & \sum _{jk}\int ^{1}_{0}\! \frac{dz^{+}}{z^{+}}\frac{dz^{-}}{z^{-}}\, \mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j}\! \! \left( \frac{s_{0}}{z^{+}},t\right) \, \mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{k}\! \! \left( \frac{s_{0}}{z^{-}},t\right) \, iT_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^{+}z^{-}\hat{s},t,Q_{0}^{2}),\nonumber \label{t-sea-sea} \end{aligned}$$ with $ z^{\pm } $ being the momentum fraction of the external leg-partons of the parton ladder relative to the momenta of the initial (constituent) partons. The indices $ j $ and $ k $ refer to the flavor of these external ladder partons. The amplitudes $ T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j} $ are the soft Pomeron amplitudes discussed earlier, but with modified couplings, since the Pomerons are now connected to a parton ladder on one side. The arguments $ s_{0}/z^{\pm } $ are the squared masses of the two soft Pomerons, $ z^{+}z^{-}\hat{s} $ is the squared mass of the hard piece.
Performing as usual the Fourier transform to the impact parameter representation and dividing by $ 2\hat{s} $, we obtain the profile function $$D_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) =\frac{1}{2\hat{s}}\, 2\mathrm{Im}\, \tilde{T}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}\! \left( \hat{s},b\right) ,$$ which may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) & = & \sum _{jk}\int ^{1}_{0}dz^{+}dz^{-}E_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j}\left( z^{+}\right) \, E_{\mathrm{soft}}^{k}\left( z^{-}\right) \, \sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}(z^{+}z^{-}\hat{s},Q_{0}^{2})\nonumber \\
& & \qquad \times \; \frac{1}{4\pi \, \lambda ^{\! (2)}_{\mathrm{soft}}(1/(z^{+}z^{-}))}\exp \! \left( -\frac{b^{2}}{4\lambda ^{\! (2)}_{\mathrm{soft}}\! \left( 1/(z^{+}z^{-})\right) }\right) \label{d-sea-sea} \end{aligned}$$ with the soft Pomeron slope $ \lambda ^{\! (2)}_{\mathrm{soft}} $ and the cross section $ \sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk} $ being defined earlier. The functions $ E_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j}\left( z^{\pm }\right) $ representing the “soft ends” are defined as $$\mathrm{E}^{j}_{\mathrm{soft}}(z^{\pm })=\mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j}\! \! \left( \frac{s_{0}}{z^{\pm }},t=0\right) .$$ We neglected the small hard scattering slope $ R_{\mathrm{hard}}^{2} $ compared to the Pomeron slope $ \lambda ^{(2)}_{\mathrm{soft}} $. We call $ E_{\mathrm{soft}} $ also the “ soft evolution”, to indicate that we consider this as simply a continuation of the QCD evolution, however, in a region where perturbative techniques do not apply any more. As discussed in [@dre00], $ E_{\mathrm{soft}}^{j}\left( z\right) $ has the meaning of the momentum distribution of parton $ j $ in the soft Pomeron.
Consistency requires to also consider the mixed semi-hard contributions with a valence quark on one side and a non-valence participant (quark-anti-quark pair) on the other one, see fig. \[fig:mixed\].
We have $$iT^{j}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}(\hat{s})=\int ^{1}_{0}\! \frac{dz^{-}}{z^{-}}\sum _{k}\mathrm{Im}\, T_{\mathrm{soft}}^{k}\! \! \left( \frac{s_{0}}{z^{-}},q^{2}\right) iT_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}\left( z^{-}\hat{s},q^{2},Q_{0}^{2}\right) \qquad$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D^{j}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) & = & \sum _{k}\int ^{1}_{0}\! dz^{-}\, E_{\mathrm{soft}}^{k}\left( z^{-}\right) \, \sigma _{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}\! \left( z^{-}\hat{s},Q_{0}^{2}\right) \label{d-val-sea} \\
& & \qquad \times \; \frac{1}{4\pi \, \lambda ^{\! (1)}_{\mathrm{soft}}(1/z^{-})}\exp \! \left( -\frac{b^{2}}{4\lambda ^{\! (1)}_{\mathrm{soft}}\! \left( 1/z^{-}\right) }\right) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $ j $ is the flavor of the valence quark at the upper end of the ladder and $ k $ is the type of the parton on the lower ladder end. Again, we neglected the hard scattering slope $ R^{2}_{\mathrm{hard}} $ compared to the soft Pomeron slope. A contribution $ D^{j}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{val}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) $, corresponding to a valence quark participant from the target hadron, is given by the same expression, $$D^{j}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{val}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) =D^{j}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}\left( \hat{s},b\right) ,$$ since eq. (\[d-val-sea\]) stays unchanged under replacement $ z^{-}\rightarrow z^{+} $ and only depends on the total c.m. energy squared $ \hat{s} $ for the parton-parton system.
Hadron-Hadron Scattering
========================
To treat hadron-hadron scattering we use parton momentum Fock state expansion of hadron eigenstates [@abr92] $$|h\rangle =\sum ^{\infty }_{k=1}\frac{1}{k!}\int ^{1}_{0}\! \prod ^{k}_{l=1}\! dx_{l}\, f^{h}_{k}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{k}\right) \, \delta \! \left( 1-\sum ^{k}_{j=1}\! x_{j}\right) \, a^{+}\! (x_{1})\cdots a^{+}\! (x_{k})\left| 0\right\rangle ,$$ where $ f_{k}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{k}\right) $ is the probability amplitude for the hadron $ h $ to consist of $ k $ constituent partons with the light cone momentum fractions $ x_{1},\ldots ,x_{k} $ and $ a^{+}\! \left( x\right) $ is the creation operator for a parton with the fraction $ x $. A general scattering process is described as a superposition of a number of pair-like scatterings between parton constituents of the projectile and target hadrons. Then hadron-hadron scattering amplitude is obtained as a convolution of individual parton-parton scattering amplitudes considered in the previous section and “inclusive” momentum distributions $ \frac{1}{n!}\tilde{F}_{h}^{(n)}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{n}\right) $ of $ n $ “participating” parton constituents involved in the scattering process($ n\geq 1 $), with $$\frac{1}{n!}\tilde{F}_{h}^{(n)}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{n}\right) =\sum ^{\infty }_{k=n}\frac{1}{k!}\frac{k!}{n!\, (k-n)!}\int ^{1}_{0}\! \prod ^{k}_{l=n+1}\! \! dx_{l}\; \left| f_{k}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{k}\right) \right| ^{2}\, \delta \! \left( 1-\sum ^{k}_{j=1}\! x_{j}\right)$$ We assume that $ \tilde{F}_{h_{1}(h_{2})}^{(n)}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{n}\right) $ can be represented in a factorized form as a product of the contributions $ F^{h}_{\mathrm{part}}(x_{l}) $, depending on the momentum shares $ x_{l} $ of the “participating” or “active” parton constituents, and on the function $ F^{h}_{\mathrm{remn}}\! \left( 1-\sum ^{n}_{j=1}x_{j}\right) $,
representing the contribution of all “spectator” partons, sharing the remaining share $ 1-\sum _{j}x_{j} $ of the initial light cone momentum (see fig. \[fig:fock\]): $$\label{f-part-remn}
\tilde{F}_{h}^{(n)}\! \left( x_{1},\ldots x_{n}\right) =\prod ^{n}_{l=1}\! F^{h}_{\mathrm{part}}(x_{l})\, \; F^{h}_{\mathrm{remn}}\! \left( 1-\sum ^{n}_{j=1}x_{j}\right)$$ The participating parton constituents are assumed to be quark-anti-quark pairs (not necessarily of identical flavors), such that the baryon numbers of the projectile and of the target are conserved. Then, as discussed in detail in [@dre00], the hadron-hadron amplitude may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
& & iT_{h_{1}h_{2}}(s,t)=8\pi ^{2}s\sum ^{\infty }_{n=1}\frac{1}{n!}\, \int ^{1}_{0}\! \prod ^{n}_{l=1}\! dx_{l}^{+}dx_{l}^{-}\; \prod ^{n}_{l=1}\! \left[ \frac{1}{8\pi ^{2}\hat{s}_{l}}\int \! d^{2}q_{l_{\perp }}\, iT^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}\! \left( x_{l}^{+},x_{l}^{-},s,-q_{l_{\perp }}^{2}\right) \right] \nonumber \\
& & F^{h_{1}}_{\mathrm{remn}}\! \! \left( 1-\sum ^{n}_{j=1}\! x_{j}^{+}\right) \, F^{h_{2}}_{\mathrm{remn}}\! \! \left( 1-\sum ^{n}_{j=1}\! x_{j}^{-}\right) \: \delta ^{(2)}\! \left( \sum ^{n}_{k=1}\! \vec{q}_{k_{\perp }}-\vec{q}_{\perp }\right) ,\label{t-hadr-hadr} \end{aligned}$$ where the partonic amplitudes are defined as $$T_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}^{h_{1}h_{2}}=T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{soft}}+T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}+T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{val}}+T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}+T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{val}},$$ with the individual contributions representing the “elementary partonic interactions plus external legs”. The soft or semi-hard sea-sea contributions are given as $$\begin{aligned}
T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{soft}/\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}\! \left( x^{+},x^{-},s,-q_{\bot }^{2}\right) =T_{\mathrm{soft}/\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{sea}}\! \left( s,-q_{\bot }^{2}\right) \, F^{h_{1}}_{\mathrm{part}}(x^{+})\, F^{h_{2}}_{\mathrm{part}}(x^{-}) & & \nonumber \\
\times \; \exp \! \left( -\left[ R_{h_{1}}^{2}+R_{h_{2}}^{2}\right] q_{\bot }^{2}\right) , & & \label{thh} \end{aligned}$$ the hard contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{val}}\! \left( x^{+},x^{-},s,q^{2}\right) & = & \int ^{x^{+}}_{0}\! dx_{v}^{+}\frac{x^{+}}{x_{v_{l}}^{+}}\int ^{x^{-}}_{0}\! dx_{v}^{-}\frac{x^{-}}{x_{v}^{-}}\sum _{j,k}T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk}\left( x_{v}^{+}x_{v}^{-}s,q^{2},Q_{0}^{2}\right) \\
& & \qquad \times \; \bar{F}^{h_{1},j}_{\mathrm{part}}(x_{v}^{+},x^{+}-x^{+}_{v})\, \bar{F}^{h_{2},k}_{\mathrm{part}}(x_{v}^{-},x^{-}-x_{v}^{-})\, \exp \! \left( -\left[ R_{h_{1}}^{2}+R_{h_{2}}^{2}\right] q_{l_{\perp }}^{2}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ the mixed semi-hard “val-sea” contribution is given as $$\begin{aligned}
T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}\! \left( x^{+},x^{-},s,q^{2}\right) & = & \int ^{x^{+}}_{0}\! dx^{+}_{v}\frac{x^{+}}{x_{v}^{+}}\sum _{j}T_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}^{j}\left( x_{v}^{+}x^{-}s,q^{2},Q_{0}^{2}\right) \\
& & \qquad \times \; \bar{F}^{h_{1},j}_{\mathrm{part}}(x_{v}^{+},x^{+}-x^{+}_{v})\, F^{h_{2}}_{\mathrm{part}}(x^{-})\, \exp \! \left( -\left[ R_{h_{1}}^{2}+R_{h_{2}}^{2}\right] q_{l_{\perp }}^{2}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ and the contribution “sea-val” is finally obtained from “val-sea” by exchanging variables, $$T^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{\mathrm{sea}-\mathrm{val}}\! \left( x^{+},x^{-},s,q^{2}\right) =T^{h_{2}h_{1}}_{\mathrm{val}-\mathrm{sea}}\! \left( x^{-},x^{+},s,q^{2}\right) .$$ Here, we allow formally any number of valence type interactions (based on the fact that multiple valence type processes give negligible contribution). In the valence contributions, we have convolutions of hard parton scattering amplitudes $ T_{\mathrm{hard}}^{jk} $ and valence quark distributions $ \bar{F}^{j}_{\mathrm{part}} $ over the valence quark momentum share $ x_{v}^{\pm } $ rather than a simple product, since only the valence quarks are involved in the interactions, with the anti-quarks staying idle (the external legs carrying momenta $ x^{+} $ and $ x^{-} $ are always quark-anti-quark pairs).
The profile function $ \gamma $ is as usual defined as $$\gamma _{h_{1}h_{2}}(s,b)=\frac{1}{2s}2\mathrm{Im}\tilde{\mathrm{T}}_{h_{1}h_{2}}(s,b),$$ which may be evaluated using the AGK cutting rules with the result (assuming imaginary amplitudes) $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma _{h_{1}h_{2}}(s,b) & = & \sum ^{\infty }_{m=1}\frac{1}{m!}\, \int ^{1}_{0}\! \prod ^{m}_{\mu =1}\! dx_{\mu }^{+}dx_{\mu }^{-}\prod ^{m}_{\mu =1}G^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}(x_{\mu }^{+},x_{\mu }^{-},s,b)\nonumber \\
& & \sum ^{\infty }_{l=0}\frac{1}{l!}\, \int ^{1}_{0}\! \prod ^{l}_{\lambda =1}\! d\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{+}d\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{-}\prod ^{l}_{\lambda =1}-G^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}(\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{+},\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{-},s,b)\nonumber \\
& & F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x^{\mathrm{proj}}-\sum _{\lambda }\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{+}\right) \, F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x^{\mathrm{targ}}-\sum _{\lambda }\tilde{x}_{\lambda }^{-}\right) ,\label{gam-agk-g} \end{aligned}$$ with $ x^{\mathrm{proj}/\mathrm{targ}}=1-\sum x^{\pm }_{\mu } $ being the momentum fraction of the projectile/target remnant, and with a partonic profile function $ G $ given as $$\begin{aligned}
G^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}(x_{\lambda }^{+},x_{\lambda }^{-},s,b) & = & \frac{1}{2s}2\mathrm{Im}\, \tilde{T}^{h_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}(x_{\lambda }^{+},x_{\lambda }^{-},s,b),\label{gss} \end{aligned}$$ see fig. \[grtpabppc\].
This is a very important result, allowing to express the total profile function $ \gamma _{h_{1}h_{2}} $ via the elementary profile functions $ G^{hg_{1}h_{2}}_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}} $.
Nucleus-Nucleus Scattering
==========================
We generalize the discussion of the last section in order to treat nucleus-nucleus scattering. In the Glauber-Gribov approach [@gla59; @gri69], the nucleus-nucleus scattering amplitude is defined by the sum of contributions of diagrams, corresponding to multiple scattering processes between parton constituents of projectile and target nucleons. Nuclear form factors are supposed to be defined by the nuclear ground state wave functions. Assuming the nucleons to be uncorrelated, one can make the Fourier transform to obtain the amplitude in the impact parameter representation. Then, for given impact parameter $ \vec{b}_{0} $ between the nuclei, the only formal difference from the hadron-hadron case will be the averaging over nuclear ground states, which amounts to an integration over transverse nucleon coordinates $ \vec{b}^{A}_{i} $ and $ \vec{b}^{B}_{j} $ in the projectile and in the target respectively. We write this integration symbolically as $$\int dT_{AB}:=\int \prod _{i=1}^{A}d^{2}b^{A}_{i}\, T_{A}(b^{A}_{i})\prod _{j=1}^{B}d^{2}b^{B}_{j}\, T_{B}(b^{B}_{j}),$$ with $ A,B $ being the nuclear mass numbers and with the so-called nuclear thickness function $ T_{A}(b) $ being defined as the integral over the nuclear density $ \rho _{A(B)} $: $$\label{a.11}
T_{A}(b):=\int dz\, \rho _{A}(b_{x},b_{y},z).$$ It is convenient to use the transverse distance $ b_{k} $ between the two nucleons from the $ k $-th nucleon-nucleon pair, i.e. $$b_{k}=\left| \vec{b}_{0}+\vec{b}^{A}_{\pi (k)}-\vec{b}^{B}_{\tau (k)}\right| ,$$ where the functions $ \pi (k) $ and $ \tau (k) $ refer to the projectile and the target nucleons participating in the $ k^{\mathrm{th}} $ interaction (pair $ k $). In order to simplify the notation, we define a vector $ b $ whose components are the overall impact parameter $ b_{0} $ as well as the transverse distances $ b_{1},...,b_{AB} $ of the nucleon pairs, $$b=\{b_{0},b_{1},...,b_{AB}\}.$$ Then the nucleus-nucleus interaction cross section can be obtained applying the cutting procedure to elastic scattering diagram and written in the form $$\label{sig-ab}
\sigma ^{AB}_{\mathrm{inel}}(s)=\int d^{2}b_{0}\int dT_{AB}\, \gamma _{AB}(s,b),$$ where the so-called nuclear profile function $ \gamma _{AB} $ represents an interaction for given transverse coordinates of the nucleons.
The calculation of the profile function $ \gamma _{AB} $ as the sum over all cut diagrams of the type shown in fig. \[grtppaac\] does not differ from the hadron-hadron case and follows the rules formulated
in the preceding section:
- For a remnant carrying the light cone momentum fraction $ x $ ($ x^{+} $ in case of projectile, or $ x^{-} $ in case of target), one has a factor $ F_{\mathrm{remn}}(x) $.
- For each cut elementary diagram (real elementary interaction = dashed vertical line) attached to two participants with light cone momentum fractions $ x^{+} $ and $ x^{-} $, one has a factor $ G(x^{+},x^{-},s,b) $. Apart from $ x^{+} $ and $ x^{-} $, $ G $ is also a function of the total squared energy $ s $ and of the relative transverse distance $ b $ between the two corresponding nucleons (we use $ G $ as an abbreviation for $ G_{1\mathrm{I}\! \mathrm{P}}^{NN} $ for nucleon-nucleon scattering).
- For each uncut elementary diagram (virtual emissions = full vertical line) attached to two participants with light cone momentum fractions $ x^{+} $ and $ x^{-} $, one has a factor $ -G(x^{+},x^{-},s,b), $ with the same $ G $ as used for the cut diagrams.
- Finally one sums over all possible numbers of cut and uncut Pomerons and integrates over the light cone momentum fractions.
So we find $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma _{AB}(s,b) & = & \sum _{m_{1}l_{1}}\ldots \sum _{m_{AB}l_{AB}}(1-\delta _{0\Sigma m_{k}})\, \int \, \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \prod ^{m_{k}}_{\mu =1}dx_{k,\mu }^{+}dx_{k,\mu }^{-}\, \prod ^{l_{k}}_{\lambda =1}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right\} \nonumber \\
& \times & \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \frac{1}{m_{k}!}\frac{1}{l_{k}!}\prod _{\mu =1}^{m_{k}}G(x_{k,\mu }^{+},x_{k,\mu }^{-},s,b_{k})\prod _{\lambda =1}^{l_{k}}-G(\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+},\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-},s,b_{k})\right\} \nonumber \\
& \times & \prod _{i=1}^{A}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x^{+}_{i}-\sum _{\pi (k)=i}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}\right) \prod _{j=1}^{B}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x^{-}_{j}-\sum _{\tau (k)=j}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right) \label{gaminel} \end{aligned}$$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
x^{\mathrm{proj}}_{i} & = & 1-\sum _{\pi (k)=i}x_{k,\mu \, ,}^{+}\\
x^{\mathrm{targ}}_{j} & = & 1-\sum _{\tau (k)=j}x_{k,\mu }^{-}\, .\end{aligned}$$
The summation indices $ m_{k} $ refer to the number of cut elementary diagrams and $ l_{k} $ to number of uncut elementary diagrams, related to nucleon pair $ k $. For each possible pair $ k $ (we have altogether $ AB $ pairs), we allow any number of cut and uncut diagrams. The integration variables $ x^{\pm }_{k,\mu } $ refer to the $ \mu ^{\mathrm{th}} $ elementary interaction of the $ k^{\mathrm{th}} $ pair for the cut elementary diagrams, the variables $ \tilde{x}^{\pm }_{k,\lambda } $ refer to the corresponding uncut elementary diagrams. The arguments of the remnant functions $ F_{\mathrm{remn}} $ are the remnant light cone momentum fractions, i.e. unity minus the momentum fractions of all the corresponding elementary contributions (cut and uncut ones). We also introduce the variables $ x^{\mathrm{proj}}_{i} $and $ x_{j}^{\mathrm{targ}} $, defined as unity minus the momentum fractions of all the corresponding cut contributions, in order to integrate over the uncut ones (see below).
The expression for $ \gamma _{AB} $ sums up all possible numbers of cut Pomerons $ m_{k} $ with one exception due to the factor $ (1-\delta _{0\Sigma m_{k}}) $: one does not consider the case of all $ m_{k} $’s being zero, which corresponds to “no interaction” and therefore does not contribute to the inelastic cross section. We may therefore define a quantity $ \bar{\gamma }_{AB} $, representing “no interaction”, by taking the expression for $ \gamma _{AB} $ with $ (1-\delta _{0\Sigma m_{k}}) $ replaced by $ (\delta _{0\Sigma m_{k}}) $: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b) & = & \sum _{l_{1}}\ldots \sum _{l_{AB}}\, \int \, \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \prod ^{l_{k}}_{\lambda =1}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right\} \; \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \frac{1}{l_{k}!}\, \prod _{\lambda =1}^{l_{k}}-G(\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+},\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-},s,b_{k})\right\} \nonumber \label{gam-bar-1} \\
& \times & \prod _{i=1}^{A}F^{+}\! \left( 1-\sum _{\pi (k)=i}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}\right) \prod _{j=1}^{B}F^{-}\left( 1-\sum _{\tau (k)=j}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right) .\label{gam-bar} \end{aligned}$$ One now may consider the sum of “interaction” and “no interaction”, and one obtains easily $$\label{unitarity}
\gamma _{AB}(s,b)+\bar{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b)=1.$$ Based on this important result, we consider $ \gamma _{AB} $ to be the probability to have an interaction and correspondingly $ \bar{\gamma }_{AB} $ to be the probability of no interaction, for fixed energy, impact parameter and nuclear configuration, specified by the transverse distances $ b_{k} $ between nucleons, and we refer to eq. (\[unitarity\]) as “unitarity relation”. But we want to go even further and use an expansion of $ \gamma _{AB} $ in order to obtain probability distributions for individual processes, which then serves as a basis for the calculations of exclusive quantities.
The expansion of $ \gamma _{AB} $ in terms of cut and uncut Pomerons as given above represents a sum of a large number of positive and negative terms, including all kinds of interferences, which excludes any probabilistic interpretation. We have therefore to perform summations of interference contributions – sum over any number of virtual elementary scatterings (uncut Pomerons) – for given non-interfering classes of diagrams with given numbers of real scatterings (cut Pomerons)[@abr73]. Let us write the formulas explicitly. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma _{AB}(s,b) & = & \sum _{m_{1}}\ldots \sum _{m_{AB}}(1-\delta _{0\sum m_{k}})\, \int \, \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \prod ^{m_{k}}_{\mu =1}dx_{k,\mu }^{+}dx_{k,\mu }^{-}\right\} \nonumber \\
& \times & \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \frac{1}{m_{k}!}\, \prod _{\mu =1}^{m_{k}}G(x_{k,\mu }^{+},x_{k,\mu }^{-},s,b_{k})\right\} \; \Phi _{AB}\left( x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b\right) ,\label{sigmanucl} \end{aligned}$$ where the function $ \Phi $ representing the sum over virtual emissions (uncut Pomerons) is given by the following expression
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi _{AB}\left( x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b\right) & = & \sum _{l_{1}}\ldots \sum _{l_{AB}}\, \int \, \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \prod ^{l_{k}}_{\lambda =1}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}d\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right\} \; \prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \frac{1}{l_{k}!}\, \prod _{\lambda =1}^{l_{k}}-G(\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+},\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-},s,b_{k})\right\} \nonumber \label{rremnant1} \\
& \times & \prod _{i=1}^{A}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x_{i}^{\mathrm{proj}}-\sum _{\pi (k)=i}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{+}\right) \prod _{j=1}^{B}F_{\mathrm{remn}}\left( x^{\mathrm{targ}}_{j}-\sum _{\tau (k)=j}\tilde{x}_{k,\lambda }^{-}\right) .\label{rremnant} \end{aligned}$$
This summation has to be carried out, before we may use the expansion of $ \gamma _{AB} $ to obtain probability distributions. This is far from trivial, the necessary methods are described in [@dre00]. To make the notation more compact, we define matrices $ X^{+} $ and $ X^{-} $, as well as a vector $ m $, via $$\begin{aligned}
X^{+} & = & \left\{ x_{k,\mu }^{+}\right\} ,\\
X^{-} & = & \left\{ x_{k,\mu }^{-}\right\} ,\\
m & = & \{m_{k}\},\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma _{AB}(s,b) & = & \sum _{m}(1-\delta _{0m})\int dX^{+}dX^{-}\Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-}),\\
\bar{\gamma }_{AB}(s,b) & = & \Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(0,0,0),\end{aligned}$$ with $$\Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-})=\prod _{k=1}^{AB}\left\{ \frac{1}{m_{k}!}\, \prod _{\mu =1}^{m_{k}}G(x_{k,\mu }^{+},x_{k,\mu }^{-},s,b_{k})\right\} \; \Phi _{AB}\left( x^{\mathrm{proj}},x^{\mathrm{targ}},s,b\right) .$$ This allows to rewrite the unitarity relation eq. (\[unitarity\]) in the following form, $$\sum _{m}\int dX^{+}dX^{-}\Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-})=1.$$ This equation is of fundamental importance, because it allows us to interpret $ \Omega ^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-}) $ as probability density of having an interaction configuration characterized by $ m $, with the light cone momentum fractions of the Pomerons being given by $ X^{+} $ and $ X^{-} $.
Virtual Emissions and Markov Chain Techniques
=============================================
What did we achieve so far? We have formulated a well defined model, introduced by using the language of field theory, solving in this way the severe consistency problems of the most popular current approaches. To proceed further, one needs to solve two fundamental problems:
- the sum $ \Phi _{AB} $ over virtual emissions has to be performed,
- tools have to be developed to deal with the multidimensional probability distribution $ \Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)} $,
both being very difficult tasks. Introducing new numerical techniques, we were able to solve both problems, as discussed in very detail in [@dre00].
Calculating the sum over virtual emissions ($ \Phi _{AB} $) is done by parameterizing the functions $ G $ as analytical functions and performing analytical calculations. By studying the properties of $ \Phi _{AB} $, we find that at very high energies the theory is no longer unitary without taking into account screening corrections due to triple Pomeron interactions. In this sense, we consider our work as a first step to construct a consistent model for high energy nuclear scattering, but there is still work to be done.
Concerning the multidimensional probability distribution $ \Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-}) $, we employ methods well known in statistical physics (Markov chain techniques). So finally, we are able to calculate the probability distribution $ \Omega _{AB}^{(s,b)}(m,X^{+},X^{-}) $, and are able to generate (in a Monte Carlo fashion) configurations $ (m,X^{+},X^{-}) $ according to this probability distribution.
Summary
=======
What are finally the principal features of our basic results, summarized in eqs. (\[sig-ab\], \[sigmanucl\], \[rremnant\])? Contrary to the traditional treatment (Gribov-Regge approach or parton model), all individual elementary contributions $ G $ depend explicitly on the light-cone momenta of the elementary interactions, with the total energy-momentum being precisely conserved. Another very important feature is the explicit dependence of the screening contribution $ \Phi _{AB} $ (the contribution of virtual emissions) on the remnant momenta. The direct consequence of properly taking into account energy-momentum conservation in the multiple scattering process is the validity of the so-called AGK-cancelations in hadron-hadron and nucleus-nucleus collisions in the entire kinematical region.
The formulas (\[sig-ab\], \[sigmanucl\], \[rremnant\]) allow to develop a consistent scheme to simulate high energy nucleus-nucleus interactions. The corresponding Monte Carlo procedure is exactly based on the cross section formulas so that the entire model is fully self-consistent.
[^1]: Strictly speaking, one obtains the ladder representation for the process only using axial gauge.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Lattice reduction algorithms, such as the LLL algorithm, have been proposed as preprocessing tools in order to enhance the performance of suboptimal receivers in MIMO communications.\
In this paper we introduce a new kind of lattice reduction-aided decoding technique, called *augmented lattice reduction*, which recovers the transmitted vector directly from the change of basis matrix, and therefore doesn’t entail the computation of the pseudo-inverse of the channel matrix or its QR decomposition.\
We prove that augmented lattice reduction attains the maximum receive diversity order of the channel; simulation results evidence that it significantly outperforms LLL-SIC detection without entailing any additional complexity. A theoretical bound on the complexity is also derived.
**Index Terms**: lattice reduction-aided decoding, LLL algorithm, right preprocessing.
author:
- 'L. Luzzi $\qquad$ G. Rekaya-Ben Othman $\qquad$ J.-C. Belfiore[^1]'
date: 'January 5, 2010'
title: |
Augmented Lattice Reduction\
for MIMO decoding
---
Introduction
============
Multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems can provide high data rates and reliability over fading channels. In order to achieve optimal performance, maximum likelihood decoders such as the Sphere Decoder may be employed; however, their complexity grows prohibitively with the number of antennas and the constellation size, posing a challenge for practical implementation.\
On the other hand, suboptimal receivers such as zero forcing (ZF) or successive interference cancellation (SIC) do not preserve the diversity order of the system [@KCM]. Right preprocessing using *lattice reduction* has been proposed in order to enhance their performance [@YW; @DEC2; @WF]. In particular, the classical LLL algorithm for lattice reduction, whose average complexity is polynomial in the number of antennas[^2], has been proven to achieve the optimal receive diversity order in the spatial multiplexing case [@TMK]. Very recently, it has also been shown that combined with regularization techniques such as MMSE-GDFE left preprocessing, lattice reduction-aided decoding is optimal in terms of diversity-multiplexing tradeoff [@JE]. However, the shift between the error probability of ML detection and LLL-ZF (respectively, LLL-SIC) detection increases greatly for a large number of antennas [@Li].\
In this paper we present a new kind of LLL-aided decoding, called *augmented lattice reduction*, which doesn’t require ZF or SIC receivers and therefore doesn’t entail the computation of the pseudo-inverse of the channel matrix or its QR decomposition.\
In the coherent case, MIMO decoding amounts to solving an instance of the *closest vector problem* (CVP) in a finite subset of the lattice generated by the channel matrix[^3]. Following an idea of Kannan [@Ka], our strategy is to reduce the CVP to the *shortest vector problem* (SVP) by embedding the $n$-dimensional lattice generated by the channel matrix into an $(n+1)$-dimensional lattice. We show that for a suitable choice of the embedding, the transmitted message can be recovered directly from the coordinates of the shortest vector of the augmented lattice.\
In general, the LLL algorithm is not guaranteed to solve the SVP; however, it certainly finds the shortest vector in the lattice in the particular case where the minimum distance is exponentially smaller than the other successive minima. Equivalently, we can say that [the LLL algorithm is an *SVP-oracle* when the lattice gap is exponential in the lattice dimension]{}. An appropriate choice of the embedding ensures that this condition is satisfied.\
Thanks to this property, we can prove that our method also achieves the receive diversity of the channel. Numerical simulations evidence that augmented lattice reduction significantly outperforms LLL-SIC detection without entailing any additional complexity. A theoretical (albeit pessimistic) bound on the complexity is also derived.
This paper is organized as follows: in Section \[preliminaries\] we introduce the system model and basic notions concerning lattice reduction, and summarize the existing lattice reduction-aided decoding schemes. In Section \[algorithm\] we describe augmented lattice reduction decoding, and in Section \[performance\] we analyze its performance and complexity, both theoretically and through numerical simulations.
Preliminaries
=============
System model and notation {#system_model}
-------------------------
We consider a MIMO system with $M$ transmit and $N$ receive antennas such that $M\leq N$ using spatial multiplexing. The complex received signal is given by $$\label{channel}
\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}}=\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}\mathbf{x}_{\operatorname*{c}}+\mathbf{w}_{\operatorname*{c}},$$ where $\mathbf{x}_{\operatorname*{c}}\in{\mathbb{C}}^M$, $\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}}$, $\mathbf{w}_{\operatorname*{c}}\in{\mathbb{C}}^N$, $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}\in M_{N\times M}({\mathbb{C}})$. The transmitted vector $\mathbf{x}_{\operatorname*{c}}$ belongs to a finite constellation $\mathcal{S} \subset {\mathbb{Z}}[i]^M$; the entries of the channel matrix $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}$ are supposed to be i.i.d. complex Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance per real dimension equal to $\frac{1}{2}$, and $\mathbf{w}_{\operatorname*{c}}$ is the Gaussian noise with i.i.d. entries of zero mean and variance $N_0$. We consider the coherent case where $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}$ is known at the receiver.\
Separating the real and imaginary part, the model can be rewritten as $$\label{real_system}
\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{w},$$ in terms of the real-valued vectors $$\mathbf{y}=\begin{pmatrix} \Re(\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \\ \Im(\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \end{pmatrix} \in {\mathbb{R}}^n, \quad \mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix} \Re(\mathbf{x}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \\ \Im(\mathbf{x}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \end{pmatrix} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^m$$ and of the equivalent real channel matrix $$\mathbf{H}=\begin{pmatrix} \Re(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}) & -\Im(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \\
\Im(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}) & \Re(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}) \end{pmatrix} \in M_{n \times m} ({\mathbb{R}}).$$ Here $n=2N$, $m=2M$.\
The maximum likelihood decoded vector is given by $$\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{ML}}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{c}} \in \mathcal{S}} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{c}}-\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}} \right\Vert}}= \operatorname*{argmin}_{\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{c}} \in \mathcal{S}} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{H}\hat{\mathbf{x}}-\mathbf{y} \right\Vert}},$$ where ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \cdot \right\Vert}}$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
Lattice reduction {#LR}
-----------------
An $m$-dimensional real lattice in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the set of points $$\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})=\{\mathbf{Hx} \; | \; \mathbf{x} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^m\},$$ where $\mathbf{H} \in M_{n\times m}({\mathbb{R}})$. We denote by $d_{\mathbf{H}}$ the *minimum distance* of the lattice, that is the smallest norm of a nonzero vector in $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$. More generally, for all $1 \leq i \leq m$ one can define the *$i$-th successive minimum* of the lattice as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda_i(\mathbf{H})=\inf\{r>0 \;|\; \exists \mathbf{v}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{v}_i \text{ linearly independent } \text{in } \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H}) \text{ s.t. }
{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v}_j \right\Vert}} \leq r \quad \forall j \leq i\}\end{gathered}$$ We recall that two matrices $\mathbf{H}, \mathbf{H'}$ generate the same lattice if and only if $\mathbf{H}'=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{U}$ with $\mathbf{U}$ unimodular.\
*Lattice reduction* algorithms allow to find a new basis $\mathbf{H}'$ for a given lattice $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$ such that the basis vectors are shorter and nearly orthogonal. Orthogonality can be measured by the absolute value of the coefficients $\mu_{i,j}$ in the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of the basis, see the GSO Algorithm \[GSO\].
\[GSO\] $\mathbf{h}_1^* \leftarrow \mathbf{h}_1$
We recall the following useful property of GSO: the length of the smallest of the Gram-Schmidt vectors $\mathbf{h}_i^*$ is always less or equal to the minimum distance $d_{\mathbf{H}}$ of the lattice [@LLS]. In other words, $$\label{lambda}
d_{\mathbf{H}} \geq a(\mathbf{H})\doteqdot\min_{1\leq i \leq m} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_i^* \right\Vert}}$$
A basis $\mathbf{H}$ is said to be *LLL-reduced* [@LLL] if its Gram-Schmidt coefficients $\mu_{i,j}$ and Gram-Schmidt vectors satisfy the following properties:
1. *Size reduction:* $${\ensuremath{\left\lvert \mu_{k,l} \right\rvert}}<\frac{1}{2}, \quad 1 \leq l < k \leq m,$$
2. *Lovasz condition:* $${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_k^*+\mu_{k,k-1} \mathbf{h}_{k-1}^* \right\Vert}}^2 \geq \delta {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_{k-1}^* \right\Vert}}^2, \quad 1 < k \leq m,$$
where $\delta \in \left(\frac{1}{4},1\right)$ (a customary choice is $\delta=\frac{3}{4}$).\
The LLL algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[LLL\_algorithm\]. Given a full-rank matrix $\mathbf{H} \in M_{n \times m} ({\mathbb{R}})$, it computes an LLL-reduced version $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\mathbf{HU}$, with $\mathbf{U} \in M_{m \times m}({\mathbb{Z}})$ unimodular, and outputs the columns $\{\mathbf{h}_i\}$ and $\{\mathbf{u}_i\}$ of $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$ and $\mathbf{U}$ respectively.
\[LLL\_algorithm\] $\mathbf{U}=\mathbf{I}_{m}$ Compute the GSO of $\mathbf{H}$ $k \leftarrow 2$
We list here some properties of LLL-reduced bases that we will need in the sequel. First of all, the LLL algorithm finds at least one basis vector whose length is not too far from the minimum distance $d_{\mathbf{H}}$ of the lattice. The following inequality holds for any $m$-dimensional LLL-reduced basis $\mathbf{H}$ [@Co]: $$\label{first_column}
{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_1 \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}} d_{\mathbf{H}},$$ where $\alpha=\frac{1}{\delta-1/4}$ ($\alpha=2$ if $\delta=\frac{3}{4}$).\
Moreover, the first basis vector cannot be too big compared to the Gram-Schmidt vectors $\{\mathbf{h}_i^*\}$: $${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_1 \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{i-1}{2}} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_i^* \right\Vert}}, \quad \quad \forall 1 \leq i \leq m.$$ In particular, if $j=\operatorname*{argmin}_{1 \leq i \leq m} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_i^* \right\Vert}}$, $$\label{B}
d_{\mathbf{H}} \leq {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_1 \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{j-1}{2}} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{h}_j^* \right\Vert}}= \alpha^{\frac{j-1}{2}} a(\mathbf{H}) \leq \alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}} a(\mathbf{H}).$$
Lattice reduction-aided decoding
--------------------------------
In this section we briefly review existing detection schemes which use the LLL algorithm to preprocess the channel matrix, in order to improve the performance of suboptimal decoders such as ZF or SIC [@YW; @WF; @DEC2].\
Let $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\mathbf{HU}$ be the output of the LLL algorithm on $\mathbf{H}$. We can rewrite the received vector as $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}\mathbf{U}^{-1}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{w}$.
- The *LLL-ZF decoder* outputs $$\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{LLL-ZF}=Q_{\mathcal{S}}\left(\mathbf{U}\left({\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}^{\dagger}\mathbf{y} \right \rceil}}\right)\right),$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}^{\dagger}=(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}^T \mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})^{-1}\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}^T$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$, ${\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \cdot \right \rceil}}$ denotes componentwise rounding to the nearest integer and $Q_{\mathcal{S}}$ is a quantization function that forces the solution to belong to the constellation $\mathcal{S}$.
- The *LLL-SIC decoder* performs the QR decomposition $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\mathbf{Q}\mathbf{R}$, computes $\widetilde{\mathbf{y}}=\mathbf{Q}^T\mathbf{y}$, finds by recursion $\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{x}_m={\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \frac{\tilde{y}_m}{r_{mm}} \right \rceil}},\\
& \tilde{x}_i={\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \frac{\tilde{y}_i-\sum_{j=i+1}^{m} r_{ij}\tilde{x}_j}{r_{ii}} \right \rceil}}, \qquad i=m-1,\ldots,1,\end{aligned}$$ and finally outputs $\mathbf{\hat{x}}_{LLL-SIC}=Q_{\mathcal{S}}\left(\mathbf{U}\widetilde{\mathbf{x}}\right)$.
Augmented Lattice Reduction {#algorithm}
===========================
We propose here a new decoding technique based on the LLL algorithm which, unlike the LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC decoders, does not require the inversion of the channel matrix at the last stage. Let $\mathbf{y}$ be the (real) received vector in the model (\[real\_system\]). Consider the $(n+1)\times(m+1)$ augmented matrix $$\label{Htilde}
\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{H} & -\mathbf{y} \\ \mathbf{0}_{1\times m} & t \end{pmatrix}= \left(\begin{array}{cccc} h_{1,1} & \cdots & h_{1,m} & -y_1 \\
\vdots & & & \vdots \\
h_{n,1} & \cdots & h_{n,m} & -y_n \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & t \end{array} \right)$$ where $t>0$ is a parameter to be determined. The points of the augmented lattice $\mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ are of the form $$\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{H}\mathbf{x'}-q\mathbf{y} \\ qt \end{pmatrix}, \quad \quad \mathbf{x}'\in {\mathbb{Z}}^m, \; q \in {\mathbb{Z}}$$ In particular, the vector $\mathbf{v}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y} \\ t \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{w} \\ t \end{pmatrix}$ belongs to the augmented lattice. We will show that for a suitable choice of the parameter $t$, and supposing that the noise is small enough, $\mathbf{v}$ is the shortest vector in the lattice and the LLL algorithm finds this vector. That is, $\pm \mathbf{v}$ is the first column of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$, the output of LLL algorithm on $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$. Clearly, since $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$ is full-rank with probability $1$, in this case the first column of the change of basis matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$ is $\begin{pmatrix} \pm \mathbf{x} \\ \pm 1 \end{pmatrix}$. Thus we can [read]{} the transmitted message directly from the change of basis matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$.\
To summarize, in order to decode we can perform the LLL algorithm on $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$, and given the output $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$, we can choose $$\label{xLag1}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}=Q_{\mathcal{S}}\left({\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \frac{1}{\widetilde{u}_{m+1,1}}(\widetilde{u}_{1,1},\ldots,\widetilde{u}_{m,1})^T \right \rceil}}\right),$$ where $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}=(\widetilde{u}_{i,j})$.\
The previous decoder can be improved by including all the columns of $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$ in the search for the vector $\mathbf{v}$. Specifically, let $$\mathbf{u}_k=\frac{1}{\widetilde{u}_{m+1,k}}(\widetilde{u}_{1,k},\ldots,\widetilde{u}_{m,k})^T, \quad k=1,\ldots,m.$$ If there exists some $k \in \{1,\ldots,m\}$ such that [$\left\lvert \widetilde{u}_{m+1,k} \right\rvert$]{}=1, we define $$k_{\min}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{k \text{ s.t. } {\ensuremath{\left\lvert \widetilde{u}_{m+1,k} \right\rvert}}=1} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{H}\mathbf{u}_k-\mathbf{y} \right\Vert}},$$ otherwise $k_{\min}=1$. Then the *Augmented Lattice Reduction decoder* outputs $$\label{xLag2}
\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{ALR}}=Q_{\mathcal{S}}\left({\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \mathbf{u}_{k_{\min}} \right \rceil}}\right),$$
Performance
===========
Diversity
---------
In this paragraph we will investigate the performance of augmented lattice reduction. We begin by proving that our method, like LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC, attains the maximum receive diversity gain of $N$, for an appropriate choice of the parameter $t$ in (\[Htilde\]). The diversity gain $d$ of a decoding scheme is defined as follows: $$d=-\lim_{\rho \to \infty} \frac{\log(P_e)}{\log(\rho)},$$ where $P_e$ denotes the error probability as a function of the signal to noise ratio $\rho$.
\[receive\_diversity\] If the augmented lattice reduction is performed using $t=\varepsilon a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$, where $a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$ is the length of the smallest vector in the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$, and $\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2} \alpha^{m-\frac{1}{2}}}$, then it achieves the maximum receive diversity $N$.
It is essential to use $a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$ in place of $a(\mathbf{H})$. In fact, for general bases $\mathbf{H}$ that are not LLL-reduced, there is no lower bound of the type (\[B\]) limiting how small the smallest Gram-Schmidt vector can be. For $a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$, putting together the bounds (\[lambda\]) and (\[B\]), we obtain $$\label{AB}
\frac{d_{\mathbf{H}}}{\alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}}} \leq a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}) \leq d_{\mathbf{H}}$$ Note that the LLL reduction of $\mathbf{H}$ does not entail any additional complexity, since it is the same as the LLL reduction on the first $m$ columns of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$. In fact the parameter $t$ can be chosen during the LLL reduction of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$, after carrying out the LLL algorithm on the first $m$ columns.
In order to prove the previous Proposition, we will show that in the $(m+1)$-dimensional lattice $\mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ there is an exponential gap between the first two successive minima. Then, using the estimate (\[first\_column\]) on the norm of the first vector in an LLL-reduced basis, one can conclude that in this particular case the LLL algorithm finds the shortest vector in the lattice $\mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ with high probability. This, in turn, allows to recover the closest lattice vector $\mathbf{Hx}$ to $\mathbf{y}$ in $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$ supposing that the noise $\mathbf{w}$ is small enough.\
The following definition makes the notion of [gap]{} more precise:
Let $\mathbf{v}$ be a shortest nonzero vector in the lattice $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$, and let $\gamma>1$. $\mathbf{v}$ is called *$\gamma$-unique* if $\forall \mathbf{u} \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$, $${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{u} \right\Vert}} \leq \gamma {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \mathbf{u}, \mathbf{v} \quad \text{are linearly dependent.}$$
We now prove the existence of such a gap under suitable conditions:
\[Lemma32\] Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$ be the matrix defined in (\[Htilde\]), and let $t=\varepsilon a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$, with $\varepsilon \leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\alpha^{m-\frac{1}{2}}}$.\
Suppose that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}={\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{H}\mathbf{x} \right\Vert}}\leq \varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}}$.\
Then $\mathbf{v}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{Hx-y} \\ t\end{pmatrix}$ is an $\alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}$-unique shortest vector of $\mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$.
Observe that the hypothesis on ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}$ implies in particular that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}<\frac{d_{\mathbf{H}}}{2}$ and $\mathbf{Hx}$ is indeed the closest lattice point to $\mathbf{y}$.
We need to show that any vector $\mathbf{u} \in \mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ that is not a multiple of $\mathbf{v}$ must have length greater than $\alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}$.\
By contradiction, suppose that $\exists \mathbf{u}=\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{y} \\ qt\end{pmatrix} \in \mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ linearly independent from $\mathbf{v}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{u} \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}.$ Since ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{u} \right\Vert}} \geq {\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}} t$, $${\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}} \leq \frac{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{u} \right\Vert}}}{t} \leq \frac{\alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}}{t}.$$ On the other side, ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{u} \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}$ implies that also ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{y} \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}$. Consider $$\begin{aligned}
&{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{Hx} \right\Vert}} = {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{y} \right\Vert}} + {\ensuremath{\left\Vert q\mathbf{y}-q\mathbf{Hx} \right\Vert}} \leq \notag\\
&\leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}} + {\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{y}-\mathbf{Hx} \right\Vert}} \leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}} + \frac{\alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{v} \right\Vert}}}{t} {\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}} \leq \notag \\
&\leq \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}} \sqrt{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}^2+t^2}\left(1+\frac{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}}{t}\right) \label{ineq}\end{aligned}$$ The bound (\[AB\]) on $a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$ implies $$\frac{\varepsilon}{\alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}}} d_{\mathbf{H}} \leq t \leq \varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}}.$$ Using this inequality and the hypotheses on ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}$ and $\varepsilon$, we can bound the expression (\[ineq\]) with $$\alpha^\frac{m}{2}\sqrt{2}\varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}} \left(1+ \alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\right) < 2\sqrt{2} \varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}} \alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}\alpha^{\frac{m-1}{2}}\leq d_{\mathbf{H}}.$$ Thus ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{Hx} \right\Vert}}<d_{\mathbf{H}}$. But this is a contradiction because $\mathbf{Hx'}-q\mathbf{Hx} \in \mathcal{L}(\mathbf{H})$ and is nonzero since $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{u}$ are linearly independent. Therefore $\mathbf{v}$ is $\alpha^{\frac{m}{2}}$-unique. (Since the last coordinate of $\mathbf{v}$ in the basis $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$ is $1$, $\mathbf{v}$ cannot be a nontrivial multiple of another lattice vector.)
The lower bound on $t$ is essential to ensure that ${\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}}$ is bounded. If ${\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}}$ were unbounded, clearly ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{H}\mathbf{x}'-q\mathbf{y} \right\Vert}}$ might be arbitrarily small and there might exist $\mathbf{u} \in \mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$ of smaller norm than $\mathbf{v}$.
Under the hypotheses of Lemma \[Lemma32\], the augmented lattice reduction methods (\[xLag1\]) and (\[xLag2\]) correctly decode the transmitted signal $\mathbf{x}$.
Let $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$ denote the output of the LLL reduction of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$, and let $\hat{\mathbf{h}}_1=\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{x}' \\ q \end{pmatrix}$ be its first column. The property (\[first\_column\]) of LLL reduction in dimension $m+1$ entails that ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \hat{\mathbf{h}}_1 \right\Vert}} \leq {\alpha}^{\frac{m}{2}}d_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}}$. But since $\mathbf{v}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{Hx-y} \\ t \end{pmatrix}$ has been shown to be ${\alpha}^{\frac{m}{2}}$-unique in the previous Lemma, it means that $\hat{\mathbf{h}}_1$ and $\mathbf{v}$ are linearly dependent; equivalently, $\exists a,b \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $a\mathbf{v}+b\hat{\mathbf{h}}_1=0$. In particular $a t +b q t =0$, that is $a=-b q$ and $\hat{\mathbf{h}}_1=q\mathbf{v}$. Then by definition of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$, $$\hat{\mathbf{h}}_1=\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}\begin{pmatrix} q\mathbf{x}\\ q \end{pmatrix}.$$ This means that the first column of the reduction matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$ is $\begin{pmatrix} q\mathbf{x} \\ q\end{pmatrix}$, and so $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\operatorname*{ALR}}=Q_{\mathcal{S}}({\ensuremath{\left\lfloor \mathbf{u}_1 \right \rceil}})= Q_{\mathcal{S}}\left(q\mathbf{x}/q\right)=\mathbf{x}$ and the augmented lattice reduction methods (\[xLag1\]) and (\[xLag2\]) correctly decode the transmitted message.\
(Observe that this is possible only if ${\ensuremath{\left\lvert q \right\rvert}}=1$, since $\det(\widetilde{\mathbf{U}})$ is also a multiple of $q$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{U}}$ is unimodular.)
Thus for any channel realization $\mathbf{H}$, we have the following bound on the error probability for the augmented lattice reduction method: $$P_{e,\operatorname*{ALR}}(\mathbf{H}) \leq P\{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}>\varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}}\}.$$ To conclude the proof of Proposition \[receive\_diversity\], we need to show that given $\varepsilon \leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\alpha^{m-\frac{1}{2}}}$, we have $$\lim_{\rho \to \infty} \frac{-\log P\{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}> \varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}}\}}{\log \rho} \geq N$$ This turns out to be true. In fact, it has been shown in [@TMK] (Proof of Theorem 2), that for any constant $c_M$ depending only on the number of transmit antennas[^4], $$\begin{aligned}
&P\{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}>c_M d_{\mathbf{H}}\} \leq\frac{C(\ln(\rho))^{N+1}}{\rho^N} \quad &\text{for } N=M,\\
&P\{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}>c_M d_{\mathbf{H}}\} \leq\frac{C}{\rho^N} \quad &\text{for } N>M.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have shown that augmented lattice reduction achieves the maximum receive diversity $N$ with the choice $t=\varepsilon a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})$.
Simulation results {#simulations}
------------------
Figure \[6x6\] shows the performance of augmented lattice reduction for an uncoded $6 \times 6$ MIMO system using $16$-QAM constellations.\
Two versions of augmented lattice reduction with different values of the parameter $\varepsilon$ are compared. Clearly it is preferable to choose $\varepsilon$ as big as possible in order to minimize the probability $P\{{\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}> \varepsilon d_{\mathbf{H}}\}$. Version 1 corresponds to the choice $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\alpha^{m-\frac{1}{2}}}$, the highest value of $\varepsilon$ that verifies the hypothesis of Proposition \[receive\_diversity\]. At the SER of $2 \cdot 10^{-4}$, its performance is within $2.5\operatorname*{dB}$ from ML decoding and gains $1.5\operatorname*{dB}$ with respect to LLL-SIC decoding.\
Version 2 corresponds to a value of $\varepsilon$ optimized by computer search (experimentally, this is around $2^{-\frac{m}{4}}$), whose performance is within $2.2\operatorname*{dB}$ of ML decoding at the SER of $2 \cdot 10^{-4}$. From now on, we will always consider this optimized version. For higher values of $\varepsilon$, we are not able to prove that the LLL algorithm finds the shortest lattice vector in $\mathcal{L}(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})$. However, it is well-known that the LLL algorithm performs much better on average than the theoretical bounds predict.
In order to further reduce the distance from ML decoding, one can add MMSE-GDFE preprocessing, which yields a better conditioned channel matrix. Figure \[6x6withKP\] shows the comparison of augmented lattice reduction with LLL-SIC detection, both using MMSE-GDFE preprocessing. At the SER of $10^{-4}$, augmented lattice reduction is within only $0.4\operatorname*{dB}$ from ML performance and gains $2.3\operatorname*{dB}$ with respect to LLL-SIC decoding.\
The gain with respect to LLL-SIC decoding increases with the number of antennas: it is $3.5\operatorname*{dB}$ for an $8\times8$ MIMO system, at the SER of $10^{-4}$. On the other side, augmented lattice reduction is still within $0.8\operatorname*{dB}$ from ML performance (see Figure \[8x8\_MMSE\]).
Comparison with Kim and Park’s [Improved Lattice Reduction]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lattice-reduction aided detection technique based on an augmented matrix similar to (\[Htilde\]) (after MMSE-GDFE preprocessing) has been proposed in [@KP]. However, the philosophy behind the method of [@KP] is quite different: the parameter $t$ is chosen in such a way that the Lovasz condition on the last column of the augmented matrix is always verified. Specifically, considering the QR decomposition $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}=\mathbf{QR}$ of the LLL-reduced matrix $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$, the condition $t>r_{m,m}$ is required. In general, this results in a much bigger value of the parameter $t$. Thus the transmitted message is detected from the last vector of the reduced augmented basis instead of the smallest basis vector.\
On one side, this guarantees that the complexity increase is trivial because the only step required after reducing $\mathbf{H}$ is size reduction on the last column. On the other side, unlike our exponential gap technique, there is no guarantee that LLL reduction can find the required lattice vector. As a consequence, the performance of the decoder described in [@KP] is not as good, especially as the number of antennas increases; in fact it is about the same as LLL-SIC (see Figure \[6x6withKP\]). The authors then propose to use a quantization error correction to improve the performance, which requires an additional computational cost, and is not needed in our case.\
Complexity
==========
In this section we propose to estimate the additional complexity required by augmented lattice reduction with respect to LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC decoding. We are interested in the complexity order as a function of the number of transmit and receive antennas.
Theoretical bounds
------------------
The complexity of LLL reduction of a gaussian channel matrix $\mathbf{H}$ has been studied in [@JSM]. As we have seen in Section \[preliminaries\], every instance of the LLL-ZF (respectively LLL-SIC) decoder consists of three main phases:
1. A full *Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization* is performed at the beginning of the LLL algorithm. This requires $O(nm^2)$ elementary operations [@GV].
2. The *main* “while” *loop* of the LLL algorithm requires $O(m^2)$ elementary operations for each iteration. The number $K(\mathbf{H})$ of iterations of the LLL algorithm for a fixed realization $\mathbf{H}$ of the channel is bounded by [@JSM; @DV] $$\label{K}
K(\mathbf{H}) \leq m^2 \log_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}} \left(\frac{A(\mathbf{H})}{a(\mathbf{H})}\right)+m,$$ where $A(\mathbf{H})$ and $a(\mathbf{H})$ denote respectively the maximum and minimum norm of the Gram-Schmidt vectors of $\mathbf{H}$. For general $\mathbf{H}$, $K(\mathbf{H})$ can be arbitrarily large. However, it was shown in [@JSM] that $\mathbb{E}(K(\mathbf{H}))\sim O\left(m^2\ln \left(\frac{m}{n-m+1}\right)\right)$.
3. Finally, the *ZF* and *SIC receiver* entail respectively the multiplication by the pseudo-inverse of $\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}$ and its QR decomposition. Both have complexity order $O(nm^2)$ [@GV].
For fixed $\mathbf{H}$, we can use the estimate (\[K\]) to obtain a bound of the number of iterations of the LLL reduction of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$. The Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}$ yields $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \mathbf{h}_1^* & \cdots & \mathbf{h}_m^* & \mathbf{0}_{n \times 1} \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & t \end{array}\right).$$ In fact, the last Gram-Schmidt vector is the projection of $\begin{pmatrix}-\mathbf{y} \\ t \end{pmatrix}$ on the subspace $$\left(\operatorname*{span}(\mathbf{h}_1^*,\ldots,\mathbf{h}_m^*)\right)^{\perp}\supseteq\left(\operatorname*{span}(\mathbf{e}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{e}_n)\right)^{\perp}=\operatorname*{span}(\mathbf{e}_{n+1}).$$ Therefore $$a(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})\geq\min(t,a(\mathbf{H}))=\min(\varepsilon a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}),a(\mathbf{H})).$$ LLL reduction increases the minimum of the Gram-Schmidt vectors [@DV], so $a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}})\geq a(\mathbf{H})$, and $a(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})\geq \varepsilon a(\mathbf{H})$. On the other side $t<a(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}) \leq A(\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{red}}) \leq A(\mathbf{H})$ and so $A(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})=\max(t,A(\mathbf{H}))=A(\mathbf{H})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&K(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}) \leq (m+1)^2 \log_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}}\left(\frac{A(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})}{a(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})}\right)+m+1 \leq\\
& \leq \frac{(m+1)^2}{c} \ln\left(\frac{A(\mathbf{H})}{\varepsilon a(\mathbf{H})}\right)+m+1=\\
&= \frac{(m+1)^2}{c} \left(-\ln\varepsilon+\ln\left(\frac{A(\mathbf{H})}{a(\mathbf{H})}\right)\right)+m+1,\end{aligned}$$ where $c=\log{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}}}$. Following [@JSM], we can estimate the average $\mathbb{E}[K(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})]$, recalling that $\frac{A(\mathbf{H})}{a(\mathbf{H})} \leq k(\mathbf{H})$, the condition number of $\mathbf{H}$, and that [@CD] $$\mathbb{E}[\ln k(\mathbf{H})] \leq \ln\left(\frac{m}{n-m+1}\right)+2.24.$$ We thus obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{K_Lagarias}
&\mathbb{E}[K(\widetilde{\mathbf{H}})] \leq \frac{(m+1)^2}{c} \left(-\ln\varepsilon+\mathbb{E}[k(\mathbf{H})]\right)+m+1 \leq \notag \\
& \leq \frac{(m+1)^2}{c} \left(-\ln\varepsilon+\ln\left( \frac{m}{n-m+1}\right)+2.24\right)+m+1. \end{aligned}$$
For the choice $\varepsilon=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\alpha^{m-\frac{1}{2}}}$, the complexity of the main loop of the LLL algorithm using the new method is at most of the order of $O(m^3)$.
Simulation results {#simulation-results}
------------------
Our complexity simulations evidence the fact that the upper bounds (\[K\]) and (\[K\_Lagarias\]) on the average number of iterations of the LLL algorithm for LLL-aided linear decoding and the augmented lattice reduction method are both quite pessimistic. The number of iterations for both methods appears in fact to be almost linear in practice, see Figure \[complexity\_real\].\
We have chosen $\delta=\frac{3}{4}$ in all the numerical simulations.
While the number of iterations of LLL is indeed higher, approximately by a factor $2$, for the augmented lattice reduction (Figure \[complexity\_real\]), the total complexity expressed in flops[^5] is about the same for LLL-SIC and the augmented lattice method (see Figure \[complexity\_in\_flops\]). The additional complexity of the LLL algorithm is balanced out by the complexity savings due to the fact that QR decomposition is not needed.
Complex LLL reduction
---------------------
A generalization of the LLL algorithm to complex lattices has been studied in [@Nap] and applied to MIMO decoding in [@GLM]. It has been show experimentally in [@GLM] that the complex versions of LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC decoding have essentially the same performance of their real counterparts but with substantially reduced complexity.\
A complex version of the augmented lattice reduction can be implemented by LLL-reducing the $(N+1) \times (M+1)$-dimensional matrix $$\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_{\operatorname*{c}}=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}} & -\mathbf{y}_{\operatorname*{c}} \\ \mathbf{0}_{1\times N} & t \end{pmatrix},$$ and allows to save about $40\%$ of computational costs (see Figure \[complex\_complexity\]) without any change in performance.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we introduced a new kind of lattice-reduction aided decoding which does not require a linear or decision-feedback receiver at the last stage. We proved that this method attains the maximum receive diversity order. Simulation results evidence that the new technique has a substantial performance gain with respect to the classical LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC decoders, while having approximately the same complexity order as LLL-SIC.
![Performance comparison of augmented lattice reduction with LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC detection for a $6 \times 6$ uncoded MIMO system using $16$-QAM. The LLL algorithm is performed using $\delta=\frac{3}{4}$.[]{data-label="6x6"}](6x6_SER.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Performance comparison of augmented lattice reduction with LLL-ZF, LLL-SIC and Improved Lattice Reduction with MMSE-GDFE preprocessing for a $6 \times 6$ uncoded MIMO system using $16$-QAM.[]{data-label="6x6withKP"}](6x6_MMSE_SER.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Performance comparison of augmented lattice reduction with LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC detection with MMSE-GDFE preprocessing for a $8 \times 8$ uncoded MIMO system using $16$-QAM.[]{data-label="8x8_MMSE"}](Lagarias8x8_SER.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Average number of steps of the LLL algorithm as a function of the number $n$ of transmit and receive antennas.[]{data-label="complexity_real"}](real_complexity.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Complexity comparison (in flops) of augmented lattice reduction with LLL-ZF, LLL-SIC and sphere decoding as a function of the number $n$ of transmit and receive antennas, at $\operatorname*{SNR}=12$, using $16$-QAM constellations.[]{data-label="complexity_in_flops"}](complexity_16QAM_in_flops.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Complexity comparison (in flops) of the real and complex version of augmented lattice reduction as a function of the number $n$ of transmit and receive antennas, at $\operatorname*{SNR}=12$. Here we suppose that complex addition and complex multiplication require respectively $2$ and $6$ real flops.[]{data-label="complex_complexity"}](complex_complexity.eps){width="70.00000%"}
[^1]: Jean-Claude Belfiore, Ghaya Rekaya-Ben Othman and Laura Luzzi are with Télécom-ParisTech, 46 Rue Barrault, 75013 Paris, France. E-mail: $\tt \{belfiore,rekaya,luzzi\}$@$\tt telecom-paristech.fr$. Tel: +33 (0)145817705, +33 (0)145817633, +33 (0)145817636. Fax: +33 (0)145804036
© **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.**
[^2]: Note that the *worst-case* number of iterations of the LLL algorithm applied to the MIMO context is unbounded, as has been proved in [@JSM]. However, the tail probability of the number of iterations decays exponentially, so that in many cases high complexity events can be regarded as negligible with respect to the target error rate (see [@JE], Theorem 3).
[^3]: Actually, LLL-ZF and LLL-SIC suboptimal decoding correspond to two classical techniques for finding approximate solutions of the CVP, due to Babai: the *rounding algorithm* and *nearest plane algorithm* respectively [@Ba].
[^4]: This result was used in [@TMK] in order to prove that the LLL-ZF decoder achieves the receive diversity order. The proof in [@TMK] actually refers to the complex model (\[channel\]), but the statement also holds for the real model since $d_{\mathbf{H}}=d_{\mathbf{H}_{\operatorname*{c}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w} \right\Vert}}={\ensuremath{\left\Vert \mathbf{w}_{\operatorname*{c}} \right\Vert}}$.
[^5]: Here we define a [flop]{} as any floating-point operation (addition, multiplication, division or square root).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that by adding a quadratic phase to an initial arbitrary wavefunction, its free evolution maintains an invariant structure while it spreads by the action of an squeeze operator. Although such invariance is an approximation, we show that it matches perfectly the exact evolution.'
address: |
Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica,\
Calle Luis Enrique Erro 1, Santa María Tonantzintla, Puebla, 72840 Mexico
author:
- 'V. Arrizon, F. Soto-Eguibar and H.M. Moya-Cessa'
title: Structure invariant wave packets
---
Introduction
============
The Schrödinger equation for a free particle has attracted the search for wave functions that evolve without distortion. Berry and Balasz have shown that an Airy wave function keeps its form under evolution, just showing some acceleration [@Berry]. However, Airy wave functions are not square integrable functions and therefore are not proper wave functions. If one wants to use them, they need to be apodized, either by cutting them or by super-imposing a Gaussian function; i.e., instead considering a Gauss-Airy beam. In such case, it is too much to say that they loose their shape as they evolve, and therefore, their beauty. Effects such as focusing of waves may occur when particles go through a single slit [@Schleich2], as it has been shown by studying the time dependent wave function in position space and its Wigner function [@Schleich1].\
In this contribution, we want to show that by adding a positive quadratic phase to an initial arbitrary wavefunction, its free evolution maintains an invariant structure, while it spreads by the action of an squeeze operator. That means, that the effect of passing a beam of particles (for instance electrons [@elec], neutrons [@neut] or atoms [@atom]) through a negative lens, provides the wave function with the property of evolution invariance, while it diffracts by the application of a squeeze operator to the initial state [@Yuen; @Caves; @Satya; @Vidiella; @Knight; @Schleich].\
In the following, we will revisit Airy beams and Airy-Gauss beams in order to show that the later ones deform as they evolve. In Section III, we show that the acquisition of a quadratic phase helps any field to become invariant under free evolution; in Section IV, we give some examples, namely initial Sinc and Bessel functions, while Section V is left for conclusions.
Revisiting Airy beams
=====================
Berry and Balasz [@Berry] have shown that an initial wave function of the form (for simplicity we set $\hbar=1$) $$\label{Airy0}
\psi(x,0)=\mathrm{Ai}(\epsilon x),$$ where $\epsilon$ is an arbitrary real constant, evolves according to the Schrödinger equation for a free particle of mass $m=1$ $$\label{schr0}
i\frac{\partial \psi(x,t)}{\partial t}=\frac{\hat{p}^2}{2}\psi(x,t),$$ as $$\psi(x,t)=\mathrm{Ai}\left[\epsilon \left(x-\frac{\epsilon^3t^2}{4}\right)\right]
\exp\left[ i \frac{\epsilon^3t}{2}\left( x-\frac{\epsilon^3t^2}{6}\right)\right],$$ as can be verified by substitution into (\[schr0\]). It is clear from this solution that the Airy wave packet is conserved, meaning that it evolves without spreading. Besides, the evolution shows an acceleration which may be obtained also in some other initial distributions of wave packets, like half Bessel functions [@Aleahmad]. Propagation of Airy wavelet-related patterns has also been considered in [@Torre0] and it has been shown they provide source functions for freely propagating paraxial fields. The acceleration may be corrected by propagating the Airy function in a linear potential [@Chavez]. Unfortunately, the Airy wave packet is not a proper wave function as it is not square integrable. A possibility for making it normalizable would be to cut it (have a window) or to [*apodize*]{} it by multiplying it by a Gauss function, and effectively cutting it. If instead of the initial state (\[Airy0\]), we consider as initial condition the normalizable wave function $$\label{Airy1}
\psi(x,0)=\textrm{Ai}(\epsilon x)\exp\left( -\beta x^2\right),$$ with $\beta$ another arbitrary real constant, the solution then reads $$\label{Airy1Sol}
\psi(x,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2i\beta t}}\textrm{Ai}\left[ \zeta(x,t)\right] \exp\left( \frac{\beta x^2}{2i\beta t -1}\right) \exp\left[i\gamma(x,t)\right]$$ with $$\zeta(x,t)=\frac{\epsilon^4t^2+\epsilon x(2i\beta t -1)}{(2\beta t+i)^2}, \qquad
\gamma(x,t)=\frac{3\epsilon^3xt(2\beta t+i)-2i\epsilon^6t^3}{3(2\beta t+i)^3};$$ again, this can be proved by direct substitution into Eq.(\[schr0\]). In Figure 1, we plot the probability density $|\psi(x,t)|^2$ for Eq.(\[Airy1Sol\]) for different times. We can see that for $\beta=0.01$, the Airy-Gauss beam still accelerates, but it looses its shape.
![Plot of the probability density $|\psi(x,t)|^2$ of the wavefuntion in equation (\[Airy1Sol\]) for the parameters $\epsilon=1$ and $\beta=0.01$ at (a) $t=0$, (b) $t=1$ and (c) $t=2$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](victor1){width="12cm"}
Evolution invariant beams
=========================
Now consider an initial condition of the form $$\psi(x,0)=\exp\left( i\alpha x^2\right) \phi(x,0),$$ where $\alpha$ is a real parameter which must be set in each specific case [@victor18]. The solution of the Schrödinger equation then reads $$\label{sol}
\psi(x,t)=\exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) \exp\left( i\alpha x^2\right) \phi(x,0).$$ Writing the identity operator as $\hat{I}=\left( i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) \exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right)$, the previous equation can be cast as $$\label{ec090}
\psi(x,t)=\exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right)
\exp\left( i\alpha x^2\right)
\exp \left( i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) \exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) \phi(x,0).$$ As is well known, $\exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) x \exp\left( i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) =x-t\hat{p}$, and this implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right)
\exp\left( i\alpha x^2\right)
\exp \left( i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right)&=&\exp \left[ i \alpha \left( x-t\hat{p}\right) ^2 \right]
\\ \nonumber
&=&\exp\left\lbrace i\alpha [x^2-t(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)+t^2\hat{p}^2]\right\rbrace,\end{aligned}$$ which substituted in equation (\[ec090\]) gives us $$\psi(x,t)=\exp\left\lbrace i\alpha [x^2-t(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)+t^2\hat{p}^2]\right\rbrace \exp\left( -i\frac{t}{2}\hat{p}^2\right) \phi(x,0).$$ It is not difficult to show that the first exponential above may be factorized as [@metop] $$\exp \left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] \exp\left[ i f_2(t)(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)\right] \exp\left[ i f_3(t)\hat{p}^2\right] ,$$ with $$f_1(t)= \frac{\alpha}{1+2\alpha t}, \qquad f_2(t)=-\frac{1}{2} \ln(1+2\alpha t), \qquad f_3(t)= \frac{\alpha t^2}{1+2\alpha t}.$$ This allows us to give a final form for equation (\[sol\]) as $$\psi(x,t)=\exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] \exp\left[ if_2(t)(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)\right] \exp\left[ i f_4(t)\hat{p}^2\right] \phi(x,0)$$ with $f_4(t)=f_3(t)-t/2$.\
We now examine the behaviour of $f_4(t)$ as a function of the parameter $\alpha$. The Taylor series of $f_4(t)$ for $\alpha \approx 0$ is $$\label{0150}
f_4(t) = -\frac{t}{2}+t^2 \alpha-2t^3 \alpha^2+\textrm{O}(\alpha)^3$$ and for $\alpha \approx \infty$ is $$\label{0160}
f_4(t) = -\frac{1}{4\alpha}+\frac{1}{8t\alpha^2}+\textrm{O}\left( \frac{1}{\alpha}\right) ^3.$$ In Figure 2, we plot $f_4(t)$ as a function of time for different values of the $\alpha$ parameter. It may be seen that for small values of $\alpha$ it remains close to zero, and for large values of $\alpha$ it becomes very small, as expected from the approximation in Equation (16).
![Plot of the function $f_4(t)$ for $\alpha=10$ (dotted line), $\alpha=5.0$ (dashed line) and $\alpha=0.5$ (continuous line).[]{data-label="fig2"}](figura2.jpg){width="10cm"}
Thus, for small values of $\alpha$, we take the first two terms in the Taylor development of the operator $\exp\left[ i f_4(t)\hat{p}^2\right]$ and we get $$\label{appsol}
\psi_1(x,t)\approx \exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] \exp\left[ if_2(t)(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)\right] \left[1+if_4(t)\hat{p}^2\right]\phi(x,0).$$ For $\alpha$ large enough, we completely disregard the term $\exp\left[ i f_4(t)p^2\right] $ and, to a very good approximation (as will be see below), we write simply the zeroth order solution $$\label{appsol2}
\psi_0(x,t)\approx \exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] \exp\left[ i f_2(t)(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)\right] \phi(x,0).$$ The operator $\exp\left[i f_2(t)(x\hat{p}+\hat{p}x)\right]$ is the squeeze operator, and by its application to the initial function, the equation above may be cast into $$\label{appsol3}
\psi_0(x,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} \exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] \phi\left(\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t},0\right).$$ It is clear that the above wave function gives a probability density that remains invariant during evolution $$\label{invariant}
|\psi_0(x,t)|^2=\frac{1}{{1+2\alpha t}}\left\vert \phi\left(\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t},0\right)\right\vert^2.$$ The choice of the $\alpha$ parameter depends of the problem that is being studied and on the propagation distance that must be considered, as will be shown in the examples below. From Eqs. (\[0150\]) and (\[0160\]), it is also clear that different values of $\alpha$ must be considered if the zeroth order or the first order solutions are going to be used. In [@victor18] we present a discussion on the election of this parameter in the realm of classical optics.
Some examples
=============
In this section, we study some examples where we apply our approximation and compare it with the exact solution.
Sinc function
-------------
We start with an initial (unnormalized, but normalizable) wave packet of the form $$\psi(x,0)= \exp\left( i\alpha x^2\right) \mathrm{Sinc}(bx),$$ where $b$ is an arbitrary real constant and where we define the Sinc function as $$\mathrm{Sinc}(bx)=\frac{1}{b}\int_{-b}^b \exp\left( i u x\right) du.
\label{sinc}$$ We write the approximations to zeroth and first order as $$\psi_0(x,t)=\frac{\exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right]} {b\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} \int_{-b}^b \exp\left( iu\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t}\right) du,$$ and $$\psi_1(x,t)=\psi_0(x,t)+i\frac{f_4(t) \exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right]} {b\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} \int_{-b}^b u^2 \exp\left( iu\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t}\right) du,$$ respectively. For the sake of comparison, we can also write the exact solution as $$\psi(x,t)=\frac{\exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] }{b\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} \int_{-b}^b \exp\left[ if_4(t)u^2\right] \exp\left( iu\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t}\right) du.$$ We plot in Figure \[fig3\] (a) and (c) the probability densities for the zeroth order and exact solutions, showing that they match very well for a value of $\alpha=0.3$ and have an excellent agreement for a greater value ($\alpha=3$). In Figure \[fig3\] (b) and (d), the quantities $|\psi_0(x,t)|^2$ (dashed line) and $|\psi_0(x,t)-\psi_0(x,t)|^2$ (solid line) are plotted in order to show that their contributions to the first order approximation are negligible, already for such small values of $\alpha$.
![\[fig3\] Plot of the probability densities for an initial Sinc function as given in equation (\[sinc\]) with $b=1$ and the parameters (a) $\alpha=0.3$ and (c) $\alpha=3$ for $t=5$ for the exact (solid line) and approximate solutions (dashed line). In (b) and (d) are the comparison between the zero (dashed line) and first order (solid line) contributions.](victorsinc){width="11cm"}
Bessel function
---------------
We consider now the initial wave function given by a Bessel function [@Leija; @Optica] $$\psi(x,0)=\exp \left( i\alpha x^2\right) J_n(x),$$ with $J_n(x)$ a Bessel function of order $n$, defined as [@Arfken] $$J_n(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \exp\left( in\theta\right) \exp\left( -ix\sin\theta\right) d\theta.$$ It is not difficult to show that the zeroth order solution is given by $$\psi_0(x,t)=\frac{\exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right]} {\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} J_n\left(\frac{x}{1+2\alpha t}\right),$$ while the solution to first order reads $$\begin{aligned}
& & \psi_1 \left( x,t\right)= \frac{\exp\left[ i f_1\left( t \right) x^2\right]}{\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}} \times
\nonumber \\
& & \left\lbrace
\left[1+\frac{f_4\left( t \right) }{2}\right]
J_n\left( \frac{x}{1+2\alpha t} \right)
-i \frac{f_4\left( t \right) }{4}
\left[ J_{n+2}\left( \frac{x}{1+2\alpha t} \right)+
J_{n-2}\left( \frac{x}{1+2\alpha t} \right)
\right]
\right\rbrace. \end{aligned}$$ In order to show that the approximation is good, we write also the exact solution as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,t)=\frac{ \exp\left[ if_1(t)x^2\right] }{2\pi\sqrt{1+2\alpha t}}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \exp\left( in\theta\right) \exp\left( -ix\sin\theta\right) \exp\left[ if_4(t)\sin^2\theta\right] d\theta,\end{aligned}$$ which is a so-called generalized Bessel function [@Leija; @Dattoli; @Torre]. In Figure \[fig4\], we plot the probability densities for the exact (solid lines) and zeroth order solutions (dashed lines) which again show an excellent agreement.
![\[fig4\] Plot of the probability densities for a initial wave function given by a Bessel function $J_0(x)$ with parameters (a) $\alpha=10$, (b) $\alpha=5$ and (c) $\alpha=0.5$ for $t=5$ for the exact (solid lines) and first order approximate solutions (dashed lines). ](VictorBessel){width="12cm"}
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that by adding a quadratic phase to an initial wave packet, its structure may be kept invariant through free evolution. The main result of this contribution is equation (\[invariant\]), which shows clearly this fact. Although the invariance is an approximation, it was shown that it perfectly matches the exact evolution. The price that has to be paid is the usual spread of the wave function due to free evolution, which is given here by the application of the squeeze operator to the initial wave function.\
[10]{} Berry M V and Balazs N L 1979 [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**47**]{}, 264–267 Weisman D, Fu S, Gonçalves M, Shemer L, Zhou J, Schleich W P and Arie A 2017 [*Phys. [R]{}ev. Lett.*]{} [**118**]{} 154301 Gonçalves M R, Case W B, Arie A and Schleich W P 2017 [*Appl. Phys. B*]{} [**123**]{} 121 Jönson C 1974 [*Am. J. Phys.*]{}[**42**]{} 4 Zeilinger A, Gähler R, Shull C G, Treimer W and Mampe W 1988 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}[**60** ]{} 1067 Leavitt J A 1969 [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**37**]{} 905 Yuen H P 1976 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} **13** 2226 Caves C M 1981 [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**23**]{} 1693 Satyanarayana M V, Rice P, Vyas R and Carmichael H J 1989 [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*]{} **6** 228 Moya-Cessa H and Vidiella-Barranco A 1992 [*J. of Mod. Opt.*]{} **39** 2481–2499 Loudon R and Knight P L 1987 [*J. of Mod. Opt.*]{} [**34**]{} 709 Schleich W P “Quantum Optics in Phase Space” (Wiley-VCH, 2001) Aleahmad P, Moya-Cessa H, Kaminer I, Segev M and Christodoulides D N 2016 [*J. of the Opt. Soc. Am. A*]{} [**33**]{} 2047–2052 Torre A 2015 [*J. of Optics*]{} [**17**]{} 075604 Chávez-Cerda S, Ruiz-Corona U, Arrizon V and Moya-Cessa H M 2011 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**19**]{} 16448–16454 Arrizon V, Soto-Eguibar F, Sánchez-de-la-Llave D and Moya-Cessa H M 2018 [*OSA Continuum*]{} [**1**]{}. Moya-Cessa H M and Soto-Eguibar F 2011 [*Differential Equations: An Operational Approach*]{}, Rinton Press. Perez-Leija A, Soto-Eguibar F, Chávez-Cerda S, Szameit A, Moya-Cessa H and Christodoulides D N 2013 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**21**]{} 17951 Eichelkraut T, Vetter C, Perez-Leija A, Moya-Cessa H, Christodoulides D N and Szameit A 2014 [*Optica*]{} [**1**]{} 268–271 Arfken G B and Weber H J 2005 “Mathematical Methods for Physicists", 6ed., Elsevier Academic Press. Dattoli G, Giannessi L, Mezi L and Torre A 1990 [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**105**]{} 327–348 Dattoli G and Torre A 2014 [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*]{} [**31**]{} 2214–2220
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we analyze the vertex $D^*D^*\rho$ with the light-cone QCD sum rules. The strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ is an important parameter in evaluating the charmonium absorption cross sections in searching for the quark-gluon plasmas. Our numerical value for the $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ is consistent with the prediction of the effective $SU(4)$ symmetry and vector meson dominance theory.'
---
\
Zhi-Gang Wang$^{1}$ [^1], Zhi-Bin Wang$^{2}$\
$^{1}$ Department of Physics, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, P. R. China\
$^{2}$ College of Electrical Engineering, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, P. R. China\
PACS numbers: 12.38.Lg; 13.25.Ft; 14.40.Lb
[**[Key Words:]{}**]{} Strong coupling constant, light-cone QCD sum rules
Introduction
============
The suppression of $J/\psi$ production in relativistic heavy ion collisions maybe one of the important signatures to identify the possible phase transition to the quark-gluon plasma [@Matsui86]. The dissociation of the $J/\psi$ in the quark-gluon plasma due to color screening can lead to a reduction of its production, on the other hand, the $J/\psi$ suppression maybe already present in the hadron-nucleus collisions. It is necessary to know absorption of the $J/\psi$ by the co-mover light mesons before we can make a definitive conclusion. The values of the $J/\psi$ absorption cross sections by the light hadrons are not known empirically, we have to resort to some theoretical approaches. Among existing approaches, the one-meson exchange model and the effective $SU(4)$ theory are typical [@MesonEx; @SU4]. The detailed knowledge about the strong coupling constants which are basic parameters in the effective Lagrangian is of great importance. Furthermore, the strong coupling constants among the charmed mesons and light-mesons play an important role in understanding final-state interactions in the hadronic $B$ decays [@CHHY].
There have been many works dealing with the strong coupling constants concerning the charmed mesons, see e.g. Refs.[@gg; @Wanggg]. In Ref.[@Nielsen0710], the authors calculate the strong coupling constant $g_{D^* D^*
\rho}$ with the QCD sum rules, and obtain much larger value than what expected from the effective $SU(4)$ theory. In this article, we calculate the value of the $g_{D^* D^* \rho}$ with the light-cone QCD sum rules. The light-cone QCD sum rules carry out the operator product expansion near the light-cone $x^2\approx 0$ instead of the short distance $x\approx 0$ while the non-perturbative matrix elements are parameterized by the light-cone distribution amplitudes (which classified according to their twists) instead of the vacuum condensates [@LCSR].
The article is arranged as: in Section 2, we derive the strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ with the light-cone QCD sum rules; in Section 3, the numerical result and discussion; and in Section 4, conclusion.
Strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ with light-cone QCD sum rules
=======================================================================
We study the strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^* \rho}$ with the two-point correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p,q)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(p,q)&=&i \int d^4x \, e^{-i q \cdot x} \,
\langle 0 |T\left\{J_\mu(0) J_\nu^+(x)\right\}|\rho(p)\rangle \, , \\
J_\mu(x)&=&{\bar u}(x)\gamma_\mu c(x)\, , \nonumber \\
J_\nu(x)&=&{\bar d}(x)\gamma_\nu c(x)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the currents $J_\mu(x)$ and $J_\nu(x)$ interpolate the vector mesons $D^{*0}$ and $D^{*+}$ respectively, the external state $\rho$ has the four momentum $p_\mu$ with $p^2=m_\rho^2$.
According to the basic assumption of current-hadron duality in the QCD sum rules [@SVZ79], we can insert a complete series of intermediate states with the same quantum numbers as the current operators into the correlation function to obtain the hadronic representation. After isolating the ground state contributions from the pole terms of the mesons $D^*$, we get the following result, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\mu\nu }(p,q) &=&-\frac{f_{D^*}^2M_{D^*}^2 g_{D^*D^* \rho}}
{\left\{M_{D^*}^2-(q+p)^2\right\}\left\{M_{D^*}^2-q^2\right\}}2g_{\mu\nu}\epsilon
\cdot q + \cdots \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the following weak decay constant and phenomenological Lagrangian have been used, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle0 | J_\mu(0)|D^*(p)\rangle&=&f_{D^*}M_{D^*}\epsilon_\mu\, ,
\nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}&=& \frac{ig_{ D^{*}D^{*}\rho}}{\sqrt{2}} \left \{
\partial_{\mu}D^{*}_{\nu} \rho^{\mu} \bar{D}^{*\nu}
-D^{*}_{\nu}\rho_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}\bar{D}^{*\nu}+
D^{*}_{\nu}\partial_{\mu} \rho^{\nu}\bar{D}^{*\mu}
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. - \partial_{\mu}
D^{*}_{\nu}\rho^{\nu}\bar{D}^{*\mu}+D^{*}_{\mu}
\rho_{\nu}\partial^{\mu}\bar{D}^{*\nu} -D^{*}_{\mu}
\partial^{\mu}\rho_{\nu} \bar{D}^{*\nu} \right\} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ here $\rho=\sigma^i \rho_i$, $D^*=(D^{*0},D^{*+})$ [@MesonEx; @SU4].
We carry out the operator product expansion for the correlation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu }(p,q)$ in perturbative QCD theory, and obtain the analytical expressions at the level of quark-gluon degrees of freedom, then perform the double Borel transformation and match the quark-hadron duality below the threshold $s_0$, finally we obtain the sum rule for the strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&2g_{D^*D^* \rho}f_{D^*}^2 M^2_{D^*} \exp\left\{-\frac{M_{D^*}^2}{M^2_1}-\frac{M^2_{D^*}}{M_2^2}\right\}\nonumber\\
&=& f_{\rho} m_{\rho} M^2\phi_\parallel(u_0)\left\{\exp\left[-
\frac{m_c^2+u_0(1-u_0)m_{\rho}^2}{M^2}
\right]-\exp\left[- \frac{s^0_{\rho}}{M^2} \right] \right\} \nonumber\\
&&+\exp\left[- \frac{m_c^2+u_0(1-u_0)m_{\rho}^2}{M^2} \right]\left\{
\left[f_{\rho}^\perp-f_{\rho}\frac{m_u+m_d}{m_{\rho}}\right]m_c
m_{\rho}^2
h_{||}^{(s)}(u_0) \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\frac{f_{\rho} m_{\rho}^3A(u_0)}{4} \left[1
+\frac{m_c^2}{M^2}\right] - \frac{2f_{\rho}m_c^2 m_{\rho}^3}{M^2}
\int_0^{u_0} d\tau \int_0^\tau dt C(t)\right\} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
u_0&=&\frac{M_1^2}{M_1^2+M_2^2}\, , \nonumber \\
M^2&=&\frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{M_1^2+M_2^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here we have neglected the contributions from the gluons, the contributions proportional to $G_{\mu\nu}$ can give rise to three-particle (and four-particle) meson distribution amplitudes with a gluon (and quark-antiquark pair), their corrections are always suppressed by the large Borel parameter and will not exceed $20\%$, for examples, one can consult the last two articles of Ref.[@Wanggg]. In calculation, the two-particle $\rho$ meson light-cone distribution amplitudes up to twist-4 have been used, for explicit expressions, one can consult Ref.[@VMLC]. Due to the special tensor structure $g_{\mu\nu}\epsilon \cdot q$, some two-particle twist-4 light-cone distribution amplitudes have no contributions. The parameters in the light-cone distribution amplitudes are scale dependent, in this article, we take $\mu=1\rm{GeV}$. As the dominating contribution (about $90\%$) comes from the two-particle twist-2 term involving the $\phi_\parallel(u)$, for other terms, the continuum subtractions will not affect the result remarkably, we can neglect the subtractions. In some cases, the contributions from the two-particle twist-3 light-cone distribution amplitudes are very large (or dominating) [@Wangform], they depend heavily on the currents we choose to interpolate the mesons.
Numerical result and discussion
===============================
The input parameters are taken as $m_c=(1.35\pm 0.10)\rm{GeV}$, $m_u=m_d=(0.0056\pm0.0016)\rm{GeV}$, $f_\rho=(0.216\pm0.003)\rm{GeV}$, $f_\rho^{\perp}=(0.165\pm0.009)\rm{GeV}$, $m_\rho=0.775\rm{GeV}$, $a_1^{\parallel}=0.0$, $a_1^{\perp}=0.0$, $a_2^{\parallel}=0.15\pm0.07$, $a_2^{\perp}=0.14\pm0.06$, $\zeta^{\parallel}_3=0.030\pm 0.010$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_3^{\parallel}=0.0$, $\widetilde{\omega}_3^{\parallel}=-0.09\pm 0.03$, $\kappa_3^{\parallel}=0.0$, $\omega_3^\parallel=0.15\pm0.05$, $\lambda_3^\parallel=0.0$, $\kappa_3^\perp=0.0$, $\omega_3^\perp=0.55\pm0.25$, $\lambda_3^\perp=0.0$, $\zeta_4=0.15\pm 0.10$, $\zeta_4^T=0.10\pm 0.05$ and $\widetilde{\zeta}_4^T=-0.10\pm 0.05$ [@VMLC]. The central value of the decay constant $f_{D^*}$ from lattice simulation is about $f_{D^*}=0.23\rm{GeV}$ [@decayCV]. In this article, we take the value $f_{D^*}=(0.22 \pm 0.02)\rm{GeV}$ from the two-point QCD sum rules without perturbative $\mathcal {O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections for consistency [^2]. The duality threshold parameter $s_0$ is chosen to be $s^0_\rho=(6.5\pm0.5)\rm{GeV}^2$, the numerical (central) value of $s_0$ is taken from the QCD sum rules for the mass of the $D^{*}$ [@Threshold]. The Borel parameters are chosen as $ M_1^2=M_2^2$ and $M^2=(3-7)\rm{GeV}^2$, in those regions, the value of the $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ is rather stable, the uncertainty from the Borel parameter is very small, less than $5\%$.
In the limit of large Borel parameter $M^2$, the strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ takes up the following behavior, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{D^*D^*\rho} &\propto& \frac{M^2f_{\rho}
\phi_\parallel(u_0)}{f_{D^*}^2}\propto \frac{M^2f_{\rho}
a^\parallel_2}{f_{D^*}^2} \, .\end{aligned}$$ It is not unexpected, the contribution from the twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitude $\phi_\parallel(u)$ is greatly enhanced by the large Borel parameter $M^2$, its contribution is dominating, about $90\%$, (large) uncertainties of the relevant parameters presented in above equation have significant impact on the numerical result. The main uncertainties come from the two parameters $f_{D^*}$ and $a^\parallel_2$, variations of the two parameters can lead to large uncertainties, about $(10-20)\%$.
Taking into account all the uncertainties, finally we obtain the numerical value for the strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ , which is shown in Fig.1, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{D^*D^*\rho} &=&2.6 \pm 0.7 \, .\end{aligned}$$ If we take the replacement $\exp\left[-
\frac{m_c^2+u_0(1-u_0)m_{\rho}^2}{M^2} \right] \rightarrow
\exp\left[- \frac{m_c^2+u_0(1-u_0)m_{\rho}^2}{M^2}
\right]-\exp\left[- \frac{s^0_{\rho}}{M^2} \right] $ to subtract the continuum contributions of the terms besides the twist-2 light-cone distribution amplitude, the central value $g_{D^*D^*\rho} =2.6$ will decrease about $5\%$. Comparing with the values from the effective $SU(4)$ symmetry and vector meson dominance theory, $g_{D^*D^*\rho}=g_{DD\rho}=2.52$ [@SU4], our numerical value $g_{D^*D^*\rho}\rightarrow
\frac{g_{D^*D^*\rho}}{\sqrt{2}}=1.8 \pm 0.5 $ is much smaller. In the vector meson dominance theory, $g_{DD\rho}=
\frac{m_\rho}{\sqrt{2}f_\rho}$, the contributions from the radial excited states $\rho(1450)$, $\rho(1700)$, $\rho(1900)$, $\cdots$ are neglected. We can make a crude estimation with the simple replacement $m_\rho\rightarrow \frac{m_\rho m_{1450}}{m_\rho+
m_{1450}}$ to take into account the contribution from the $\rho(1450)$, $g_{D^*D^*\rho}=g_{DD\rho}=1.66$, our numerical result is reasonable, the $SU(4)$ symmetry breaking effect for the strong coupling constants is small. In Ref.[@Nielsen0710], the authors introduce some functions to parameterize the form-factor for small spacelike $Q^2$, then extrapolate to the mass shell, much larger value is obtained, $g_{D^*D^*\rho} =6.6 \pm 0.3 $. Although the model functions have solid theoretical foundation at large $Q^2$, extrapolation to the mass shell may have good or bad behaviors, which correspond to the systematic errors. It is not unexpected that the values from the QCD sum rules and light-cone QCD sum rules are different.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we analyze the vertex $D^*D^*\rho$ with the light-cone QCD sum rules. The strong coupling constant $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ is an important parameter in evaluating the charmonium absorption cross sections in searching for the quark-gluon plasmas. Our numerical value for the $g_{D^*D^*\rho}$ is consistent with the prediction of the effective $SU(4)$ symmetry and vector meson dominance theory.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number 10405009, 10775051, and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, Grant Number NCET-07-0282, and Key Program Foundation of NCEPU.
[99]{}
T. Matsui, H. Satz, Phys. Lett. [**B178**]{} (1986) 416; R. Vogt, Phys. Rept. [**310**]{} (1999) 197.
S. G. Matinyan, B. Muller, Phys. Rev. [**C58**]{} (1998) 2994; K. L. Haglin, Phys. Rev. [**C61**]{} (2000) 031902; Z. W. Lin, C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. [**C62**]{} (2000) 034903; A. Sibirtsev, K. Tsushima, A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. [**C63**]{} (2001) 044906.
Y. s. Oh, T. Song, S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**C63**]{} (2001) 034901.
H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua, A. Soni, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{} (2005) 014030.
F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, M. E. Bracco, Phys .Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 037502; Z. H. Li, T. Huang, J. Z. Sun, Z. H. Dai, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 076005; M. E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. [**B605**]{} (2005) 326.
Z. G. Wang, S. L. Wan, Phys. Rev. [**D74**]{} (2006) 014017; Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C52**]{} (2007) 553; Z. G. Wang, Nucl. Phys. [**A796**]{} (2007) 61.
M. E. Bracco, M. Chiapparini, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen, arXiv:0710.1878\[hep-ph\].
I. I. Balitsky, V. M. Braun and A. V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. [**B312**]{} (1989) 509; V. L. Chernyak and I. R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. [**B345**]{} (1990) 137; V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. [**C44**]{} (1989) 157; V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. [**C48**]{} (1990) 239.
M. A. Shifman, A. I. and Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B147**]{} (1979) 385, 448; L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaky, Phys. Rept. [**127**]{} (1985) 1.
P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. [**B543**]{} (1999) 201; P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{} (1996) 2182; P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike, K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. [**B529**]{} (1998) 323; P. Ball, G. W. Jones, R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. [**D75**]{} (2007) 054004; P. Ball, G. W. Jones, JHEP [**0703**]{} (2007) 069.
Z. G. Wang, J. Phys. [**G34**]{} (2007) 2183; Z. G. Wang and S. L. Wan, Eur. Phys. J. [**C50**]{} (2007) 781; Z. G. Wang and Z. B. Wang, arXiv:0711.2921\[hep-ph\].
K. C. Bowler et al, Nucl. Phys. [**B619**]{} (2001) 507.
A. Hayashigaki, K. Terasaki, hep-ph/0411285.
[^1]: E-mail,[email protected].
[^2]: One can consult the last article of Ref.[@SVZ79] or Ref.[@Threshold] for the explicit expression.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by recent experiments \[Ward *et al.*, Nature Nanotech. [**5**]{}, 732 (2010)\], we present here a theoretical analysis of the optical response of sharp gold electrodes separated by a subnanometer gap. In particular, we have used classical finite difference time domain simulations to investigate the electric field distribution in these nanojunctions upon illumination. Our results show a strong confinement of the field within the gap region, resulting in a large enhancement compared to the incident field. Enhancement factors exceeding $10^3$ are found for interelectrode distances on the order of a few Å, which are fully compatible with the experimental findings. Such huge enhancements originate from the coupling of the incident light to the evanescent field of hybrid plasmons involving charge density oscillations in both electrodes.'
author:
- 'A. García-Martín'
- 'D. R. Ward'
- 'D. Natelson'
- 'J. C. Cuevas'
title: Field enhancement in subnanometer metallic gaps
---
*Introduction.–* The study of the optical response of metallic nanostructures is revealing fascinating new physics.[@Maier2007; @Schuller2010] Special attention is being paid to the analysis of the so-called optical and infrared *gap nanoantennas*, which consist of adjacent metallic segments, like nanorods, separated by a nanoscale gap.[@Grober1997; @Muehlschlegel2005; @Schuck2005; @Tang2008; @Kim2008; @Ghenuche2008; @Schnell2009; @Schnell2010; @Bharadwaj2009] The ability of these systems to efficiently confine and enhance optical fields is crucial for applications such as single-molecule surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) [@Xu1999] or extreme-ultraviolet generation.[@Kim2008]
There are many techniques to measure the near-field distributions in gap nanoantennas such as scanning near-field optical microscopy [@Schnell2009; @Schnell2010] and two-photon induced luminescence.[@Muehlschlegel2005; @Ghenuche2008] However, these local probes have a limited spatial resolution of 10 nm at best.[@Schnell2010] It would be thus highly desirable to develop new techniques or strategies that enable the extraction of information about the local fields in subnanometer metallic gaps, where the field enhancements are expected to be largest. Very recently, we made a step in this direction,[@Ward2010] investigating the electronic transport through atomic-scale gold electrodes separated by a subnanometer gap under near-infrared laser irradiation, finding that the irradiation induces a d.c. photocurrent. By comparing this photocurrent with low-frequency conduction measurements, we were able to determine the optical voltage generated across the gap and, in turn, to infer the electric field in this region. Enhancement factors exceeding $10^3$ were reported, in line with previous estimates from surface-enhanced Raman measurements.[@Ward2007; @Ward2008a; @Ward2008b] The goal of this Communication is to shed some light on the origin of this huge field enhancement in these atomic-scale gap antennas.
From a theoretical point of view, the field enhancement in finite metallic structures with nanometric gaps such as nanoparticle or nanorod dimers has been extensively studied (see Ref. and references therein). However, here we are interested in the analysis of a sub-nanometer gap formed between two atomic-scale electrodes, thus coupled to semi-infinite leads, where, to our knowledge, no related studies have been reported.[@note1; @note2] In this work we present an analysis of the optical response of gold atomic junctions with subnanometer gaps based on finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulations. Our main findings are: (i) field enhancements exceeding $10^3$ are possible for gaps of a few Å,[@Li2003] which supports the main conclusion of Ref. ; (ii) the huge enhancements are due to the excitation of a hybrid plasmon involving large localized charge distributions of opposite sign on either side of the junction, in analogy with the dipolar bonding dimer plasmons found in nanoparticle dimers;[@Romero2006; @Perez-Gonzalez2010] and (iii) the plasmon resonances red-shift as the interelectrode gap decreases, which also resembles the behavior found in nanoparticle [@Romero2006] and nanorod dimers.[@Aizpurua2005]
{width="\textwidth"}
*System and methodology.–* We model here the gold nanogaps of Ref. with the idealized geometry of Fig. \[spectral\](a). In this geometry, two extended gold tips ending in semispheres with a radius of 2 nm are separated by a distance $d$ (this distance is assumed to be the actual distance between the electron clouds). We also consider that the junction is placed in vacuum and that there is no substrate. To analyze the optical response of this gold junction we have performed FDTD simulations where the main features to be considered are: (i) the two tip-like electrodes are coupled to infinite metallic surfaces, which are described by perfect metallic boundary conditions;[@note3] (ii) the structure is illuminated at normal incidence by a plane wave covering the whole region, and perfectly absorptive boundary conditions are placed on the illumination direction; (iii) the gold dielectric function used was extracted from ellipsometry measurements of a 20 nm thin film;[@Elias2009] and (iv) a non-uniform mesh with a smallest grid size of 0.25 Å at the junction was used. All the simulations were performed with the code FDTD Solutions (from Lumerical Solutions, Inc., Canada).
*Results and discussions.–* In Fig. \[spectral\](b) we show the spatial distribution of the electric field intensity (normalized by the incident intensity) in the $x$-$z$ plane of a junction with $d=3$ Å illuminated by an incident light of 801 nm with its polarization along the junction axis ($x$ axis). The field is strongly localized in the gap region, and the intensity (i.e. $|E|^2$) is enhanced by a factor larger than $6 \times 10^5$ in that region. We have systematically analyzed the field distribution as a function of both the interelectrode distance $d$ and the wavelength of the incident light. A summary of the results can be seen in Fig. \[spectral\](c), where we show the field enhancement factor ($E/E_0$) in the middle of the gap on the junction axis, with $E_0$ the amplitude of the incident field, as a function of the wavelength, and for different values of $d$ ranging from 1 to 14 Å. Notice the appearance of a resonance that shifts monotonically to the red as $d$ decreases. At large separations, this resonance wavelength tends toward that exhibited by a *single* tip, around 600 nm (see dashed and dashed-dotted lines). On the other hand, the enhancement factor on resonance reaches values larger than $10^3$ for $d <3$ Å, which supports the estimates reported in Ref. .
The resonance seen in Fig. \[spectral\](c) clearly suggests that the incident light is exciting a plasmon-type mode. The comparison of the wavelength of that resonance with the one of a single tip and the fact the resonance red-shifts as $d$ decreases both indicate that this mode can be considered as a hybrid plasmon involving charge density oscillations of opposite signs on both sides of the junction. The red shift is a simple consequence of the increasing interelectrode interaction as $d$ decreases, which in turn leads to a reinforcement of the electric field in the gap region. It is worth stressing that in this case the hybridization occurs between the continua of delocalized plasmon modes of the extended tips, rather than between localized plasmons as in the case of subwavelength nanoparticles (see discussion below).
The actual value of the field enhancement factor depends on the tip radius and it increases monotonically as the radius decreases. This is precisely the well-known “lightning-rod” effect, see *e.g.* Ref. . In this case the lightning-rod effect cooperates with the plasmon excitation to greatly enhance the field locally at the region. To get an idea of the impact of this effect, we have repeated the calculations with a smaller tip radius of 1.5 Å and found that, while the spectral response is almost identical, the field maximum increases by approximately a 16%.
In Ref. it was found that the enhancement decreases slowly with $d$ (slower than $1/d$). Our simulations show that this decay depends critically on the wavelength of the incident light. In Fig. \[spectral\](d) we show the enhancement factor in the middle of the gap as a function of $d$ both for the resonant wavelength and for 785 nm, the wavelength used in Ref. . Notice that for the resonant condition, the field decays monotonically with the gap size approximately as $1/d^{1.24}$, while for $\lambda = 785$ nm the field does not decay for very short distances, and for $d > 4$ Å decays slightly faster than $1/d^{2}$.
![\[spheres\] (Color online) (a) Spatial distribution of the normalized field intensity in the gold junction for $d=6$ Å and $\lambda = 750$ nm. (b) The same as in panel (a), but for two spheres of radius 2 nm separated 6 Å and illuminated with light of 539 nm. (c) Field enhancement ($E/E_0$) evaluated in the middle of the gap of the gold junction of panel (a) as a function of the light wavelength. (d) The same as in panel (c), but for the nanoparticle dimer of panel (b).](fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The results described above qualitatively resemble the predicted and observed optical response of nanoparticle dimers (see e.g.Ref. ) and nanorods dimers (see e.g.Ref. ). For instance, it is well-known that when two nanoparticles are placed next to each other, the plasmon modes of the individual nanoparticles interact, resulting in hybridized dimer plasmon modes whose energies can be strongly red-shifted with respect to that of the plasmon modes of the individual nanoparticles. This is essentially what happens in the gold junctions considered here. One may then wonder to what extent the field enhancement in gold junctions can be explained in terms of the physics of nanoparticle dimers. To answer this question, we have considered a dimer comprising two gold spheres of radius 2 nm, which is the radius of the outermost part of the gold tips.[@note4] In the upper panels of Fig. \[spheres\], we compare the field distributions for a gold junction with $d=6$ Å (panel (a)) and a dimer with the same separation (panel (b)). In each case the wavelength considered is the one that gives rise to the maximum field (750 nm for the junction and 539 nm for the dimer). Notice that while the symmetry of the field distribution in the gap region is practically identical in both cases, there is a big difference in the magnitude of the field enhancements (of more than an order of magnitude). Moreover, as we show in Fig. \[spheres\](c-d), there is also an important difference in the spectral response, where the resonance for the extended electrode junction is considerably red-shifted as compared with the dimer case. The smaller field enhancement for the dimer is mainly due to its smaller scattering cross-section. Of course, in the dimer configuration one could reach the enhancement factors of the junction for the same gap size, but that would require the nanoparticles to have a considerably larger radius,[@Aubry2010] which would be unrealistic for an atomic-size contact. Although less important, the difference in the field values reached at the resonant conditions in both structures is also partly due to the frequency dependence of the gold permittivity, which in particular has a slightly larger imaginary part at the frequency of the plasmon resonance of the dimer.[@note5]
The plasmonic origin of the field enhancement suggests that it should be very sensitive to the polarization of the incident field.[@Tian2006] This is indeed the case, as we illustrate in Fig. \[spol\]. This figure shows the intensity distribution in a junction with electrode separation $d=6$ Å and $\lambda = 495$ nm, but this time the polarization is directed along the axis perpendicular to the junction axis (this figure has to be compared with Fig. \[spheres\](a)). As one can see, the field distribution is now quite different (with the charge oscillating back and forth in the transversal direction) and, in particular, the near-field is smaller than the incident field everywhere in the junction region. Notice that a field distribution like this does not generate an optical voltage across the junction and therefore, there would not be any photocurrent in a transport experiment like the one of Ref. . We have also verified that the strong polarization dependence of the field enhancement persists even in very asymmetric contacts with a pronounced misalignment of the axes of the tips. Further investigation into other tip geometries are ongoing.
![\[spol\] (Color online) (a) Spatial distribution of the normalized field intensity in the $x$-$y$ plane for a gold junction with $d=6$ Å and illuminated with light of 495 nm with its polarization directed along the axis perpendicular to the junction axis ($y$-axis). The wavelength used is the one at which the field reaches its maximum in the middle of the junction.](fig3.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
It is important to discuss the limitations of our classical theory. First, we have assumed that the optical response of these nanocontacts is well described by a classical frequency-dependent dielectric function. However, non-local effects can play some role in the outermost part of the electrodes, when the dimensions are smaller than the mean free path of the valence electrons that participate in the plasmon resonances.[@Fuchs1990] Second, the onset of quantum effects when the tips are very close can be much more important. As discussed in Ref. , the onset of quantum tunneling and the concomitant charge transfer between the electrodes can lead to the appearance of a charge transfer plasmon involving conduction electrons flowing back and forth between the metallic tips. A finite electron density between the tips could give rise to a screening of the plasmonic interactions responsible for the strong red shift of the dipolar plasmons and, in turn, could reduce the field in the gap region.[@Mao2009] In any case, while our classical approach neglects detailed electronic structure, the essential physics of plasmon hybridization involving the continuum modes of the extended electrodes is expected to survive intact in realistic quantum mechanical calculations.
*Conclusions.–* We have studied the optical response of atomic-scale gold junctions with subnanometer gaps, within the framework of classical electromagnetism. We have shown that the huge field enhancements reported experimentally [@Ward2010] originate from the excitation of hybrid plasmons resonances involving charge oscillations in both electrodes. Such resonances red-shift as the gap size decreases as a consequence of the increase of the interelectrode interaction. Our results on the magnitude of the field enhancement clearly indicate that metallic nanogaps can be ideal templates for surface-enhanced Raman scattering of single molecules, very important for both molecular electronics and sensing applications.[@Cuevas2010]
*Acknowledgments.–* We thank F.J. Garcia-Vidal, J.J. Sáenz and J.K. Viljas for valuable discussions. A.G.M. acknowledges financial support from the EU (NMP3-SL-2008-214107-Nanomagma), and the Spanish MICINN (“MAGPLAS" Grant No. MAT2008-06765-C02-01/NAN and “FUNCOAT" CONSOLIDER INGENIO Grant No. 2010 CSD2008-00023). J.C.C. acknowledges support from the EU through the BIMORE network (grant MRTN-CT-2006-035859) and the Spanish MICINN (grant FIS2008-04209). D.N. and D.R.W. acknowledge support from the Robert A. Welch Foundation (grant C-1636) and the Lockheed Martin Advanced Nanotechnology Center of Excellence at Rice (LANCER).
[10]{}
S.A. Maier *Plasmonics: Fundamentals and Applications*, (Springer, New York, 2007).
J.A. Schuller, E.S. Barnard, W. Cai, Y.C. Jun, J.S. White, M.L. Brongersma, Nature Mat. [**9**]{}, 193 (2010).
R.D. Grober, R.J. Schoellkopf, and D.D. Prober, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1354 (1997).
P. Mühlschlegel, H.J. Eisler, O.J.F. Martin, B. Hecht, D.W. Pohl, Science [**308**]{}, 1607 (2005).
P.J. Schuck, D.P. Fromm, A. Sundaramurthy, G.S. Kino, W.E. Moerner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 017402 (2005).
L. Tang, S.E. Kocabas, S. Latif, A.K. Okyay, D.-S. Ly-Gagnon, K.C. Saraswat, D.A.B. Miller, Nature Photon. [**2**]{}, 226 (2008).
S. Kim, J. Jin, Y.-J. Kim, I.-Y. Park, Y. Kim, S.-W. Kim, Nature [**453**]{}, 757 (2008).
P. Ghenuche, S. Cherukulappurath, T.H. Taminiau, N.F. van Hulst, R. Quidant, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 116805 (2008).
M. Schnell, A. García-Etxarri, A.J. Huber, K. Crozier, J. Aizpurua, R. Hillenbrand, Nature Photon. [**3**]{}, 287 (2009).
For a recent review on optical antennas see P. Bharadwaj, B. Deutsch, and L. Novotny, Adv. Opt. Photon. [**1**]{}, 438 (2009).
M. Schnell, A. García-Etxarri, J. Alkorta, J. Aizpurua, and R. Hillenbrand, Nano Lett. [**10**]{}, 3524 (2010).
H. Xu, E.J. Bjerneld, M. Käll, L. Börjesson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4357–4360 (1999).
D. Ward, F. Hüser, F. Pauly, J.C. Cuevas, D. Natelson, Nature Nanotech. [**5**]{}, 732 (2010).
D.R. Ward, N. J. Halas, J. W. Ciszek, J. M. Tour, Y. Wu, P. Nordlander, D. Natelson, Nano Lett. [**7**]{}, 1396 (2007).
D.R. Ward, N.K. Grady, C.S. Levin, N.J. Halas, Y. Wu, P. Nordlander, and D. Natelson, Nano Lett. [**8**]{}, 919 (2008).
D.R. Ward, G.D. Scott, Z.K. Keane, N.J. Halas, D. Natelson, J. Phys. Condens. [**20**]{}, 374118 (2008).
M. Pelton, G.W. Bryant, and J. Aizpurua, Laser & Photon. Rev. [**2**]{}, 136 (2008).
The field enhancement in individual metallic tips has been extensively studied in the context of optical tweezers and local probe microscopes, see e.g. L. Novotny, R.X. Bian, and X. Sunney Xie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 645 (1997); O.J.F. Martin and C. Girard, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**70**]{}, 705 (1997).
In Ref. the optical properties of gold nanojunctions were studied, but all characteristic dimensions of the system were above 1 nm.
Enhancements larger than $10^3$ in self-similar chains of metal nanospheres were predicted in K. Li, M.I. Stockman, and D.J. Bergman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 227402 (2003).
I. Romero, J. Aizpurua, G.W. Bryant, F.J. García de Abajo, Opt. Express [**14**]{}, 9988 (2006).
O. Pérez-González, N. Zabala, A.G. Borisov, N.J. Halas, P. Nordlander, J. Aizpurua, Nano Lett. [**10**]{}, 3090 (2010).
J. Aizpurua, G.W. Bryant, L.J. Richter, F.J. García de Abajo, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 235420 (2005).
The infinite surfaces are placed 8 nm away from the center of the junction.
E. Ferreiro-Vila, J.B. González-Díaz, R. Fermento, M.U. González, A. García-Martín, J.M. García-Martín, A. Cebollada, G. Armelles, D. Meneses-Rodríguez and E. Muñoz Sandoval, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 125132 (2009).
J. Gersten and A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. [**73**]{}, 3023 (1980).
For the description of the nanoparticle dimer we replaced the infinite metallic surfaces used for the junction by perfectly absorptive boundary conditions.
A. Aubry, D.Y. Lei, S.A. Maier, and J.B. Pendry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 233901 (2010).
The gold dielectric constant in our case is $\epsilon = -6.28 + 2.04 i$ for $\lambda = 539$ nm and $\epsilon = -23.46 + 1.63 i$ for $\lambda = 750$ nm.
J.-H. Tian, B. Liu, X. Li, Z.-L. Yang, B. Ren, S.-T. Wu, N. Tao, Z.-Q. Tian, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**128**]{}, 14748 (2006).
R. Fuchs and F. Claro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**35**]{}, 3722 (1987).
J. Zuloaga, E. Prodan, and P. Nordlander, Nano Lett. [**9**]{}, 887 (2009).
L. Mao, Z. Li, B. Wu, and H. Xu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**94**]{}, 243102 (2009).
See e.g. chapter 20 of J.C. Cuevas and E. Scheer, *Molecular Electronics: An Introduction to Theory and Experiment*, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine the topological order in the resonating singlet valence plaquette (RSVP) phase of the hard-core quantum plaquette model (QPM) on the face centered cubic (FCC) lattice. To do this, we construct a Rohksar-Kivelson type Hamiltonian of local plaquette resonances. This model is shown to exhibit a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order, which we show by identifying a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological constant (which leads to a $3^3$-fold topological ground state degeneracy on the $3$-torus) and topological point-like charge and loop-like magnetic excitations which obey $\mathbb{Z}_3$ statistics. We also consider an exactly solvable generalization of this model, which makes the geometrical origin of the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order explicitly clear. For other models and lattices, such generalizations produce a wide variety of topological phases, some of which are novel fracton phases.'
author:
- Trithep Devakul
title: '$\mathbb{Z}_3$ Topological Order in Face Centered Cubic Quantum Plaquette Model'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum spin liquid phases [@qslreview] are characterized by exotic behavior including emergent gauge fields and quasiparticle excitations which exhibit properties such as symmetry fractionalization and spin-charge separation. Such phases are prime examples of topological order [@wen], which can be characterized by their topological ground state degeneracy [@haldane; @wen2], non-trivial quasiparticle statistics [@arovas], edge excitations [@halperin], and topological entanglement entropy [@hamma; @kitaev; @levin].
As the classic example of a gapped quantum spin liquid, we have short-ranged resonating valence bond (RVB) states originally introduced by Anderson [@anderson0; @anderson2; @anderson; @krs], where pairs of electrons form singlet bonds and the state is a superposition of such configurations. Rather than independently fluctuating spins, we can instead simply consider the dynamics of such valence bonds. The low energy physics are well captured by quantum dimer models [@qdmreview] (QDM) originally introduced by Rohksar and Kivelson [@rk], where the presence or absence of a dimer is indicated by an Ising degree of freedom living on the links between two sites. The key difference between the dimer and valence bond representation being that the states corresponding to two different dimer configurations in the QDM are orthogonal by definition, but have non-zero overlap in the valence bond representation [@rk]. These models have the nice feature that at a special point, called the Rohksar-Kivelson (RK) point, the ground state can be solved for exactly and is an equal amplitude superposition of all possible dimer configurations, allowing expectation values of diagonal observables to be computed from the *classical* equal probability ensemble. The ability to describe such phases by bond variables in conjunction with a site constraint hints at a connection between such models and gauge theories. Indeed, at the microscopic level they can be formulated as hybrid lattice gauge theories with a local $U(1)$ gauge invariance [@fradkin] due to the fixed number constraint at each site but with Ising valued electric fields [@igt] which reflect the binary character of dimer occupations. The challenge in this language is to show that the gauge theory exhibits a deconfined phase which can be identified with the RVB phase. As it turns out, the QDM on the square (or any bipartite) lattice in $d=2$ is gapless with power law decaying dimer-dimer correlations at the RK point, which sits at the boundary between a resonating plaquette [@plaquettephase] and a staggered phase, and so does not host an RVB phase (upon general perturbation, one can have more complex phenomena such as Cantor deconfinement [@cantordeconf]). This lack of an RVB phase is due to the fact that the square lattice QDM maps on to a $U(1)$ gauge theory at long wavelengths [@fradkin], which is only gapless at one particular point (the RK point) in $2d$ (while there exists an extended gapless $U(1)$ RVB Coulomb phase in $3d$ [@3dqdm; @3dqdm2; @3dqdm3]). The triangular lattice QDM, however, does exhibit exponentially decaying correlations at the RK point and hosts a fully fledged $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topologically ordered RVB liquid phase [@triangular-rvb] characterized by a long wavelength $Z_2$ gauge field. It is also useful to note that one can also deform QDMs by loosening the fixed dimer number constraint to variable numbers. Specifically we can loosen the constraint to allow for all odd or even numbers of dimers per site—the latter now yields a microscopic Ising gauge theory and the former its “odd” cousin [@igt]. In this limit one can find a deconfined phase on any lattice although the connection to the original RVB picture is less clear. \[Interestingly, loosening the site constraint on the square lattice to allow one *or four* dimers also allows for a deconfined $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topologically ordered phase [@qdpm]\].
As a natural extension of the RVB idea, the resonating singlet valence plaquette [@pankov; @cenke] (RSVP) generalizes from the two spin-$1/2$ $SU(2)$ singlet to $SU(n)$ singlets formed by $n$ spins in the fundamental representation of $SU(n)$ (note that the plaquette structure is not necessary, we could form $SU(n)$ singlets of $n$ spins from simplices of any form). Following the RVB discussion, it is natural to ask whether one can find a liquid phase in these models, and if so, what is the character of this liquid? In Ref , this idea was investigated first for $n=4$ on the simple cubic lattice, where spins formed *tetramers* along the square plaquettes, with a hard-core constraint (each site was only allowed to be included in one tetramer), but was shown to exhibit a weak crystalline order (which would lead to a confining phase) at the RK point, rather than a gapped liquid [@pankov; @cenke]. In fact, this current investigation was motivated by the observation that had the hard-core constraint been “loosened” to an even or odd constraint (that each site had to be a part of an even or odd number of tetramers), one exactly obtains the Ising “plaquette gauge theory” [@vijayhaahfu; @williamson; @fractonfm] in the X-Cube [@vijayhaahfu] limit: a prominent example of fracton topological order [@vijayhaahfu; @fracton1; @fracton2; @fracton3; @fracton4; @fracton5] — novel states of matter which exhibit quasiparticle excitations constrained to move within lower dimensional subspaces including the fracton which is a completely immobile quasiparticle. In this context, the crystalline order at the RK point can be explained as an instability of the $U(1)$ X-cube phase to crystalline order [@cenke]. Notice how the connection between this model and the PGT parallels that of the QDM and the IGT.
This suggests that there is potentially much of interest to be found in RSVP candidates. In this work, we investigate another model looked at in Ref , for which Monte Carlo results show, in contrast to the cubic model, exponentially decaying correlations at the RK point indicative of a gapped RSVP phase whose character was left undetermined. The model is inspired from an $SU(3)$ version of the above on the face centered cubic (FCC) lattice, where three mutually nearest neighbor spins (which sit at the corners of equilateral triangular plaquettes as can be seen in Figure \[fig:fccunitcell\]) form an $SU(3)$ singlet. Consequently, we may examine the quantum *plaquette* model (QPM) whereby each plaquette is associated with it an Ising degree of freedom representing the presence or absence of such a singlet (a *trimer*) in combination with a hard-core constraint on each site. We describe such models in more detail in Section \[sec:fccmodel\].
Given that the cubic QPM would have had Fracton order had a liquid phase existed, one might consider the possibility that the liquid phase in the FCC QPM may realize Fracton order. Alas, this is not the case, and we show that it instead has (somewhat surprisingly) $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order in its liquid phase. This order emerges naturally from the geometry of the FCC lattice (despite the trimer degrees of freedom still being Ising), as detailed in Section \[sec:hctrimer\]. Inspired by the connection between the IGT and the QDM, we examine in Section \[sec:znfcc\] a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ commuting-projector generalization of this model. This model exhibits $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order when $N$ is divisible by $3$, and is trivial otherwise — making explicitly clear the origin of the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order in the hard-core limit. In the Appendix, we consider similar generalizations for plaquette models on other lattices (some of which show $\mathbb{Z}_N$ fracton order). In a sense, we make a connection between the classic ideas of RVB and RSVP and more modern concepts of topological order. Models with plaquette degrees of freedom have the potential to describe fracton phases (as in the simple cubic or corner-sharing octahedra lattices discussed in the appendix), or they may alternatively describe a conventional non-fracton topologically ordered phases (of which the FCC model to be discussed is an example of).
Before continuing with the discussion of the FCC QPM, we first review the key features of $\mathbb{Z}_N$ topological order in $3+1D$. [@qslreview] The theory hosts two fundamental types of excitations: a point-like quasiparticle (called the charge or “electric” excitation) and loop-like excitations with a finite energy per length (which we call vison [@vison] loops or “magnetic” flux excitations). The charge quasiparticles are self-bosons (the wavefunction does not pick up a sign upon interchanging two), but picks up a non-trivial phase when brought around a path that links with one vison loop. More generally, bringing $n$ charge particles around a loop linked with $m$ visons result in an $e^{2\pi i n m / N}$ phase factor. The main identifying feature of such a phase is the topological ground-state degeneracy: a system defined on a manifold with genus $g$ has an $N^g$-fold degenerate ground state that cannot be broken by local perturbations. The different states in the ground-state manifold can be connected by the non-local action of creating a charge-anticharge pair, bringing one around the system along a non-contractible loop, and finally annihilating the pair. We verify all these features in our model system.
FCC Plaquette model {#sec:fccmodel}
===================
We begin by defining a generalized plaquette model (GPM). To clarify our nomenclature, we use “generalized” in the parlance of Ref to mean that we have not yet specified a site constraint. The quantum plaquette model (QPM) will refer specifically to the GPM with the hard-core site constraint. The $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalized plaquette model examined in Section \[sec:znfcc\] and the Appendix will be referred to as $N$-GPM.
![A unit cell of the face centered cubic lattice. Nearest neighbor pairs are connected by gray lines. Triangles on which trimers may occupy are formed by three mutually nearest neighbor sites. Regular polyhedra formed by the triangular faces include octahedra (one shown in red) and tetrahedra (one shown in green). []{data-label="fig:fccunitcell"}](FCCUnitCell.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The model of interest is defined on the FCC lattice, a unit cell of which is shown in Figure \[fig:fccunitcell\], with sites at each of the lattice points. We will take the system defined on the 3-torus (periodic in all three directions) for simplicity. A trimer is defined as some bound state of three mutually nearest neighbor sites, which form equilateral triangles on the FCC lattice. We assign an Ising ($\mathbb{Z}_2$) variable $\sigma^x$ to each triangle, and define $\sigma^x=1 (-1)$ as the presence (absence) of a trimer on that triangle, and take directly the set of all trimer configurations as an orthonormal basis for our Hilbert space.
We may now begin to discuss Hamiltonians on this Hilbert space. These will consist generically of three parts: a site constraint, a kinetic term, and a potential term. The site constraint is a local constraint diagonal in the trimer basis, which is defined for each site and must be satisfied, thus permitting only a subset of the Hilbert space. This constraint may be enforced externally, or energetically on the ground state by attaching a large energy penalty to violating states. For example, the QPM will be obtained by enforcing that each site is only allowed to be a part of exactly one trimer, but one can also write down a theory where each site is only allowed to be a part of an odd (even) number of trimers (thus producing a kind of Ising “plaquette gauge theory”). The kinetic term is a sum of purely off-diagonal local terms that transition between trimer configurations respecting by the site constraint. Finally, the potential term is a sum of diagonal local terms, which may be used to tune the Hamiltonian to the RK point — where the ground state can be solved for exactly!
Before jumping straight to the hard-core QPM, one might expect that there may be something to learn first from the GPM with the odd/even constraint. This expectation turns out to be wrong: the exactly solvable even/odd models are actually non-topologically ordered liquids. First, note that the even and odd models are unitarily related, thus it is only necessary to examine the even case. Let us write this down explicitly for the even model. The Hamiltonian is given by [^1] $$\mathcal{H}_{\text{even}} = -\sum_{\mathcal{C}_e}\prod_{t\in \mathcal{C}_{e}} \sigma^z_t - \sum_{s}\prod_{t\in s}\sigma^x_t
\label{eq:Heven}$$ where $t$ refers to triangles, and $\sigma^{z,x}_t$ are Pauli matrices acting on the trimer degree of freedom on each triangle. The second sum is over sites $s$, and $t\in s$ corresponds to the triangles containing the site $s$ (of which there are 24 of). The set $\mathcal{C}_{e}$ refers to a set of triangles for which each site on the lattice is shared by an even number of triangles in $\mathcal{C}_{e}$ (thus guaranteeing the term commutes with the site constraint), and $\mathcal{C}_{e}$ does not consist of multiple disjoint sets of triangles (the subscript $e$ stands for *even*). The first sum is over all such sets $\mathcal{C}_{e}$ up to a certain size ${|\mathcal{C}_{e}|}_\text{max}$, which we will assume is large enough for ergodicity (within a topological sector, should they exist). We will return to the discussion of what these terms look like in more detail in the context of the (hard-core) QPM in Sec \[sec:hctrimer\]. The first term is the kinetic term, and the second term enforces the constraint that every site must have an even number of trimers connected to it (there is no potential term needed here). By construction, this Hamiltonian consists of mutually commuting terms and one can deduce that an equal amplitude superposition of all constraint-satisfying configurations within a topological sector (should they exist) is the exact ground state.
In fact, *no such topological sector exists*. An easy way to see this is by examining the excitation structure. In the gauge theory language, consider creating a “charge” excitation: an excitation of the second term in the Hamiltonian, where a site participates in an odd number of trimers. It is in fact possible to create a single such an excitation locally at site $s$ by applying an operator $\sigma^z_{t_1}\sigma^z_{t_2}\sigma^z_{t_3}$ on the ground state, where $t_1,t_2,t_3$ are the three triangles around a tetrahedron that contain the site $s$. These overlap the site $s$ three times, and the three other sites in the tetrahedron twice, thus it anticommutes with the site term only on site $s$. We have therefore created a single charge excitation using only local operators acting on the ground state, thus implying that a single charge excitation *does not carry any topological charge*. By topological charge, we refer to charge that can be measured by a membrane-like operator akin to Gauss’ law in standard $U(1)$ electromagnetism. We are therefore forced to conclude that this Hamiltonian does not possess the features of topological order such as topological degeneracy and quasiparticle/loop excitations with non-trivial statistics. Nevertheless, as we will show in the next section, the QPM (specified by a *number* site constraint) at the RK point *does* exhibit the signs of topological order, more specifically, $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order. The reason the above construction fails is that we have implicitly tried to force a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ order by using an even constraint, while the *geometry* of the model favors a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order.
The Hard-Core constraint {#sec:hctrimer}
========================
We now examine the FCC QPM: the model of trimers with the hard-core constraint that each site must participate in only one trimer. The allowed Hilbert space now consists of the set of hard-core trimer coverings of the FCC lattice. The set of local trimer moves are now more restricted than in the even theory. Any local trimer move can be represented by a non-disjoint bipartite set of triangles $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_A\cup\mathcal{C}_B$, with the constraint that every site in the lattice must be included in exactly one triangle from $\mathcal{C}_A$ and one from $\mathcal{C}_B$, or none at all. By non-disjoint, we mean that one cannot express $\mathcal{C}$ as $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ for $\mathcal{C}_{1,2}$ both being valid bipartite sets as previously defined. The trimer move then consists of taking all trimers that were originally on all the triangles in $\mathcal{C}_A$ and moving them to $\mathcal{C}_B$, or vice versa. Let us represent the local state in which all triangles in $\mathcal{C}_A$ are occupied with trimers as $|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$, and similarly $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle$. We can then define a RK type model as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{RK} = -t\sum_{\mathcal{C}} \left(|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_B|+|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_A|\right)\\
+V\sum_{\mathcal{C}}\left(|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_A| + |\mathcal{C}_B\rangle\langle\mathcal{C}_B|\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all $\mathcal{C}$ as previously described up to some $|\mathcal{C}|_\text{max}$. We further have the site constraint of one trimer per site: $\sum_{t\in s}(\sigma_t^x+1)/2 = 1$ for every site $s$. This can be expressed as enforcing the constraint $G_s|\psi\rangle = |\psi\rangle$ for all $s$ with $$G_s = e^{-i\alpha\left[1-\sum_{t\in s}(\sigma_t^x+1)/2\right]}\label{eq:1constraint}$$ for *any* $\alpha$. Note that this Hamiltonian, written in terms of Pauli matrices, has a $U(1)$ symmetry $\sigma^{\pm}_t \rightarrow e^{\pm i \alpha}\sigma^{\pm}_t$, where $\sigma^{\pm}=\sigma^y\pm\sigma^z$ are $\sigma^x$ raising/lowering operators. This $U(1)$ symmetry corresponds to the conservation of total trimer number, as every such bipartite path satisfies $|\mathcal{C}_A|=|\mathcal{C}_B|$.
Exactly at $t=V$, the RK point, the Hamiltonian is a sum of projectors, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{RK}^{t=V=1} = 2\sum_\mathcal{C} (|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle- |\mathcal{C}_B\rangle)
(\langle\mathcal{C}_A|- \langle\mathcal{C}_B|)
\label{eq:fccrk}\end{aligned}$$ whose exact ground state is an equal amplitude sum of all constraint-obeying trimer configurations that can be reached by the local flips $\mathcal{C}$.
At the RK point, which will be the focus of our discussion, expectation values of diagonal operators are exactly that of the equal probability classical ensemble. The trimer-trimer correlation function at the RK point was calculated via Monte Carlo simulation in Ref , and was found to decay exponentially with a small correlation length. This indicates that should a suitable RK type Hamiltonian be defined, the RK point sits within a gapped RSVP phase — if the RK point were a critical point between two phases or part of a gapless phase, one would expect power law decaying correlations (another unlikely scenario is the existence of two first-order transitions directly on either side of the RK point, which we do not consider).
(150,150) (-20,0)[![Illustration of a few terms in the Hamiltonian, which we describe by sets of triangles $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_A\cup\mathcal{C}_B$, where the orange and blue triangles indicate $\mathcal{C}_A$ and $\mathcal{C}_B$. All $|\mathcal{C}|=4$ terms are loop terms of the form $(a)$ or $(b)$. $(c)$ and $(d)$ shows terms involving a larger number of triangles. The term $(c)$ involves flipping between configurations with local “divergence” $\pm 3$ (as described in the text), and $(d)$ is an example of a $|\mathcal{C}|=8$ length loop term. []{data-label="fig:terms"}](Terms.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}]{} (-00,120)[$(a)$]{} (-00,60)[$(b)$]{} (80,140)[$(c)$]{} (90,70)[$(d)$]{}
(150,200) (-30,0)[![The convention for assigning directions to trimer configurations. The top row shows the configuration (for example) in state $|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$, and the bottom shows the flipped state $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle$; the red arrows indicate the direction assignment. Configurations along loop-like paths are assigned a direction as shown in $(a)$. Terms which involve flips along non-loop paths include triangles with local “divergence” $\pm3$, as shown in $(b)$. Finally, $(c)$ shows how a monomer (an untrimerized site) may be moved along a path via trimer flips. []{data-label="fig:direction"}](directions.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}]{} (-20,180)[$(a)$]{} (60,170)[$(b)$]{} (150,180)[$(c)$]{}
Let us now discuss what possible terms, denoted by the set of flipped triangles $\mathcal{C}$, arise in our model and how large clusters $|\mathcal{C}|_\text{max}$ one should include for ergodicity. The simplest types of moves are loop moves, where $\mathcal{C}$ consists of a loop of an even number of triangles joined in alternating orientation (each triangle shares sites with only two other triangles, as shown in Figure \[fig:direction\]a). The smallest moves are $|\mathcal{C}|=4$ terms of this type, which come in two flavors: a loop of four triangles around an octahedron, and a loop of four triangles around two edge-sharing tetrahedra, shown in Figure \[fig:terms\]a and \[fig:terms\]b.
To more effectively visualize the action of these loop terms, we can unambiguously assign a *directionality* to the loop configurations $|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$ and $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle$. To set a convention, imagine the triangles in $\mathcal{C}_A$ as arrowheads which all point in one direction around the loop, which we define to be the direction of the configuration $|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$, as shown in Figure \[fig:direction\]a. Similarly, we may look at the configuration $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle$, which always points in the opposite direction. Pictorially, the kinetic term then looks like $-t(|\hspace{-1.0mm}\circlearrowleft\rangle\langle \circlearrowright\hspace{-1.0mm}| + |\hspace{-1.0mm}\circlearrowright\rangle \langle \circlearrowleft\hspace{-1.0mm}|)$ in this language. In this description, the loop terms are always flipping between “divergenceless” configurations. A flip is characterized as a loop if every triangle is only in contact with two other triangles. However, a triangle may also be in contact with *three* other triangles. In our picture, such triangles have a “divergence” of $\pm3$, as shown in Figure \[fig:direction\]b. Terms involving such triangles first appear in the Hamiltonian at $|\mathcal{C}|=6$, one such example is shown in Figure \[fig:terms\]c.
As we will show, there exists a conserved number that is left invariant under local trimer manipulations, modulo 3. However, the loop terms with $|\mathcal{C}|=4$ leave this number unchanged *not* modulo 3 and we have an extra unwanted conservation law that we can get rid of by including larger terms. At $|\mathcal{C}|=6$, the term in Figure \[fig:terms\]c is sufficient to accomplish this, and at $|\mathcal{C}|=8$, there are larger loop terms such as the one shown in Figure \[fig:terms\]d that also accomplish this. Thus, we need *at least* $|\mathcal{C}|_\text{max}=6$ to achieve ergodicity. We do not investigate this question of ergodicity further here, and assume that there is a small finite value of $|\mathcal{C}|_\text{max}$ (which may just be 6) for which the Hamiltonian is ergodic *enough* within each topological sector.
![A sample trimer configuration in an $xy$ plane specified by $z$-coordinate $z_0$, which includes triangles spanning the site-layers $z_0$ and $z_0+1/2$. Upwards facing trimers are shown in orange, while downwards facing trimers are shown in blue. The topologically conserved “winding number” is the difference between the number of upwards facing trimers ($N_\triangle$) and downwards facing trimers ($N_\triangledown$) modulo 3 (Eq \[eq:winding\]). []{data-label="fig:conserved"}](conserved.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
We can now proceed to discuss conserved quantities that remain invariant under such local flips. Consider two adjacent $xy$-plane of sites defined by the $z$-coordinate $z_0$ and $z_0+1/2$ of the FCC lattice, as shown in Figure \[fig:conserved\] (where the linear dimension of the cubic unit cell is taken to be $1$). All the triangles with all three sites within these two planes are oriented with either: two sites on the lower and one on the upper, which we call “upwards pointing” ($\triangle$), or the opposite, which we call “downwards pointing” triangles ($\triangledown$). We claim that the “winding number” for this $xy$ plane, $$W_{xy}^{(z_0)}=N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)}-N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)}\mod 3
\label{eq:winding}$$ is conserved by arbitrary local trimer moves, where $N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)} (N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)})$ is the number of upwards (downwards) pointing trimers between layers $z_0$ and $z_0+1/2$.
Furthermore, knowing $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ for one $z_0$ determines the value for all other $xy$ planes. We can show this using a simple counting argument. The number of sites on layer $z_0+1/2$ that are included in the trimers spanning $z_0, z_0+1/2$, is $N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)}+2N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)}$. Let $N_{xy}$ be the total number of sites an $xy$ layer. This leaves $N_{xy}-(N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)}+2N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)})$ free sites in layer $z_0+1/2$ that must be used in the trimers spanning $z_0+1/2,z_0+1$, as there are no untrimerized (monomer) sites. Therefore, we must have $$2N_{\triangle}^{(z_0+1/2)}+N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0+1/2)} = N_{xy}-(N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)}+2N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)})
,$$ and taking both sides modulo 3, we find $$W_{xy}^{(z_0+1/2)} = W_{xy}^{(z_0)} - N_{xy} \mod 3.$$ Therefore, knowing $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ for $z_0$ fixes its value for every $z$. This alone is proof that $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ cannot be modified by any local trimer move: to modify one we must simultaneously change this value for *every* value of $z$, which requires a non-local trimer move. The same argument holds for the $yz$ and $zx$ planes, which therefore give us access to three independent conserved winding numbers. Measuring these winding numbers requires counting the number of triangles within an entire plane: a non-local measurement. At the RK point (and the RSVP liquid phase), this leads to a locally indistinguishable $3^3$-fold degenerate ground state manifold on a 3-torus. Thus, we have already uncovered the topological ground state degeneracy — a key features of a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topologically ordered phase.
Next, we observe that the non-local trimer shift needed to change these winding numbers correspond to flips on paths $\mathcal{C}$ that are equivalent to non-contractible loops. Consider the non-local trimer loop move $\mathcal{C}$ which runs along a non-contractible loop wrapping once around the $z$ direction. Let $|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$ be the configuration where the “direction” of the loop as previously discussed points along the positive $z$ direction, and $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle$ along the negative direction. Then, flipping $|\mathcal{C}_B\rangle\rightarrow|\mathcal{C}_A\rangle$ will increment $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ by 1. Since $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ for every slice must be changed identically, we further see that any further local manipulations one makes to the details of $\mathcal{C}$ will not change its effect on $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$.
To complete the picture of the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order, we next consider the form of the excitations. At the RK point, we only have the ground state that can be solved for exactly — and while we can write down variation states with localized excitations, these will not be exact (they must be locally “dressed” and the true eigenstates will be a definite momentum superposition) [@rk]. We examine two types of excitations in this model: point-like monomer (“charge”) excitations and loop-like vison (“magnetic”) excitations.
Monomer excitations are sites which do not participate in any trimer. To include these, we must relax our constraint in Eq. \[eq:1constraint\] to allow states with $G_s|\psi\rangle=e^{i\alpha}|\psi\rangle$ at some energy cost. A single monomer can be moved from site $s$ to $s^\prime$ by a trimer flip along a path, as shown in Figure \[fig:direction\]c. Adding a two-triangle hopping term gives monomer excitations a finite mass and dispersion. We can now identify the non-local flip that increments the winding number by one as corresponding to the action of bringing a monomer excitation around along a non-contractible loop in the negative $z$ direction once.
To create vison excitations, consider a loop $\mathcal{L}$, and let $W_{\mathcal{L}}$ count the winding number as previously defined in Eq \[eq:winding\] but for an open surface with boundary at $\mathcal{L}$. We then define the “vison operator” as $v_{\mathcal{L}} = e^{2\pi i W_{\mathcal{L}}/3}$. Our cartoon state containing a vison loop along $\mathcal{L}$ will then look like $$|v_\mathcal{L}\rangle \approx |W_\mathcal{L}=0\rangle+e^{2\pi i/3}|W_\mathcal{L}=1\rangle + e^{-2\pi i/3}|W_\mathcal{L}=2\rangle$$ where $|W_\mathcal{L}=k\rangle$ is the component of the ground state wavefunction with $W_\mathcal{L}=k$. Any term in the Hamiltonian far away from the loop $\mathcal{L}$ does not change the value of $W_\mathcal{L}$, and so this state remains a local eigenstate of those terms. This is not true for terms near the loop which do change the value of $W_\mathcal{L}$, and so this state will have a finite energy density along $\mathcal{L}$ (but will not be an eigenstate of those terms). In this cartoon picture, one can imagine threading $n$ monomer excitations through $m$ vison loops before returning to its original position, resulting in an overall phase $e^{2\pi i n m/3}$ (of course, actually rigorously defining such a process requires more care).
Thus, we have shown that the QPM in its RSVP phase does indeed possess $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order, with all of its important features. In the next section, we will examine a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalization of the FCC QPM in an exactly solvable limit, which shares much of the properties of the hard-core model just discussed, including a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order *for all* $N$ divisible by 3. The properties of these models generically depend strongly on $N$ and the details of the lattice, and for the interested reader we cover a few more characteristic examples in the Appendix.
$\mathbb{Z}_N$ Generalization {#sec:znfcc}
=============================
To motivate the study of the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalization, we observe that by doing a simple operator substitution on the hard-core Hamiltonian, one can get a Hamiltonian of mutually commuting projectors which can be solved exactly.
The first step is to enlarge the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ degree of freedom on each plaquette to a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ degree of freedom. Acting on each of these degrees of freedom, we have the operators $X$,$Z$, for each bond obeying algebra $$\begin{aligned}
Z^N = X^N = 1\nonumber\\
XZ = \omega ZX
\label{eq:znalg}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega=e^{2\pi i/N}$. Thus, the eigenvalues of $X$ are $\omega^n$ for $n=1\dots N$, and $Z$ acts as a raising operator in the $X$ eigenbasis. Interpreting the $X$ eigenvalue $\omega^n$ as the presence of $n$ trimers on a bond, we can then enforce a site constraint that the sum of trimers connected to a site always be zero mod $N$. For large $N$, these can be interpreted as bosonic or quantum rotor degrees of freedom, as in Ref . Note that we could have equally chosen the site constraint to be any number without changing the physics, as the resulting Hamiltonians can be shown to be unitarily related to each other. Quantum dynamics that respect this constraint can then be represented by substituting $\sigma^+\rightarrow Z, \sigma^-\rightarrow Z^\dagger$ in the kinetic term of the RK Hamiltonian Eq \[eq:fccrk\] when expressed in terms of raising/lowering operators. Since the kinetic term does not annihilate any state, the potential term is not needed.
Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{N} &=& -\sum_{\mathcal{C}}\left(\prod_{t\in\mathcal{C}_A}Z_t\prod_{t\in\mathcal{C}_B}Z_t^\dagger + h.c.\right)\\
&&- \sum_{s} \left(\prod_{t\in s}X_t + h.c.\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the first sum is over all bipartite connected sets of triangles $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_A\cup\mathcal{C}_B$ such that every site contains an equal number of triangles from $\mathcal{C}_A$ and $\mathcal{C}_B$. Note that this is a looser constraint than in the hard-core case (where each site had to have *one* from each, or none).
We can motivate that this model will have $\mathbb{Z}_3$ order only if $N$ is a multiple of 3, and trivial otherwise, by just looking at the quasiparticle structure. We may define the charge as $Q_s = \prod_{t\in s} X_t$, where the product is over the 24 triangles touching a site. However, acting with $Z_t$ creates a set of three charges $\omega$ each, and so we are therefore forced to conclude that three charges combined carries no topological charge (note that if the lattice were tripartite, then a different charge definition could be used on each sublattice and this conclusion would not hold — some examples of this happening are discussed in the Appendix). If $N$ is not a multiple of three, then one can create a single $\omega$ charge via local operations, and we are left with a trivial liquid. On the other hand, if $N$ is a multiple of three, there is the possibility for a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological order. In this situation, the correct definition of the topological charge operator should be $$Q^\text{top}_s = Q_s^{N/3}.$$ We assume that $N$ is a multiple of three moving forwards.
First, note that there may be non-topological degeneracies that exist due to commuting terms which are not included in the Hamiltonian because they cannot be expressed as products of terms on bipartite $\mathcal{C}$. The product ${(Z_{t_1}Z_{t_2}Z_{t_3}Z_{t_4})}^{N/3}$ around the four faces of a tetrahedron is such an example, which leads to an extra 3-fold non-topological degeneracy. We will ignore non-topological degeneracies as they can be broken by local perturbations.
To count the topological degeneracy, consider the operator that counts $N_{\triangle}^{(z_0)}-N_{\triangledown}^{(z_0)}$ for an $xy$-plane of triangles (as considered earlier for QPM), $$e^{2\pi i (N_\triangle^{(z_0)} - N_\triangledown^{(z_0)})/N} = \prod_{t\in\triangle}X_t \prod_{t\in\triangledown}X_t^\dagger$$ where the product $t\in\triangle$ ($t\in\triangledown$) is over all upwards (downwards) pointing triangles in the $xy$-plane spanning $z_0$,$z_0+1/2$. While this commutes with all $|\mathcal{C}|=4$ terms in the Hamiltonian, it fails to do so with some $|\mathcal{C}|=6$ terms, (such as the one shown in Figure \[fig:terms\] for the QPM), and general local perturbations. Instead, like in the QPM, this number is only conserved mod $3$ under local operations, and so the correct operator is $$W_{xy} = {\left(\prod_{t\in\triangle} X_t \prod_{t\in\triangledown}X_t^{\dagger}\right)}^{N/3}$$ which *does* commute with every term in the Hamiltonian. We have suppressed the $z_0$ label, as it is possible to relate $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ for different $z$ by terms present in the Hamiltonian. To see this, observe that multiplying $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ by ${(Q^{\text{top}}_s)}^\dagger$ on every site $s$ in the $z_0+1/2$ layer results in $W_{xy}^{(z_0+1/2)}$, and so therefore $W_{xy}^{(z_0)} = W_{xy}^{(z_0+1/2)}$ in the ground state where $Q_s^\text{top} = 1$. We have $W_{xy}^3=1$ and so $W_{xy}$ can take on one of three values, and since there are three independent planes one could have defined this for, this leads to a $3^{3}$ topological degeneracy. Notice the remarkable similarity to the QPM discussion in Section \[sec:hctrimer\].
The advantage of this model over the QPM at the RK point is that the excitations are static can be solved exactly. A monomer excitation from the QPM correspond to a $Q_s=\omega$ charge sitting on a site $s$, which carries topological charge $Q_s^\text{top} = e^{2\pi i/3}$. By application of a chain operator $Z_{t_1}^\dagger Z_{t_2} \dots Z_{t_{L-1}}^\dagger Z_{t_L}$, a monomer can be moved from one site to another, and moving one monomer around a non-contractible loop in the $z$ direction will modify the value of the conserved winding number $W_{xy}$ by $e^{\pm 2\pi i /3}$ depending on which direction the monomer goes around the loop.
The vison (magnetic) excitations of this model are loop-like, and are created at the boundary of a membrane operator, $$W_{\mathcal{L}} = {\left(\prod_{t\in\triangle^{\mathcal{L}}} X_t\prod_{t\in\triangledown^{\mathcal{L}}} X_t^\dagger\right)}^{N/3}$$ where $\triangle^\mathcal{L}$ ($\triangledown^\mathcal{L}$) are all the upwards (downwards) oriented triangles along an open surface with boundary along the loop $\mathcal{L}$ (which we may take to be a flat loop in an $xy$ plane, where this operator can be thought of as a truncated version of the $W_{xy}^{(z_0)}$ operator). Acting with this operator on the ground state creates an excited eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, which is locally the ground state away from $\mathcal{L}$, but an excited eigenstate with gap $2(1-\cos{2\pi /3})$ for each term near the loop $\mathcal{L}$ that doesn’t commute with $W_\mathcal{L}$.
We can now also explicitly verify the statistical phase obtained by bringing charge excitations through vison loops. Consider the action of bringing $n$ charge excitations around in a circle linking with $m$ vison loops, bringing us back to the same state but with a overall phase. In the simplest case, computing this phase involves commuting a $Z^n$ with $(X^{\dagger})^{N m/3}$, which results in a $\omega^{N n m / 3} = e^{2\pi i n m / 3}$ phase factor overall, in agreement with what one expects from a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ phase.
Finally, we note that such a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ model can in principle be defined on any lattice, and produces a wide variety of interesting topological phases. We have examined a few characteristic cases in the Appendix.
Conclusion
==========
To conclude, we have investigated in detail the topological properties of the FCC QPM, a prime candidate for an RSVP phase. In doing so, we discovered the presence of a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ topological conserved quantity that leads to a $3^3$-fold topological ground state degeneracy at the RK point on a $3$-torus, where this model was shown to have exponentially decaying trimer-trimer correlations [@pankov] indicating the presence of a gapped liquid RSVP phase. Our result would then imply that this topological degeneracy is a feature of the whole phase, and we show that it also shares the features one expects of a phase can be described by a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ gauge theory, such as $\mathbb{Z}_3$ quasiparticle excitations and loop-like vison excitations. This $\mathbb{Z}_3$ emerges naturally from the *geometry* of the FCC lattice, in the same way that a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ order emerges in the triangular lattice QDM.
TD thanks Shivaji Sondhi for suggesting this model be studied in the first place and for continued guidance and support on this project. TD also thanks Roderich Moessner, Siddharth Parameswaran, Daniel Arovas, Barry Bradlyn, Sanjay Moudgalya, and Christian Jepsen for many helpful discussions.
$\mathbb{Z}_N$ Generalized Models on other lattices {#sec:zn}
===================================================
We motivate the study of these $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalized models from an observation that by doing a simple operator substitution on the hard-core Hamiltonian for QDMs or QPMs, one gets a Hamiltonian of mutually commuting projectors which can be solved exactly. Some possible phases found in these exactly solvable models are summarized in Table \[tab:znmodels\]. We will refer to such models as $N$-GDM (specifically for dimer models), and $N$-GPM for the plaquette models (which include trimer models and a tetramer model which we also discuss).
$\mathbb{Z}_N$ model Lattice Phase
---------------------- --------------------- -----------------------------------
Square $\mathbb{Z}_N$
Triangular $\mathbb{Z}_{\gcd(2,N)}$
Triangular $\mathbb{Z}_N\times \mathbb{Z}_N$
Corner-sharing $\mathbb{Z}_N$ fracton
octahedra (X-cube phenomenology)
Face centered cubic $\mathbb{Z}_{\gcd(3,N)}$
Simple Cubic $\mathbb{Z}_N$ fracton (X-cube)
: Table summarizing the topological phases found for the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalized dimer models (first two rows) and $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalized plaquette models (remaining rows). $\mathbb{Z}_{\gcd(p,N)}$ for $p=2,3$ simply means $\mathbb{Z}_p$ order if $N$ is a multiple of $p$, and trivial otherwise. The FCC QPM is discussed in Section \[sec:hctrimer\] of the main text. []{data-label="tab:znmodels"}
To illustrate the construction for a general lattice model, we first consider the Rohksar-Kivelson QDM on the square lattice. Letting $\sigma^x=1 (-1)$ on a bond signify the presence (absence) of a dimer, we can write the Hamiltonian as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_\text{RK} &=& -t \sum_{\square}\sigma^+_{l_1}\sigma^-_{l_2}\sigma^+_{l_3}\sigma^-_{l_4} + h.c.\nonumber\\
&&-V \sum_{\square} P_{\sigma_{l_1}^x} P_{\sigma^x_{l_3}} +P_{\sigma_{l_2}^x}P_{\sigma^x_{l_4}}\nonumber\\
&& - \Gamma \sum_{s} e^{-i\alpha\left[1-\sum_{l\in s } P_{\sigma_l^x}\right]} + h.c. \label{eq:sqRK}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the projection operator $P_\mathcal{O} = (1+\mathcal{O})/2$ for an operator $\mathcal{O}$ with eigenvalues $\pm 1$, $\Gamma=\infty$ enforces the hard-core constraint, and $\alpha$ can be any number (except for some special choices, such as $\pi$, for example). The first sum is over square plaquettes on the lattice, and $l_{1\dots 4}$ are the four links going around clockwise or counterclockwise around it, and the second sum is over all sites which touch four links in a cross.
To arrive at the $N$-GDM on the square lattice, we first enlarge the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ degree of freedom on each bond to a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ degree of freedom, with operators $X$,$Z$ acting on them with algebra given in Eq \[eq:znalg\]. We can then substitute $\sigma^+\rightarrow Z, \sigma^-\rightarrow Z^\dagger$ in the kinetic term of the RK Hamiltonian \[eq:sqRK\]. Since the kinetic term does not annihilate any state, again the potential term is not needed. We then have (schematically) $$\mathcal{H}^{\text{Square}}_{N\text{-GDM}} = -\sum_{\square} (Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.)
- \sum_{+} (\prod_{l\in +}X_{l} + h.c.)\label{eq:sqngdm}$$ where we have suppressed the $l$ subscripts on the kinetic term which act on the four bonds around a square as illustrated in Figure \[fig:ngdms\]a. The second term is the site constraint, which is a product over all four bonds emanating from a site. This Hamiltonian is composed to mutually commuting terms (so we have set $t=\Gamma=1$) and can be solved exactly. On the square lattice, this model is a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalization of the toric code [@schulz], which exhibits $\mathbb{Z}_N$ topological order as we will show.
For plaquette models, there is an additional difference between the $N$-GPM and the (hard-core) QPM in which kinetic terms are allowed. In the QPM, the allowed flips $\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_A\cup\mathcal{C}_B$ may only have each site being included in zero or two plaquettes, one from $\mathcal{C}_A$ and one from $\mathcal{C}_B$. In the $N$-GPM, the constraint is instead that each site only be a part of an equal number of triangles from $\mathcal{C}_A$ and $\mathcal{C}_B$. Thus, there are terms involving configurations where a site is included in more than two triangles total, that were not allowed in the QPM.
We shall now examine the properties of the $N$-GDM and $N$-GPM on a few characteristic lattices, starting with the square lattice $N$-GDM we just derived.
(140,130) (-40,0)[![Pictorial representation of the terms in the Hamiltonian for $(a)$ the square lattice $N$-GDM, $(b)$ the triangular lattice $N$-GDM, and $(c)$ the triangular lattice $N$-GPM. Blue and orange bonds/triangles indicate operators involved in the kinetic terms in the Hamiltonian ($Z$ and $Z^\dagger$), and red indicates those involved in the site-constraint ($X$). Only one of three possible rhombus orientations is shown for the kinetic term in the triangular lattice $N$-GDM $(b)$. []{data-label="fig:ngdms"}](ngdms.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}]{} (85,98)[$Z$]{} (85,77.0)[$Z^\dagger$]{} (135,98)[$X$]{} (-45,105)[$(a)$]{} (-40,40)[$(b)$]{} (58,40)[$(c)$]{}
$N$-GDM on Square Lattice
-------------------------
On this (bipartite) lattice, the $N$-GDM is equivalent to a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ lattice gauge theory. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq \[eq:sqngdm\], and we take the system on a torus which respects the bipartiteness of the square lattice.
The ground state degeneracy can be found by noting that for a non-contractible loop, the product $W = Z_{l_1}Z^\dagger_{l_2} \dots Z_{l_{L-1}} Z^\dagger_{l_L}$ along that loop commutes with and is independent of any of the terms in the Hamiltonian. Furthermore, powers of $W$ are also independent of terms in the Hamiltonian. Since $W^{N}=1$, eigenstates may take on any eigenvalue $\omega^n$ for $n=1\dots N$. As there are two such independent loop operators, the ground state sector is $N^2$-fold degenerate.
We can define the charge operator on site $s$ as $$Q_s =
\begin{cases}
\prod_{l\in s} X_l & s\in A\\
\prod_{l\in s} X_l^{\dagger} & s \in B
\end{cases}\label{eq:bipcharge}$$ where $A$ and $B$ correspond to the two sublattices of the square lattice. We then see that acting on the ground state with with $Z_l$ creates the exact eigenstate with two oppositely-charged excitations of charge $\omega$ and $\omega^{-1}$ on the two sites touching $l$. Therefore, total charge is preserved under any local operation modulo $N$. Notice crucially that this construction works *only* due to the bipartite nature of the lattice.
Finally, we note that by doing a transformation $Z_l,X_l\rightarrow Z_l^{\dagger}, X_l^{\dagger}$ on a subset of the links, one can recover the usual form of the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ Toric code on the square lattice [@schulz].
$N$-GDM on Triangular Lattice
-----------------------------
On non-bipartite lattices, the $N$-GDM describes a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ ordered phase for even $N$, and a topologically trivial liquid otherwise. The Hamiltonian is $$\mathcal{H}^{\text{Tri}}_{N\text{-GDM}} = -\sum_{\text{rhombus}}
(Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.) - \sum_{s} (\prod_{l\in s} X_l + h.c.)$$ where the first sum is now over length-4 loops on the triangular lattice which are rhombuses, and the second term is now a product over 6 links touching a site, which are illustrated in Figure \[fig:ngdms\]b.
We first consider the case of even $N$. The first thing to note is that there is now an additional two-fold *non*-topological ground state degeneracy. We can write down the local operation $T_t = (Z_{l_1} Z_{l_2} Z_{l_3})^{N/2}$ where $l_{1\dots 3}$ are three links to go around a triangle $t$, which is independent of and commutes with the Hamiltonian. Such triangle operators on different triangles can be related to each other via applications of terms in the Hamiltonian, and since $T_t^2=1$, there are degenerate ground states with $T_t=\pm 1$. This is non-topological, as one can simply add a term $-h T_t$ to the Hamiltonian for just a single triangle, which would break the degeneracy. We will ignore this degeneracy moving forwards.
Because the lattice is no longer bipartite, we cannot use the definition of charge from Eq. \[eq:bipcharge\]. Instead, the best we can do is simply $$Q_s = \prod_{l\in s} X_l.
\label{eq:tringdmcharge}$$ The action of applying $Z_l$ to a link $l$ creates two charges $\omega$ on each of the two sites it connects. As it is possible to locally create two charges $\omega^2$, a pair of such charges must be topologically indistinguishable from the vacuum. In this case, we must make a distinction from the charge in Eq \[eq:tringdmcharge\] and the *topological* charge operator, which should be $$Q^{\text{top}}_s = Q_s^{N/2} ,$$ and can only take two values. This is already an indication of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ order to come, which we show by observing the $2^2$-fold topological degeneracy.
As before, consider the product $W = Z_{l_1}Z^\dagger_{l_2} \dots Z_{l_{L-1}} Z^\dagger_{l_L}$ along a non-contractible loop of length $L$. Again, $W$ is independent of and commutes with the Hamiltonian, so one might be tempted to say it can take on any of $N$ values. However, this turns out not to be true, as $W^2$ *can* be written as a product of terms in the Hamiltonian. This is consistent with our previous finding that two charges are topologically identical to the vacuum: $W$ can be thought of as the process of moving a charge around the non-contractible loop, $W^2$ would correspond to moving two charges along the loop, which must therefore be trivial. Since $W^2=1$ we are left with only a choice of $W=\pm 1$. There are two independent non-contractible loops, and so we are left with a $2^2$-fold topological degeneracy, for any even $N$.
For odd $N$, even a single charge must be topologically identical to the vacuum. To see this, observe that the local operator $(Z_{l_1} Z_{l_2}^{\dagger} Z_{l_3})^{(N+1)/2}$ for $l_{1\dots 3}$ going around a triangle creates a total charge $\omega$ on a single site, which therefore cannot carry any topological charge.
$N$-GPM on Triangular Lattice
-----------------------------
We next consider $\mathbb{Z}_N$ generalized plaquette models ($N$-GPM). Similar to how the properties of the $N$-GDM depended heavily on the bipartiteness of the lattice, we will find that the properties of the $N$-GPM with triangular plaquettes will depend heavily on the *tri*partiteness of the lattice.
For this reason, we first examine the $N$-GPM on the triangular lattice, which has triangular plaquettes and is tripartite. On this lattice, the $N$-GPM maps to a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ bosonic ring-exchange model on the (*dual*) honeycomb lattice originally studied by Motrunich [@motrunich] the strong coupling limit, which was found to have a fully deconfined $\mathbb{Z}_N\times \mathbb{Z}_N$ phase, which we will find here as well.
The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^\text{Tri}_{N\text{-GPM}} &=& -\sum_{s}(Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.)\\
&& -\sum_{s}(X X X X X X + h.c.)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where each term involves the product of operators over 6 triangles touching a site, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:ngdms\]c. We again assume the system to be defined on a torus which respects the tripartiteness of the lattice.
Again, a simple method of analysis is by examining the quasiparticle structure. Acting with $Z_t$ on a triangle creates three charge excitations, one on each sublattice which we label $A$, $B$, and $C$. This leads to the “fusion rule” $a\times b\times c = 1$, where $a,b,c$ are charge excitations on each of the three sublattices. Thus, we can represent $c$ as a bound state of an $a$ and $b$ antiparticle, and define the charge operators accordingly: $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{a}_s =
\begin{cases}
\prod_{t\in s} X_t & s\in A\\
\prod_{t\in s} 1 & s\in B\\
\prod_{t\in s} X_t^{\dagger} & s \in C
\end{cases}\nonumber
\\
Q^{b}_s =
\begin{cases}
\prod_{t\in s} 1 & s\in A\\
\prod_{t\in s} X_t & s\in B\\
\prod_{t\in s} X_t^{\dagger} & s \in C
\end{cases}\label{eq:tripcharge}\end{aligned}$$ both of which are conserved under local operations. Going through a similar exercise as before, one can readily verify the existence of *four* independent non-contractible loop operators, which leads to the $N^2\times N^2$ topological ground state degeneracy. These loop operators correspond to bringing an $a$ or $b$ particle around along a non-contractible loop. For a more detailed analysis of this $\mathbb{Z}_N\times \mathbb{Z}_N$ phase, we direct the reader to Ref , which discusses the model on the dual (honeycomb) lattice.
(140,160) (-50,0)[![ The corner-sharing octahedra lattice, on which the $N$-GPM shows a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ X-cube fracton phase. $(a)$ shows of the corner-sharing octahedra lattice, where sites from the three sublattices are colored red, green, and blue. The centers of the octahedra form into a simple cubic lattice, with lattice constant taken to be $1$. Sites from each sublattice themselves also sit an offset simple cubic lattice. $(b)$ shows two type of octahedron flips $|\mathcal{C}_\text{oct}|=4$, and $(c)$ shows a cuboctahedron flip $|\mathcal{C}_\text{cuboct}|=8$. $(d)$ shows a portion of the $W_z(x_0,y_0)$ operator, which measures a $\mathbb{Z}_N$ topologically conserved quantity. Blue triangles indicates $Z$ operators and orange indicates $Z^\dagger$ operators. []{data-label="fig:cso"}](cso.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{} (-50,130)[$(a)$]{} (80,130)[$(b)$]{} (80,70)[$(c)$]{} (150,130)[$(d)$]{} (168,118)[$Z$]{} (168,102)[$Z^\dagger$]{}
$N$-GPM on Corner-Sharing Octahedra Lattice
-------------------------------------------
Here we highlight yet another interesting case: the $N$-GPM on the lattice defined by corner-sharing octahedra (a tripartite lattice with triangular plaquettes). The lattice can be understood as an underlying simple cubic lattice where each vertex is the center of an octahedron and the sites lie on the bonds of the underlying simple cubic lattice. A portion of this lattice is shown in Figure \[fig:cso\]a, which also illustrates the tripartiteness of the lattice. The $N$-GPM on this lattice will turn out to exhibit $\mathbb{Z}_N$ *fracton* topological order, which appears to be described well by $\mathbb{Z}_N$ X-cube model [@vijayhaahfu; @vijay-layered]. We will show that this model exhibits the key features of this phase: quasiparticle excitations which exhibit restricted movement and the characteristic subextensive topological ground state degeneracy. Fundamental quasiparticle excitations of this (and the X-cube) model are the one-dimensionally mobile quasiparticle (which we call lineons [@fractonfm]) and zero-dimensional immobile fractons, which are created at the corners of membrane operators.
The Hamiltonian describing this model is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^\text{C-S Oct}_{N\text{-GPM}} &=& -\sum_{\mathcal{C}_\text{oct}} \left(Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.\right) \nonumber\\
&&- \sum_{\mathcal{C}_\text{cuboct}} \left( Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.\right) \nonumber\\
&&-\sum_{s} \left(\prod_{t\in s} X_t + h.c. \right)\end{aligned}$$ The first sum is over all bipartite sets of triangles $\mathcal{C}_\text{oct}=\mathcal{C}_A\cup\mathcal{C}_B$ that go around an octahedron, such that each site is a part of an equal number of triangles in $\mathcal{C}_A$ and $\mathcal{C}_B$, of size $|\mathcal{C}_\text{oct}|=4$ These come in two main types, as shown in Figure \[fig:cso\]b (the rest are obtained by symmetry relations on the octahedron of these two). The second sum is over all such sets on cuboctahedra (the 14-faced polyhedron with 8 triangular faces and 6 square faces), and involve all $|\mathcal{C}_\text{cuboct}|=8$ triangles, as shown in Figure \[fig:cso\]c. Finally, the third term is the usual site constraint, with the product going over 8 triangles touching a site.
Again, we may begin our analysis by examining the quasiparticle structure. Apply a $Z_t$ to a triangle creates three charge excitations, one on each sublattice. Let $A$,$B$, and $C$ correspond to the three sublattices, and $a$,$b$,and $c$ a single charge excitation on the respective sublattice. We can apply the charge definition from Eq \[eq:tripcharge\] and treat the $c$ charge as a bound state of an $a$ and $b$ anticharge. However, there is an additional conservation law here arising from the $\emph{geometry}$ of the lattice.
Consider what happens when we have a single $a$ charge sitting on a site $s$ in the $A$ sublattice. The simplest way it can be moved from $s$ to some other site $s^\prime$ is by applying the operator $Z^\dagger_{t_1}Z_{t_2}$, where $t_1$ must touch the site $s$ and share two sites with $t_2$, who must then touch another site $s^\prime$. The geometry of the lattice allows only for $s^\prime$ to be one of two choices, which are both along one axis. Thus, this $a$ charge is confined to move along only one axis: it is the one-dimensional lineon of the X-cube model! The $a$, $b$, and $c$ charges then correspond to lineons confined to move along $x$, $y$, and $z$ directions respectively.
The vison excitations can come in two forms: either as violations of the octahedron terms or as violations of the cuboctahedron terms. We first examine excitations of the cuboctahedron term: consider the operator $X_{t_1}X_{t_2}X_{t_3}X_{t_4}$ around the four triangles around a square-based pyramid (which comprises half of an octahedron). This operator commutes with every octahedron term, but creates four cuboctahedron excitations. Thus, cuboctahedron excitations can only be created in groups of four, and one can confirm that by repeated applications of this operator along a membrane, these excitations can be moved further apart and appear at the *corners* of the membrane operator. Alone, one such excitation cannot be moved without creating additional excitations. The cuboctahedron vison excitations are therefore fractons! Various combinations of octahedron excitations can then be interpreted as bound states of fracton excitations.
Finally, we can compute the ground state degeneracy. Consider the operator that corresponds to creating a $z$-moving lineon-antilineon pair at coordinates $(x_0,y_0)$, moving the lineon around in the positive $z$ direction, and then annihilating them again. This is done by a $Z Z^\dagger$ chain as shown in Figure \[fig:cso\]d, which we call $W_z(x_0,y_0)$ and commutes with the Hamiltonian. Note that the details of how the $z$-lineon goes along each octahedron can be related to each other by octohedron terms in the Hamiltonian, and so are not independent. We can henceforth freely choose $W_z(x_0,y_0)=\omega^n$ for $n=1\dots N$. Furthermore, by application of the cuboctohedron term, we can show that in the ground state $$W_z(x_0,y_0)W_z^\dagger(x_0+1,y_0)W_z^\dagger(x_0,y_0+1)W_z(x_0+1,y_0+1) = 1$$ where we have taken the length of the cubic unit cell to be 1, and so not all of these $W_z(x,y)$ are independent. In fact, there are $2L-1$ independent $W_z(x,y)$’s, where $L$ is the linear dimension of the system. To see this, let us define for convenience $$\tilde{W}_z(x,y) =
\begin{cases}
W_z(x,y) & \text{if } x+y \text{ even}\\
W_z^\dagger(x,y) & \text{if } x+y \text{ odd}
\end{cases}$$ Then, we can specify $2L-1$ of $\tilde{W}_z(x,y_0)$ and $\tilde{W}_z(x_0,y)$, and then obtain the rest via the relation $$\tilde{W}_z(x,y) = \tilde{W}_z^\dagger(x,y_0)\tilde{W}_z^\dagger(x_0,y)\tilde{W}_z^\dagger(x_0,y_0).$$ Therefore, we have $2L-1$ independent choices to make for the $z$ direction, and similarly along $x$ and $y$. This leads to a topological ground state degeneracy of $N^{6L-3}$, which for $N=2$ exactly matches with that of the X-cube model [@vijayhaahfu], despite being microscopically very different. Thus, the $N$-GPM on the corner-sharing octahedra lattice results in $\mathbb{Z}_N$ fracton topological order, which appears to describe the same phase as the X-cube model.
$N$-GPM on Simple Cubic Lattice
-------------------------------
Here, we briefly show how the $N$-GPM on the simple cubic lattice maps on to the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ X-cube model. First, notice that this model has square plaquettes (thus describes a square tetramer model, rather than a trimer model). The Hamiltonian is given by $$\mathcal{H}^{SC}_{N\text{-GPM}} = -\sum_{\text{matchboxes}}(Z Z^\dagger Z Z^\dagger + h.c.) - \sum_{s}\prod_{p\in s} X_p$$ where the first sum is over four plaquettes going around a cube, which we refer to as “matchboxes”. There are three distinct orientations per cube. To map the model on to the X-cube model, we transform to the dual lattice: cubic volumes are replaced by vertices, and plaquette faces are replaced by bonds. The first sum then becomes the cross-term, and the second sum becomes the cube term. Finally, after mapping $Z\rightarrow Z^\dagger$ and $X\rightarrow X^\dagger$ for all operators on bonds going from A to B sublattices of the dual cubic lattice in the positive $\hat{x}$,$\hat{y}$, and $\hat{z}$ directions, one obtains the $\mathbb{Z}_N$ X-cube generalization obtained in Ref from a layered construction.
[11]{} L. Savary and L. Balents Rep. Prog. Phys. 80 016502 (2016). X.-G. Wen, Advances in Physics 44, 405 (1995). F. D. M. Haldane and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B 31 2529(R) (1985). X.-G. Wen and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 41, 9377 (1990). D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 722 (1984). B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 25, (1982) 2185. A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Lett. A 337, 22 (2005). A. Kitaev and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110404 (2006). M. Levin and X-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 110405 (2006). P. Fazekas and P. W. Anderson, Philos. Mag. 30, 23 (1974). P. W. Anderson 1973 Mater. Res. Bull. 8 153–60. P. W. Anderson, Science 235, 1196 (1987). S. A. Kivelson, D. S. Rokhsar and J. P. Sethna, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8865 (1987). R. Moessner and K. S. Raman, *Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism (Berlin: Springer)* pp 437–79 (2011). D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2376 (1998). E. Fradkin and S. A. Kivelson, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 4, 225 (1990). F. Wegner, J. Math. Phys. 12, 2259 (1971); R. Balian, J. M. Drouffe and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2098 (1975). S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 40, 5204 (1989); P. W. Leung, K. C. Chiu, and K. J. Runge, Phys. Rev. B 54, 12938 (1996); Olav F. Syljuasen, Phys. Rev. B 73, 245105 (2006). Eduardo Fradkin, David A. Huse, R. Moessner, V. Oganesyan, S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 69, 224415 (2004). D. A. Huse, W. Krauth, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 167004 (2003). R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. B 68, 184512 (2003). M. Hermele, M. P. A. Fisher, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064404 (2004). R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1881 (2001). Owen Myers, C. M. Herdman, Phys. Rev. B 96, 174434 (2017). S. Pankov, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi Phys. Rev. B 76, 104436 (2007). Cenke Xu and Congjun Wu, Phys. Rev. B 77, 134449 (2008). S. Vijay, J. Haah, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 94, 235157 (2016). D. J. Williamson, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155128 (2016). T. Devakul, S. A. Parameswaran, S. L. Sondhi, arXiv:1709.10071. C. Chamon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 040402 (2005). S. Bravyi, B. Leemhuis, B. Terhal, Ann. Phys. 326, 839 (2011). J. Haah, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042330 (2011). B. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125122 (2013). S. Vijay, J. Haah, and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B 92, 235136 (2015). R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B. (2001). T. Senthil and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850 (2000). L. Balents, M. P. A. Fisher and C. Nayak, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 12, 1033 (1998). T. Senthil and Matthew P. A. Fisher Phys. Rev. B 62, 7850 (2000). O. I. Motrunich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 115108 (2003). O. I. Motrunich, T. Senthil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 277004 (2002) A. Y. Kitaev, 2003, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 303, 2. M. D. Schulz, S. Dusuel, R. Orus, J. Vidal, K. P. Schmidt, New J. Phys. 14, 025005 (2012) S. Vijay, arXiv:1701.00762.
[^1]: Note that this even model is also what one would have found starting from an FCC Ising model with triangular plaquette interactions and proceeded with the generalized gauging procedure, or FS-duality, of Ref .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study spin dynamics of a normal Fermi liquid taking into account the demagnetizing field produced by the spin system itself. Linear solutions of the spin dynamics equations in the form of standing spin waves in a finite volume of liquid are found. At almost all known experimental conditions the influence of demagnetizing field can be satisfactorily described by the first order of perturbation theory. We carried out perturbational calculations for two geometries of experimental cell — spherical and finite-cylindrical. We performed also exact numerical simulations of the spin wave spectra in a spherical cell at an arbitrary strength of the demagnetizing field.
The obtained results are applied in particular to conditions of recent experiment (G.Vermeulen and A.Roni, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 248 (2001)) related to the problem of zero temperature transverse relaxation in a polarized Fermi liquid. We found that not taking into account demagnetizing field leads to negligible errors in the measured relaxation time, thus supporting the conclusion of the absence of zero temperature spin wave damping.
PACS numbers: 67.57.Lm, 67.60.-g, 67.65.+z, 67.80.Jd, 75.30.Ds
address:
- 'L. D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2 Kosygina st., 117334 Moscow, Russia'
- 'Départament de Recherche Fondamentale sur la Matière Condensée, Commisariat à l’Énergie Atomique, 17 rue des Martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France'
- 'Centre des Recherches sur les Très Basses Températures, laboratoire associé à l’Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS, BP 166, Grenoble Cédex 9, France'
author:
- 'P. L. Krotkov'
- 'V. P. Mineev'
- 'G. A. Vermeulen'
date: 'January, 20, 2001'
title: Effects of a dipolar field in the spin dynamics of a Fermi liquid
---
Introduction
============
Spin dynamics of a strongly spin-polarized normal Fermi liquid still captures appreciable theoretical and experimental interest. Among the main questions here is whether the transverse (i.e. in a direction perpendicular to the external field) magnetization excitations are damped at zero temperature.
Polarizing a Fermi liquid creates a gap $ \sim \hbar \gamma M/\chi _{n} $ between the two Fermi energies for spins up and down. Here $ \gamma $ is the gyromagnetic ratio of $ ^{3} $He nuclei, $ \chi _{n} $ is the susceptibility of the liquid. Meyerovich has pointed out [@Meyerovich] that the existence of the gap leads to a non-conventional temperature dependence of the transverse relaxation time, $ \propto (T^{2}+T^{2}_{\mathrm{a}})^{-1} $, where $ T_{\mathrm{a}} $ is of the order of the gap, and therefore to a damping of the transverse excitations even at zero temperature. This idea has been pursued in several theoretical papers [@JeonMullin], [@MeyerovichMusaelian], [@Golosov] and was contested recently by Fomin [@Fomin-solo], who argued that the conclusion of existence of zero-temperature attenuation is drawn from the wrong premises about the ground state of a polarized Fermi-liquid, viz., from treating the quasiparticles between two Fermi levels as excitations. Whereas as long as the polarization of the liquid is conserved, these particles should be considered as an inalienable part of the ground state.
Curiously, a similar discussion arose in mesoscopic physics where a poorly argued concept of finite dephasing time at $ T=0 $ has been developed [@golubev98] and contested [@aleiner99], [@cohen99].
The results of the measurements of the spin diffusion coefficients by spin echo experiments in pure $ ^{3} $He [@Wei], [@candela; @OB] and in solutions of $ ^{3} $He in $ ^{4} $He [@Ager], [@OB] with a spin polarization of a few percent revealed a finite value of $ T_{\mathrm{a}} $ in a qualitative agreement with the zero-attenuation concept. But the observed $ T_{\mathrm{a}} $ were several times greater than theoretical estimations in [@JeonMullin], [@MeyerovichMusaelian], [@Golosov]. On the contrary, the recent measurements of linear spin wave damping in dilute $ ^{3} $He at even higher polarizations [@vermeulen] are in agreement with Fomin’s theory ($ T_{\mathrm{a}}=0 $), although the upper limit for a finite $ T_{\mathrm{a}} $ set by this experiment (due to the error bars) does not allow to rule out completely the existing theory of zero temperature spin wave damping.
A coherent theory of strongly polarized Fermi liquids based on a properly defined ground state is lacking. On the other hand a proper interpretation of the experimental data for a strongly polarized liquid is itself non-trivial.
The point is that the magnetic field acting on the spins of a liquid is conventionally supposed to equal the external field $ \mathbf{H}^{e} $. In reality the field inside a specimen is well-known to differ from $ \mathbf{H}^{e} $ due to the shape-dependent demagnetizing field proportional to the magnetization. An oscillating magnetization thus acts back on itself via the demagnetizing (or dipolar) field. This phenomenon manifests itself as magnetostatic waves in ferrimagnets theoretically described by Kittel [@kittel] and Walker [@walker]. Walker originally showed that if the magnetization $ \mathbf{M} $ is supposed to obey the Larmor precession around the internal magnetic field **$ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ $$\label{precession}
(\partial _{t}+\gamma \mathbf{H}^{i}\times )\mathbf{M}=0,$$** then because $ \mathbf{M} $ and $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ are related through Maxwell equations they can self-consistently oscillate only with certain frequencies localized in the range $ \sim 2\pi \gamma M $ near the Larmor frequency.
In an interacting Fermi liquid (\[precession\]) should be replaced with the Leggett system of equations. In the linear approximation, solutions of this system are standing spin wave modes with the widths proportional to the transverse relaxation time. So study of the behavior of the widths of the modes with temperature is one of the possible ways to detect the zero-temperature transverse attenuation.
For *weakly-polarized* liquids the effects of the demagnetizing field can be discarded. But it is preferable to have *strong polarizations* in order to increase the predicted temperatures of the attenuation onset. So the effect of polarization has to be taken into consideration for the proper interpretation of the spectra. On the other hand at sufficiently strong polarizations one can expect considerable changes in the Leggett description of the Fermi liquid spin dynamics. In particular, due to the presence of two Fermi surfaces a double set of the Fermi-liquid parameters must enter the theory. We will use Leggett equations assuming that they are still valid when the share of polarized nuclei of the liquid does not surpass $ \sim $10 %.
To include dipolar field we have chosen to write out the dipolar part of the internal field $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ explicitly as an integral of the magnetization, this integral being a general solution of Maxwell differential equations with Maxwell boundary conditions. Thus we work with a closed integro-differential equation directly on the magnetization.
A short review of other possible methods is done in the Discussions section.
We start directly from the generalized Leggett equations and study the effects of the demagnetizing field coherently. We specialize to the case of linear spin waves, setting spin echo experiments aside.
A full-blown study including numerical calculations is done only for a spherical shape. For a finite cylinder as well as for a sphere we also calculated the changes to the spectra by the demagnetizing field using perturbation theory.
Our results show that the demagnetizing field introduces small corrections (about 4%) to the value of low temperature transversal relaxation rate experimentally determined by G.Vermeulen and A.Roni [@vermeulen]. Hence, the main conclusion of Ref. [@vermeulen] about the absence of zero-temperature spin wave damping is supported.
The paper is organized as follows. Sections II and III form the basis needed to comprehend the authors’ point of view. In Sec. II we show how to include the dipolar field in the standard Leggett equations and to how to linearize the result to obtain an equation for spin waves subject to both exchange and demagnetizing fields.
In Sec. III as the simplest application of the theory developed we find corrections to the spin wave spectra in a finite cylinder in the first order of perturbation theory. At the end of the Sec. III we find dipolar limitations on the correct determination of the transverse relaxation time from the conventional interpretation of the spectra.
The next Section IV contains similar first order perturbational estimation of the dipolar-field corrections to the spin waves spectra in a spherical container.
The results for a sphere are compared to numerical simulations carried out in Section V, where we also calculate spin wave spectra in the regimes of intermediate and strong demagnetizing fields.
In the last Section VI we discuss conclusions.
Statement of the problem
========================
Basic equations
---------------
Spin dynamics of a Fermi liquid is described by the Leggett coupled system of two partial differential equations on the local magnetization $ \mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r},t) $ and its current $ \mathbf{J}_{i}(\mathbf{r},t) $ [@Leggett]
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \partial _{t}+\gamma \mathbf{B}\times \right) & \mathbf{M} & +\partial _{i}\mathbf{J}_{i}=0,\label{laggett-1} \\
\left( \partial _{t}+\gamma \mathbf{B}\times \right) & \mathbf{J}_{i} & +\frac{w^{2}}{3}\partial _{i}(\mathbf{M}-\mathbf{M}_{0})\label{laggett-2} \\
& + & \kappa \frac{\gamma }{\chi _{n}}\mathbf{M}\times \mathbf{J}_{i}=-\frac{\mathbf{J}_{i}}{\tau _{1}}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Here $ \mathbf{B} $ is the flux density inside the sample [@20], $ w^{2} $ the renormalized Fermi velocity $ w^{2}=v_{F}^{2}(1+F^{a}_{0})(1+F^{a}_{1}/3) $ and $ \tau _{1} $ the renormalized relaxation time $ \tau _{1}=\tau /(1+F^{a}_{1}/3) $. $ F^{a}_{0} $ and $ F^{a}_{1} $ are the coefficients of expansion of the antisymmetric part of the Fermi-liquid interaction in the spherical harmonics. The equilibrium magnetization is $$\label{equilibrium-mag}
\mathbf{M}_{0}=\chi _{n}\mathbf{H}^{i},$$ where $ \mathbf{H}^{i}=\mathbf{B}-4\pi \mathbf{M} $ is the internal field.
Spin dynamics equations of a Fermi liquid reduce to the form (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]) in either of the regimes — collisionless $ C\gg 1 $ or hydrodynamic $ C\ll 1 $, where the regime parameter $$\label{regimeC}
C=\kappa (\gamma H^{i})(M/M_{0})\tau _{1}.$$ The factor $ M/M_{0} $ accounts for the possibility for the polarization $ M $ be higher than the equilibrium value $ M_{0} $ — in experiments [@vermeulen], [@Roni] $ M/M_{0} $ varied from $ 1 $ to $ 5 $.
The condition of applicability of the Leggett equations [@Leggett] is that the characteristic scale of spatial inhomogeneity $ \xi $ be greater than the quasiparticle mean free path $ v_{F}\tau $ *or* the magnetic length $ v_{F}\tau /C $ which one is the shorter, $$\xi \gg \min \left\{ v_{F}\tau ,\, v_{F}\tau /C\right\} .$$ In the collisionless regime ($ C\gg 1 $) the magnetic length $ v_{F}\tau /C $ is the shorter and thus should be smaller than $ \xi $. While in the hydrodynamic regime ($ C\ll 1 $) the spatial scale $ \xi $ should exceed the mean free path $ v_{F}\tau $.
Eq. (\[laggett-2\]) contains the torque due to the *local* molecular field $ \kappa \mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r},t)/\chi _{n} $ acting on current $ \mathbf{J}_{i}(\mathbf{r},t) $. The combination of the Fermi-liquid constants $ F^{a}_{0} $ and $ F^{a}_{1} $ $$\kappa =\frac{\frac{1}{3}F^{a}_{1}-F^{a}_{0}}{1+F^{a}_{0}}$$ measures the strength of the exchange interaction. It vanishes when turning the exchange off.
Leggett originally [@Leggett] considered the case of a weakly-polarized sample, wherein $ \mathbf{B}=\mathbf{H}^{e} $ — the external magnetic field at infinity. Generally, the relation between $ \mathbf{B} $ and $ \mathbf{H}^{e} $ is to be determined from the conventional boundary value problem of solving the magnetostatic equations in a non-conducting medium $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \times \mathbf{H} & = & 0,\qquad {\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \mathbf{B}=0\label{ms} \end{aligned}$$ with Maxwell boundary conditions of the continuity of $ B_{n} $ and $ \mathbf{H}_{t} $ at the boundary of the sample and of $ \mathbf{H}\rightarrow \mathbf{H}^{e} $ at infinity. In (\[ms\]) $$\label{B-dip-2}
\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{B}-4\pi \mathbf{M}.$$
A general formal solution of (\[ms\]), (\[B-dip-2\]) satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions is [@Jackson] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H} & = & \mathbf{H}^{e}+\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{dip}},\label{B-dip-1} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{B-dip}
\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{dip}}(\mathbf{r})={\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \left( {\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \int \frac{\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'\right)$$ is called the dipolar field. It is straightforward to verify that Eqs. (\[B-dip-1\]) and (\[B-dip-2\]) are indeed the solution in the whole space with the help of $$\label{green-inf}
\partial ^{2}|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|^{-1}=-4\pi \delta (\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}').$$
$ \mathbf{M} $ in its turn has to be found from the Leggett equations (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]). Therefore, the closed system of integro-differential Eqs. (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]), (\[B-dip-2\])–(\[B-dip\]) completely describes normal Fermi liquid electrodynamics with the effects of both inhomogeneity and the demagnetizing field taken into account.
Inside the sample the field $ \mathbf{H} $ from (\[B-dip-1\]) is called $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ — the internal magnetic field. The difference between external field at infinity $ \mathbf{H}^{e} $ and $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ is usually denoted as $$\label{Hi-He}
\mathbf{H}^{i}-\mathbf{H}^{e}=-4\pi \underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{M}],$$ where the (tensor) operator $ \underline{\widehat{n}} $, acting by the rule $$\label{demag-tensor}
\underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{M}]=-\frac{1}{4\pi }{\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \left( {\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \int _{V}\frac{\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'\right)$$ is called demagnetizing operator. Let us agree to denote an operator with a hat over a letter and a tensor with an underlined letter. The demagnetizing tensor operator $ \underline{\widehat{n}} $ is specific to the shape of the sample, over volume of which the integration in (\[demag-tensor\]) is taken, and generally is coordinate-dependent. It only reduces to the tensor of constant demagnetizing coefficients $ \underline{n} $ when acting on spatially homogeneous distributions in ellipsoidal samples (including limiting cases of a slab and an infinite cylinder).
Static magnetization distribution
---------------------------------
In a linear spin wave the magnetization rotates with a small amplitude $ \mathbf{m} $ around its (large) stable value $ \mathbf{M} $ in a static external magnetic field $ \mathbf{H}^{e}=H^{e}\hat{z} $.
Consider a general static ($ \partial _{t}\mathbf{M}=0 $, $ \mathbf{J}_{i}=0 $) case. In order for $ \mathbf{J}_{i}=0 $ there should be $$\label{dM-M0}
\partial _{i}(\mathbf{M}-\mathbf{M}_{0})=0$$ and then for $ \partial _{t}\mathbf{M}=0 $ the magnetization should be locally directed along $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ $$\label{MonHi}
\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r})=\chi _{n}A(\mathbf{r})\mathbf{H}^{i}(\mathbf{r}).$$ The function $ A(\mathbf{r}) $ must be such that $ \mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r}) $ satisfies (\[dM-M0\]). This imposes restrictions on the spatial dependence of $ A(\mathbf{r}) $, but leaves $ A(0) $ arbitrary.
So there exists continuum of static non-equilibrium magnetization distributions numbered by $ A\equiv A(0) $. It is this $ A $ which is represented as $ M/M_{0} $ in Table I.
In equilibrium (\[equilibrium-mag\]) $ A(\mathbf{r})\equiv 1 $.
To find a form of a non-equilibrium static magnetization distribution, we shall use the smallness of $ \chi _{n} $. For pure $ ^{3} $He, the magnetic susceptibility is $$\chi _{n}=\hbar ^{2}\gamma ^{2}N_{0}/2(1+F^{a}_{0})\sim 10^{-7},$$ where $ N_{0}=m^{*}k_{F}/2\pi ^{2}\hbar ^{2} $ is the density of states on the Fermi surface. For $ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He mixtures $ \chi _{n} $ is less, proportional to $ k_{F}\propto \sqrt[3]{x} $, where $ x $ is the concentration of $ ^{3} $He atoms in the mixture.
Substituting (\[MonHi\]) into (\[Hi-He\]) yields $$\label{Hi}
\mathbf{H}^{i}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{H}^{e}(\mathbf{r})-4\pi \chi _{n}\underline{\widehat{n}}\left[ A(\mathbf{r})\mathbf{H}^{e}(\mathbf{r})\right] +O(\chi ^{2}_{n}).$$
For the reasons that will become clear below the external magnetic field is taken almost constant, with a small gradient along its direction $$\label{He}
\mathbf{H}^{e}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{H}^{e}(1+z\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L}).$$ The presence of the field gradients in the perpendicular directions, necessary for the fulfillment of the condition $ {\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \mathbf{H}^{e}=0 $, is inessential for the following discourse.
From (\[dM-M0\]) it then follows that $ \nabla A=(1-A)\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L} $, i.e. the spatial inhomogeneity of $ A(\mathbf{r})=A+z\nabla A $ has the same smallness.
Leaving in (\[Hi\]) only the first order terms in either $ \chi _{n} $ or $ z\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L} $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma \mathbf{H}^{i} & = & (\omega _{L}+z\nabla \omega _{L})\hat{z}-\omega _{M}\underline{\widehat{n}}[\hat{z}].\label{HiM} \end{aligned}$$ Here $$\omega _{L}=\gamma H^{e}$$ is the Larmor frequency and $$\omega _{M}=4\pi \gamma M=4\pi \chi _{n}A\omega _{L}$$ is the frequency corresponding to magnetization. $ \underline{\widehat{n}}[\hat{z}] $ is generally a coordinate dependent vector. For ellipsoidal samples it reduces to $ \underline{n}\hat{z} $. If one of the principal axes of the ellipsoid (which are also the principal axes of the demagnetizing coefficients tensor $ \underline{n} $) coincides with $ \hat{z} $, we have $ \underline{n}\hat{z}=\hat{z}n^{(z)} $, where $ n^{(z)} $ is the $ z $-th demagnetizing coefficient. E.g., for a sphere $ n^{(z)}=\frac{1}{3} $, for a plane-parallel slab with the edges perpendicular to $ \widehat{z} $ the coefficient $ n^{(z)}=1 $, and for an infinite circular cylinder with the generatrix parallel to $ \widehat{z} $ the coefficient $ n^{(z)}=0 $.
The small ratio $ 2R\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L} $, where $ 2R $ is the sample size, together with $ 4\pi \chi _{n}A(0)\sim 10^{-6} $ are the two small parameters in the problem. Conventionally the dipolar field is not taken into account and the second parameter is considered negligibly small. This is no longer justified for recent experimental conditions as is seen from Table I, where the ratio of the second parameter to the first $$\omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L}$$ is represented for various experimental conditions.
Linearized equations of motion
------------------------------
To obtain the linearized form of the equations of motion (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]) we expand all the macroscopic quantities near their stationary values: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}^{e}=H^{e}\widehat{z}+\mathbf{h}^{e}, & \quad & \mathbf{H}^{i}=\mathbf{H}^{i}+\mathbf{h}^{i},\nonumber \\
\mathbf{M}=\mathbf{M}+\mathbf{m}, & \quad & \mathbf{J}_{i}=\mathbf{j}_{i},\label{linear} \end{aligned}$$ where the static value of $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ is that from (\[HiM\]). The radio frequency field $ \mathbf{h}^{e} $ plays the role of a driving force for the spin system response $ \mathbf{m} $. We denote $ \mathbf{h}^{i}=\mathbf{h}^{e}-4\pi \underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{m}] $.
The static $ \mathbf{M} $ in (\[linear\]) is the result of the substitution of (\[HiM\]) into (\[MonHi\]) $$\label{Mmoreaccu}
\gamma \mathbf{M}/\chi _{n}=\omega _{L}(A+z\nabla \omega _{L})\hat{z}-\omega _{M}AH^{e}\underline{\widehat{n}}[\hat{z}].$$ However, we can retain only the greatest term in $ \mathbf{M} $ $$\label{MHi}
\mathbf{M}=\chi _{n}A\mathbf{H}^{e}$$ when linearizing Eqs. (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]). In (\[laggett-1\]) this is simply due to the fact that the terms of $ \mathbf{M} $ to be omitted are of the order $ O(\chi _{n}z\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L}) $ and $ O(\chi ^{2}_{n}) $. In (\[laggett-2\]) $ \mathbf{M} $ is divided by $ \chi _{n} $ and the justification is lengthier. We will suppose (\[MHi\]) and discuss why only the main term in $ \mathbf{M} $ should be left after the derivation below.
In practice one usually is interested in movements quasistationary in the Larmor frame. To a first approximation one supposes that $ \mathbf{j}_{i}(\mathbf{r},t) $ is stationary, i.e. precesses with the frequency $ \gamma \mathbf{B} $: **$ (\partial _{t}+\gamma \mathbf{B}\times )\mathbf{j}_{i}=0 $**. Then resolving Eq. (\[laggett-2\]) with respect to $ \mathbf{j}_{i} $ with $ \mathbf{M} $ from (\[MHi\]) gives $$\label{j-i}
\mathbf{j}_{i}=-\frac{D_{0}}{1+C^{2}}\left[ \partial _{i}\mathbf{m}-C\widehat{z}\times \partial _{i}\mathbf{m}+C^{2}\widehat{z}(\widehat{z}\partial _{i}\mathbf{m})\right] ,$$ where the diffusion coefficient $ D_{0}=\frac{1}{3}w^{2}\tau _{1}=\frac{1}{3}v_{F}^{2}\tau (1+F^{a}_{0}) $ and $$C=\kappa \tau _{1}\gamma M/\chi _{n}=\kappa \tau _{1}A\omega _{L}$$ is another expression for the regime parameter (\[regimeC\]).
One then plugs the divergence of (\[j-i\]) into (\[laggett-1\]). The divergence of $ \mathbf{j}_{i} $ has the order $$\partial _{i}\mathbf{j}_{i}\sim D_{0}\partial ^{2}\mathbf{m}\sim (D_{0}/\xi ^{2})\mathbf{m},$$ where $ \xi \sim \sqrt[3]{D_{0}/\nabla \omega _{L}} $ is the characteristic scale (\[lambda\]). So $ \partial _{i}\mathbf{j}_{i}\sim (\xi \nabla \omega _{L})\mathbf{m} $ *has already the smallness* $ z\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L} $. If we had accounted for the higher order terms in $ \mathbf{M} $ than (\[MHi\]) when calculating the current, these terms would have entered $ \mathbf{j}_{i} $ through the regime parameter $ C $, and after multiplication with $ D_{0}\partial ^{2}\mathbf{m} $ would have produced terms of the order $ O(\chi _{n}z\nabla \omega _{L}/\omega _{L})\mathbf{m} $ and $ O(\chi ^{2}_{n})\mathbf{m} $. That is why we were allowed to substitute simply (\[MHi\]) in (\[laggett-2\]).
In the linear approximation $ \mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}) $ is in each point perpendicular to the static $ \mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r}) $ if the absolute value of the magnetization is conserved. Exp. (\[Mmoreaccu\]) shows that apart from the major $ \hat{x}- $ and $ \hat{y}- $ components $ \mathbf{m} $ also has a minor $ m_{z}\sim \chi _{n}m_{x} $. This component also may be seen to give higher order terms and is therefore negligible.
We will thus consider $ \mathbf{m}\bot \widehat{z} $. The last term on the right-hand side of (\[j-i\]) then vanishes, and substituting (\[j-i\]) into (\[laggett-1\]) one gets $$\label{torque-term}
\left( \partial _{t}-{\textstyle \frac{D}{C}}\partial ^{2}\right) \mathbf{m}+\widehat{z}\times \left( \gamma H_{z}^{i}\mathbf{m}+D\partial ^{2}\mathbf{m}-\gamma M\mathbf{h}^{i}\right) =0.$$ Here we left only the $ \hat{z}- $component of $ \mathbf{H}^{i} $ because $ \mathbf{H}_{\perp }^{i} $, which multiplies vectorially only by $ m_{z}\hat{z} $, produces terms $ O(\chi ^{2}_{n}) $.
In (\[torque-term\]) we introduced the effective spin diffusion coefficient $$D=D_{0}C/(1+C^{2}).$$ In the strong ($ C\gg 1 $) collisionless regime $ D\approx w^{2}/3\kappa \omega _{L}A $ is temperature independent.
Suppose $ \mathbf{m} $, $ \mathbf{h} $ depend on time as monochromatic waves $ \mathbf{m} $, $ \mathbf{h}\propto e^{-i\omega t} $. Then written out in components the equation of motion for $ \mathbf{m} $ becomes $$-i\widehat{\omega }\left( m_{x}\atop m_{y}\right) +\widehat{\omega }_{L}\left( -m_{y}\atop m_{x}\right) =\frac{\omega _{M}}{4\pi }\left( -h^{i}_{y}\atop h^{i}_{x}\right) ,$$ where we designated by $ \widehat{\omega }_{L} $ and $ \widehat{\omega } $ respectively the operators $$\widehat{\omega }_{L}=\gamma H_{z}^{i}+D\partial ^{2},\quad \widehat{\omega }=\omega -i\frac{D}{C}\partial ^{2}.$$
Multiplying by $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0
\end{array}\right)$$ results in the second order inhomogeneous partial differential equation $ \underline{\widehat{\chi }}^{-1}_{\omega }\mathbf{m}=\mathbf{h}^{i}_{\bot } $, or $$\label{motion}
\underline{\widehat{\chi }}^{-1}_{\omega }\mathbf{m}+4\pi \underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{m}]=\mathbf{h}^{e}_{\bot }.$$ Here $ \underline{\widehat{\chi }}^{-1}_{\omega } $ is the inverse susceptibility tensor $$\underline{\widehat{\chi }}^{-1}_{\omega }=\frac{4\pi }{\omega _{M}}\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\widehat{\omega }_{L} & -i\widehat{\omega }\\
i\widehat{\omega } & \widehat{\omega }_{L}
\end{array}\right) .$$
To close the boundary value problem one must impose some appropriate boundary conditions on **$ \mathbf{m} $**. Supposed that the container is made from a non-magnetic material, there is no magnetization current into the walls, and we get boundary condition in the form $$\label{bc}
\left. \hat{n}_{i}\partial _{i}\mathbf{m}\right| _{\partial }=0.$$ Here $ \hat{n}_{i} $ is a unit normal to the wall.
In the normal variables $ m_{\pm }=m_{x}\pm im_{y} $ Eq. (\[motion\]) has equivalent form $$\begin{aligned}
(\widehat{\omega }_{L}\mp \widehat{\omega })m_{\pm } & = & \frac{\omega _{M}}{4\pi }\left( h_{\pm }^{e}+\partial _{\pm }{\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} \int \frac{\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ whence we estimate $$m_{-}\sim (\omega -\omega _{L})m_{+}/2\omega _{L}\ll m_{+}.$$ We see that in the vicinity of the Larmor frequency, when $ \omega \simeq \omega _{L} $, the counter-rotating component $ m_{-} $ may be neglected with respect to the co-rotating $ m_{+} $. Then (\[motion\]) simplifies to a single linear inhomogeneous integro-differential equation $$\label{schroedinger}
(\widehat{\mathcal{H}}-\omega )m_{+}(\mathbf{r})=\frac{\omega _{M}}{4\pi }h_{+}^{e}(\mathbf{r})$$ with a generally non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operator $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathcal{H}}m_{+} & = & D\left( 1+{\textstyle \frac{i}{C}}\right) \partial ^{2}m_{+}+\gamma H_{z}^{i}(\mathbf{r})m_{+}\nonumber \\
& - & \frac{\omega _{M}}{8\pi }\partial _{+}\partial _{-}\int \frac{m_{+}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'.\end{aligned}$$ We may use the equivalence $ \partial _{+}\partial _{-}=\partial ^{2}-\partial ^{2}_{z} $, (\[HiM\]) and the property (\[green-inf\]) to rewrite the Hamiltonian as $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathcal{H}}m_{+} & = & D\left( 1+{\textstyle \frac{i}{C}}\right) \partial ^{2}m_{+}+\omega _{L}(\mathbf{r})m_{+}\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\omega _{M}}{2}\Bigl (\left( 1-2\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[1]\right) m_{+}-\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[m_{+}]\Bigr ).\label{dip-term} \end{aligned}$$
Here the integro-differential operator $$\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[f]=-\frac{1}{4\pi }\partial ^{2}_{z}\int _{V}\frac{f(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'$$ is the $ zz $-component of the demagnetizing tensor (\[demag-tensor\]). And $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[1] $ is a scalar function on coordinates, which actually coincides with the $ z $-th demagnetizing coefficient $ n^{(z)} $ for ellipsoids with one of the principal axes parallel to $ \hat{z} $. $ \omega _{L}(\mathbf{r}) $ denotes $ \omega _{L}+z\nabla \omega _{L} $.
To conclude, we have derived equations of motion (\[motion\]) or (\[schroedinger\]) for small deviations of magnetization from static values. The magnetization as a function of external rf field is a response of the system on a particular radio frequency $ \omega $. The full form of the equations of motion (\[motion\]) is unnecessarily complicated because it contains superfluous information on the dynamics of the counter-rotating component $ m^{-} $ of the magnetization. An example of solution of the full Eq. (\[motion\]) for an infinite medium in a uniform magnetic field is analyzed in Appendix \[AppInfinite\].
The rest of the paper deals with (\[schroedinger\]).
The response of the liquid is detected through changes in the impedance of the NMR coil, which are proportional to (see Appendix \[AppSpinSpectrum\]) $$\label{self-inductance}
\overline{\chi }=\langle h^{e+}|\widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega }|h^{e+}\rangle ,$$ where $ \widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega } $ is the Green operator $$\label{Green-operator}
|m^{+}\rangle =(\omega _{M}/4\pi )\widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega }|h^{e+}\rangle .$$
Green operator may be expanded into an infinite sum in the eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $ of the homogeneous equation corresponding to (\[schroedinger\]) $$\label{schroedinger1}
\widehat{\mathcal{H}}|\alpha \rangle =\omega |\alpha \rangle$$ with the boundary condition $$\label{boundary-condition}
\left. \widehat{n}_{i}\partial _{i}|\alpha \rangle \right| _{\partial }=0.$$
For a Hermitian Hamiltonian the eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $ are real and the expansion is $$\label{H-green}
\widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega }=\sum _{\alpha }\frac{|\alpha \rangle \langle \alpha |}{\omega _{\alpha }-\omega }.$$ The absorption spectrum in the Hermitian case consists of a series of $ \delta $-peaks at $ \omega =\omega _{\alpha } $. Indeed, writing real $ \omega _{\alpha } $ in (\[H-green\]) as $ \omega _{\alpha }+i0 $ we see that the imaginary (absorption) part of (\[self-inductance\]) is a weighted sum of $ \delta $-functions $$\label{delta-set}
-\pi \sum _{\alpha }\left| \langle \alpha |h^{e+}\rangle \right| ^{2}\delta (\omega -\omega _{\alpha }).$$
In the general case of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian the expansion (\[H-green\]) should be revised. We postpone the appropriate discussion until Sec. V. Here it is enough to say that the numerators in the series (\[H-green\]) remain the same in the general case, but the eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $ become complex, meaning that in general spectrum consists of Lorentzians.
The following important conclusion drawn on the basis of (\[H-green\]) also holds in the case of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. In a *homogeneous* ($ \nabla \omega _{L}=0 $) external static fields $ H^{e} $ and for ellipsoidal samples the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) has uniform solutions, so-called Kittel modes [@kittel] with the frequencies $$\label{kittel-modes}
\omega _{0}=\omega _{L}+\frac{\omega _{M}}{2}\left( 1-3\underline{n}_{zz}\right) ,$$ where $ \underline{n}_{zz} $ is the $ \hat{z}\hat{z} $-component of the demagnetizing coefficient tensor $ \underline{n} $.
For customary sample sizes the rf field $ \mathbf{h}^{e} $ may be considered spatially uniform. Then from (\[delta-set\]) it follows that it is impossible to excite a non-uniform mode by a homogeneous rf field $ \mathbf{h}^{e} $, because then $ \langle \alpha |h^{e+}\rangle \propto \langle \alpha |0\rangle $, where $ |0\rangle $ is the Kittel mode, and different modes are mutually orthogonal $ \langle \alpha |0\rangle =\delta _{\alpha 0} $.
We conclude that in order to couple to non-uniform eigenmodes the external static magnetic field should be *inhomogeneous* (see (\[He\])) so that there would not exist a uniform eigenmode.
Finite-cylindrical cell
=======================
Study of the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) in general is possible only numerically. This has already been done in Ref. [@candela; @1], [@candela; @2] neglecting the contribution of the dipolar field. The former work dealt with (\[dip-term\]) in rectangular boxes, while the latter — in spherical containers.
In this paper we study the dipolar field effects due to the third term in (\[dip-term\]) numerically in Section V. At the same time, in the case of $ \omega _{M}=0 $ the problem allows explicit analytical solution for some typical experimental conditions. Such solutions are of undeniable interest — with them in hand we may use perturbation theory to calculate corrections to modes in the first order in $ \omega _{M} $. So the two following sections are dedicated to such solutions and to the calculations of perturbational corrections respectively in the geometries of a finite cylinder and a sphere.
We start the consideration of finite cylinders from idealized one-dimensional geometry of a plane-parallel slab. Next we calculate the first order perturbations to the modes frequencies due to the finiteness of the cylinder.
Slab
-----
In the absence of dissipation, when $ C^{-1}=0 $, the effective diffusion coefficient $ D(1+iC^{-1}) $ is real and thus the Hamiltonian $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}} $ (\[dip-term\]) is Hermitian.
In the slab geometry the solution should be sought in the form $$m^{+}(\mathbf{r})\propto e^{i\mathbf{kr}_{\perp }}m_{\mathbf{k}}^{+}(z),$$ where **$ \mathbf{r}_{\perp } $** is the coordinate vector in the plane perpendicular to $ \widehat{z} $. Nevertheless, as is clear from (\[self-inductance\]), only the solutions with $ \mathbf{k}=0 $ contribute to the observation signal if the rf field $ \mathbf{h}^{e} $ is homogeneous.
The eigenfunctions $ m_{0}^{+}(z)=\langle z|\alpha \rangle $ then are the combinations of the two Airy functions $$\label{1D-eigen}
\langle z|\alpha \rangle =A\mathrm{Ai}\left( \mathrm{arg}\right) +B\mathrm{Bi}\left( \mathrm{arg}\right) ,$$ where $ \mathrm{arg}=(\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{L}-z\nabla \omega _{L})/\xi \nabla \omega _{L} $, and $$\label{lambda}
\xi =\sqrt[3]{D/\nabla \omega _{L}}$$ is the characteristic wavelength. Its sign depends on the relative sign of $ D $ and $ \nabla \omega _{L} $ and thus on the sign of $ \kappa $. In $ ^{3} $He and in $ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He solutions with a concentration $ x>3.5\% $, $ \kappa $ is positive. We consider $ \xi >0 $ for definiteness.
The boundary conditions (\[boundary-condition\]) on the two plane boundaries $ \partial _{z}\left. |\alpha \rangle \right| _{z=0,L}=0 $ determine the eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $ and the ratio of the coefficients $ B/A $. The remaining coefficient $ A $ is determined from the normalization condition $ \langle \alpha |\alpha \rangle =1 $.
When $ L\gg \xi $ the influence of the lower wall of the container is negligible and the modes are localized near the upper wall and decay exponentially into the bulk on distances $ \sim \xi $. Then the eigenfunctions are just the Airy functions of the first kind — $ \mathrm{Ai} $ and (\[1D-eigen\]) becomes $$\langle z|\alpha \rangle \equiv \langle z|n_{z}\rangle =A\mathrm{Ai}\left( \frac{L-z}{\xi }+\alpha '_{n_{z}}\right) ,$$ where $ \alpha _{n}'<0 $ is the $ n $-th zero of the derivative of the Airy function $ \mathrm{Ai}' $: $ \alpha _{1}'\approx -1.02 $, $ \alpha _{2}'\approx -3.25 $, $ \alpha _{3}'\approx -4.82 $, etc. The eigenfrequencies are $$\label{spectrum-slab}
\omega _{\alpha }\equiv \omega _{n_{z}}=\omega _{L}+L\nabla \omega _{L}+\alpha _{n_{z}}'\xi \nabla \omega _{L}.$$
Inclusion of dissipation $ C^{-1}\neq 0 $ makes the diffusion coefficient complex. The Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) then becomes non-Hermitian. The complete analysis of the spectra of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian is possible only in the framework of the general formalism to be developed in Sec. V.
However for the moment it is sufficient to make the following statement. In the presence of dissipation ($ C^{-1}\neq 0 $) $ \xi $ in (\[lambda\]) becomes complex $$\label{xi-substitute}
\xi \rightarrow \xi (1+i/C)^{1/3}$$ and so do arguments of the eigenfunctions (\[1D-eigen\]). Eigenfrequencies (\[spectrum-slab\]) also acquire imaginary parts due to $ \xi $ entering the expression.
Thus the complex eigenfrequencies in the presence of dissipation can be easily obtained from the real ones in the absence by the substitution (\[xi-substitute\]). This statement applies not only to (\[spectrum-slab\]) but to any spectrum of the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]).
Let us now consider the effects of the dipolar field. We may utilize the results of Appendix \[AppInfinite\] since a slab is infinite in the direction perpendicular to $ \hat{z} $ and modes depend on only $ z $. In such conditions the demagnetizing field is local $$\label{n-reduces-to-1}
\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}=n^{(z)}_{\mathrm{slab}}=1.$$
It is then obvious from (\[dip-term\]) that the dipolar field produces no effect on the spin wave spectrum (\[spectrum-slab\]) apart from a uniform shift by $$\label{slab-shift}
\frac{1}{2}\omega _{M}(1-3n^{(z)}_{\mathrm{slab}})=-\omega _{M}.$$
Such a shift does not distort the spectrum — it does not change neither the mutual positions of the modes nor their widths, from which the characteristics of the liquid are derived.
We rather aim at finding those distortions, so we proceed to a more relevant shape of a cylinder of a finite radius, which as well as all finite shapes as we will see does give such distortions.
Finite cylinder
---------------
Consider a finite cylinder with the base radius $ R\gg \xi $ and height $ L\gg \xi $ and a generatrix parallel to $ \hat{z} $. We find the influence of the finiteness of a specimen on the magnitude of dipolar corrections to the spectrum in the first order of perturbation theory.
The first order perturbational corrections to the modes frequencies are the averages of the perturbation (dipolar) operator in the given eigenstate $ \psi _{\alpha }(\mathbf{r}) $ $$\begin{aligned}
\delta _{\mathrm{dip}}\omega _{\alpha }=\frac{\omega _{M}}{2}\Bigl (1 & - & 2\int \left| \psi _{\alpha }(\mathbf{r})\right| ^{2}\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[1]d^{3}\mathbf{r}\nonumber \label{ddip-cyl} \\
& - & \int \psi ^{*}_{\alpha }(\mathbf{r})\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[\psi _{\alpha }(\mathbf{r})]d^{3}\mathbf{r}\Bigr ).\label{ddip-cyl} \end{aligned}$$
In a finite cylinder the dipolar-free eigenfunction $ |\alpha \rangle $ satisfying boundary conditions (\[boundary-condition\]), written in cylindrical coordinates $ z,\rho ,\varphi $ is $$\label{trhmodes}
\psi _{n_{z}n_{\rho }m}=c_{n_{z}n_{\rho }m}\mathrm{Ai}({\textstyle \frac{L-z}{\xi }}+\alpha '_{n_{z}})J_{m}({\textstyle \frac{\zeta _{n_{\rho }m}'}{R}}\rho )e^{im\varphi },$$ where $ n_{z},n_{\rho }=0,1,2,...,\infty $ are respectively the longitudinal and radial quantum numbers and $ m=-\infty ,...,+\infty $ is the azimuthal quantum number. $ \zeta _{n_{\rho }m}' $ is the ($ n_{\rho } $+1)-th zero of the derivative $ J'_{m} $ of the Bessel function $ J_{m} $, $ c_{n_{z}n_{\rho }m} $ are the normalization coefficients.
From the general formula (\[self-inductance\]) it is not hard to see that only the modes with $ n_{\rho }=m=0 $ couple to the homogeneous rf field. Indeed, $ |n_{z}00\rangle $ is uniform in the plane perpendicular to $ \hat{z} $. Therefore, integrals like $ \langle n_{z}n_{\rho }m|h^{+e}\rangle $ are proportional to $ \langle n_{\rho }m|00\rangle =\delta _{n_{\rho }0}\delta _{m0} $.
Calculating (\[ddip-cyl\]) with (\[trhmodes\]) yields (see Appendix \[AppDipFinCyl\])
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta _{\mathrm{dip}}\omega ^{\mathrm{cylinder}}_{n_{z}} & = & \omega _{M}\Bigl (-1+\frac{L}{\pi R}\log \frac{8R}{eL}\label{slab-corrections} \\
& + & \frac{\xi }{\pi R}\bigl (\Phi _{n_{z}}\log \frac{8R}{e^{2}\Xi _{n_{z}}\xi }+\Psi _{n_{z}}\log \frac{eL}{\Theta _{n_{z}}\xi }\bigr )\Bigr ).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
The first two terms not dependent on the mode number $ n_{z} $ describe uniform shift of the spectrum, and the last two terms dependent on $ n_{z} $ through the numerical constants $ \Phi _{n_{z}} $, $ \Psi _{n_{z}} $, $ \Xi _{n_{z}} $ and $ \Theta _{n_{z}} $, which are of the order of unity (see Table \[TableFinCyl\] in Appendix \[AppDipFinCyl\]), give the sought-for spectrum distortion.
We see that for finite $ \xi /R $ the spectrum undergoes distortion proportional to the parameter $$\frac{2\omega _{M}}{\pi \xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\frac{\xi }{R}\log \frac{\sqrt{R^{\Phi }L^{\Psi }}}{\xi ^{\Phi +\Psi }},$$ where $ \omega _{M}=4\pi \gamma M $ characterizes the magnetization density, $ \nabla \omega _{L} $ is the gradient of the Larmor frequency, $ R $ is the radius of the cylinder base, $ L $ its height and $ \xi $ is the wavelength (\[lambda\]) of an Airy-type standing spin wave. The quantity $ \xi \nabla \omega _{L} $ gives the average distance between modes in the units of frequency. $ \Phi $ and $ \Psi $ are numbers of the order of unity.
The calculations of the dipolar field effects in the first order of perturbation theory allow us to estimate the maximum error due to the demagnetizing field in the determination of the transverse relaxation time $ \tau $ from the spin wave spectra (see Appendix \[AppDipFinCyl\]).
This error turns out to be of the order of the parameter (\[parameter\]), i.e. for the experiment [@vermeulen] $ \approx $ 4.2% for $ M/M_{0}\sim 4 $.
Thus, interpreting spectra according to the usual theory not taking into account the demagnetizing field induces an error in the derived value of the transverse relaxation time of the order of the parameter (\[parameter\]).
The term proportional to $ \Phi _{n_{z}} $ comes from the demagnetizing field produced by the rotating part $ \mathbf{m} $ of magnetization. While the term proportional to $ \Psi _{n_{z}} $ is due to the spatial inhomogeneity of the demagnetizing field $ -4\pi \underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{M}] $ produced by the initial static (homogeneous!) distribution of $ \mathbf{M} $ (\[MHi\]) in a finite cylinder.
The values of these two terms are plotted in units of $ \omega _{M} $ as functions of the mode number in Fig. \[Fig-CylTerms\] for $ \xi /R=0.015 $ and $ L=2R $. Apart from being greater, the term brought about by the spatial inhomogeneity of the static distribution of the dipolar field depends stronger on the mode number, thus resulting in bigger mutual shifts of the modes. So the main source of the spectrum distortion in a finite cylinder turns out to be the inhomogeneity of the static dipolar field.
In ellipsoids, in particular in a sphere, the demagnetizing field produced by the initial static distribution of $ \mathbf{M} $ is homogeneous. And so there is only the distortion to the spectrum from the rotating part $ \mathbf{m} $ of magnetization as we will see in the next section. This makes ellipsoidal shapes advantageous if the dipolar field effects are unfavorable.
To conclude, we found the corrections to the spin wave modes in a finite cylinder due to a weak demagnetizing field in perturbation theory. These corrections consist in shifting the spectrum as a whole, changing the relative distances between the modes and in narrowing down the modes. The two last are of interest for us since they deform the spectrum.
There are two contributions to the spectrum deformation — one from the static inhomogeneous demagnetizing field and the other from the rotating part of the magnetization. The first contribution exists only in non-ellipsoidal samples, in which a homogeneous static magnetization produces inhomogeneous demagnetizing field.
Spherical cell
==============
Though for a spherical container exact analytical solution in the absence of dipolar field turns to be impossible, one can obtain an explicit expression for several first modes in adiabatic approximation if the radius of the sphere $ R\gg \xi $.
The prerequisites of adiabatic approximation might be best understood if one exploits the analogy with the Schrödinger equation for a particle moving in an external field. If the movement in one direction is somehow more restricted than in the others (geometrically or by an external field) it is a consequence of Heisenberg uncertainty relations that the movement in this direction will be faster. The slow enough movement in the other directions then will make up an adiabatic perturbation that is known not to change the state of the particle describing the fast motion.
As a result, the wave function can be combined as a multiplication of an envelope depending only on the unrestricted coordinates, and of the fast motion state depending on the unrestricted coordinates as on parameters.
This approach gives (see Appendix \[AppSph\]) for the eigenfrequencies $$\label{spectrum-sphere}
\omega _{n_{z}n}=\omega _{L}+R\nabla \omega _{L}+\xi \nabla \omega _{L}\left[ \alpha _{n_{z}}'-\sqrt{2\frac{\xi }{R}}(2n_{\rho }+1)\right] ,$$ where $ \omega _{L} $ is the Larmor frequency in the center of the sphere, and $ n_{z},n_{\rho }=0,1,2,...,\infty $ are the longitudinal and radial quantum numbers respectively. Since $ \xi /R\ll 1\sim \alpha _{n}' $ we see that the lower-lying levels belong to $ \alpha _{0} $ and therefore decay exponentially with diminishing $ z $. Modes with $ n_{z}=1 $ will make a single oscillation before vanishing, modes with $ n_{z}=2 $ a double, etc.
Eq. (\[spectrum-sphere\]) reduces to (\[spectrum-slab\]) in the limit $ \xi /R\rightarrow 0 $ as it must. Indeed, in both (\[spectrum-sphere\]) and (\[spectrum-slab\]) there figures the Larmor frequency at the top of a sample — $ z=L $ for (\[spectrum-slab\]) and $ z=R $ for (\[spectrum-sphere\]) and the second term in brackets in (\[spectrum-sphere\]) tends to zero when $ \xi /R\rightarrow 0 $.
If we introduce dimensionless frequencies according to [@candela; @2] $ \omega _{\alpha }=\omega _{L}+R\nabla \omega _{L}f_{\alpha } $, we conclude that the observable eigenfrequencies for our problem are described in the adiabatic approximation by $$\label{AD-f}
f_{\alpha }=1+\frac{\xi }{R}\left[ \alpha _{n_{z}}'-\sqrt{2\frac{\xi }{R}}(2n_{\rho }+1)\right] .$$ The comparison between this formula and the results obtained numerically in Ref. [@candela; @2] is shown in Fig. \[Fig-comparison\]. In Ref. [@candela; @2] the combination $ \xi /R $ was designated as $ \Delta $.
Note that the numerical scheme developed in Ref. [@candela; @2] requires more and more computational effort for $ \xi $ tending to zero. The calculation time to get safe eigenfrequencies values grows. That is why the numerical curves are not shown in the vicinity of zero. Since we ourselves use a similar computational technique we put off more detailed discussion until Section V.
Contrariwise, the discrepancy between approximate and numerical curves at large $ \xi $ is accounted for by inapplicability of adiabatics out of the region $ \xi \ll R $.
So approximate and numerical methods complement each other. While numerics is the method of choice for relatively large $ \xi /R $ when adiabatics breaks down, it requires increasingly larger basis to obtain reliable results for small $ \xi /R $. In this region it is easier to calculate eigenfrequencies in adiabatic approximation.
Let us now look on dipolar field correction to the modes.
Quite analogously to the case of a finite cylinder, we obtain for the corrections to the modes (see Appendix \[AppSph\]) $$\label{sphere-corrections}
\delta _{\mathrm{dip}}\omega ^{\mathrm{sphere}}_{\alpha }=\omega _{M}\left( -\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\Phi _{n_{z}}\sqrt{\pi }}{4}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\xi }{2R}}\right) .$$ And correspondingly for the corrections to the imaginary parts of the modes $$\delta _{\mathrm{dip}}\Im \omega ^{\mathrm{sphere}}_{\alpha }=\frac{\omega _{M}}{12C}\frac{\Phi _{n_{z}}\sqrt{\pi }}{4}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\xi }{2R}}.$$ Numerical constants $ \Phi _{n_{z}} $ are the same as in (\[slab-corrections\]).
The parameter determining the relative value of the dipolar field effects in a sphere is $$\label{parameter-sph-text}
\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\omega _{M}}{4\xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\xi }{2R}}.$$
In the next section we will solve the eigenvalue problem in a sphere in the presence of a dipolar field of an arbitrary strength. It is interesting to compare the results of numerical simulations with the first order perturbational corrections written above.
To this end the positions $ \Re (\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{L}) $ and half-widths $ \Im \omega _{\alpha } $ of the first four modes obtained from both numerics and analytics are plotted on Fig. \[Fig-modesOnOmega\] for several $ \omega _{M} $. Heights are plotted only as obtained numerically. As one can see from Fig. \[Fig-modesOnOmega\], perturbational approximation is satisfactory for the values of $ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L} $ up to $ \sim 0.1 $, or, for values of (\[parameter-sph-text\]) up to $ \sim 0.4 $. The small discrepancy between numerical and analytical results even in this region is accounted for by the restrictions of the adiabatic approximation used to fulfill analytical calculations.
The spectra themselves calculated numerically for several values of $ \omega _{M} $ are shown on Fig. \[Fig-compareModes0.eps\]. Modes weights are redistributing between adjacent modes with $ \omega _{M} $ growing. Not only the weights but also half-widths and positions of the modes change.
Sphere. Numerical calculations
==============================
The complexity of the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) does not allow finding exact eigenfunctions by analytical methods apart from using perturbation theory. Nevertheless it is always possible to solve equation (\[schroedinger1\]) numerically. We chose a spherical container for numerical investigations.
Before proceeding to the description of the simulation scheme utilized, a formalism is to be established for solving an eigenvalue problem with a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian. Of interest for us is the generalization of the expansion (\[H-green\]) of the Green function into series over eigenfunctions. The following subsection is dedicated to the topic.
In the two remaining subsections we discuss respectively the technique and the results, other than already mentioned in the previous section, of the numerical simulations.
Green function of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection we derive an analogue of (\[H-green\]) for a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}\neq \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $. For $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}\neq \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $ the set of eigenfunctions $ |\alpha \rangle $ of $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}} $ is not orthogonal. A second set of functions, viz., the set of eigenfunctions of the Hermitian conjugate operator $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $, is to be introduced [@morse].
The eigenvalues of the operator $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $ are just the complex conjugates of the eigenvalues of $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}} $. Indeed, the eigenvalues are found from a secular equation. And for the Hermitian conjugate operators these algebraic equations may be shown to be complex conjugate.
Thus the set of eigenfunctions of $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $ may always be numbered with the same index $ \alpha $. To distinguish this set from $ |\alpha \rangle $ we will denote it by $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathcal{H}}|\alpha \rangle & = & \omega _{\alpha }|\alpha \rangle ,\\
\widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+}|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }& = & \omega ^{*}_{\alpha }|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }.\label{H+} \end{aligned}$$ However, it should be borne in mind that $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ like $ |\alpha \rangle $ is an ordinary set of ket-vectors, which has the corresponding set of bra-vectors.
It turns out then that, notwithstanding that neither the set $ |\alpha \rangle $ nor $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ is orthogonal, there is orthogonality *between the two sets.* Indeed, following a conventional scheme of proving mutual orthogonality of eigenfunctions, we note that $${\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\widehat{\mathcal{H}}|\beta \rangle =\omega _{\beta }{\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\beta \rangle .$$ On the other hand, $${\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\widehat{\mathcal{H}}=\left( \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+}|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }\right) ^{+}=\left( \omega ^{*}_{\alpha }|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }\right) ^{+}=\omega _{\alpha }{\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |.$$ Multiplying this by $ |\beta \rangle $ and subtracting the previous result, we see that $$(\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{\beta }){\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\beta \rangle =0.$$
Thus $ |\beta \rangle $ and $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ are orthogonal if $ \alpha \neq \beta $. So it is said that the two sets $ |\alpha \rangle $ and $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ constitute a *biorthogonal set* of eigenfunctions.
The expansion of an arbitrary function into a convergent series is then possible $$|x\rangle =\sum _{\alpha }|\alpha \rangle {\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |x\rangle .$$ Here the eigenfunctions are supposed to be normalized so that $${\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\beta \rangle =\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
Performing such an expansion for $ |h^{+}\rangle $ in (\[schroedinger\]), one obtains $$\label{nonH-green}
\widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega }=\sum _{\alpha }\frac{|\alpha \rangle {\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |}{\omega _{\alpha }-\omega }.$$ This is the sought-for generalization of (\[H-green\]). For a Hermitian Hamiltonian the two sets coincide $ |\alpha \rangle =|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$, and (\[nonH-green\]) reduces to (\[H-green\]).
Thus we see from (\[self-inductance\]) that the spectrum of a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian consists of a set of Lorentzians at $ \omega =\Re \omega _{\alpha } $ with half-widths $ \Im \omega _{\alpha } $ each entering with a weight $ \langle h^{e+}|\alpha \rangle {\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |h^{e+}\rangle $. If the rf field can be regarded as uniform on the scales of the sample, the relative weights of the Lorentzian peaks are $$\label{modes-weights}
\int \langle \mathbf{r}|\alpha \rangle d^{3}\mathbf{r}\int {\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\mathbf{r}'\rangle d^{3}\mathbf{r}'.$$
In our particular case, the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) is symmetric $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+}=\widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{*} $. This is trivial to see without the dipolar field term, but this term can also be shown to be (real) symmetric, since partial differential operator $ \partial ^{2}_{z} $ and the Green operator $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty } $ are both real symmetric and commutative $ \partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }=\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }\partial ^{2}_{z} $ (We remind that for an integral operator with a kernel $ G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}') $ Hermitian conjugate has the kernel $ G^{*}(\mathbf{r}',\mathbf{r}) $). Indeed, we write $$\partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }\mathbf{m}=\partial ^{2}_{z}\int \frac{\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'=\int \mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}')\partial ^{2}_{z'}\frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'.$$ Taking the integral two times by parts and taking into account that $ \mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}')/|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|\rightarrow 0 $ at $ z'\rightarrow \pm \infty $, we get $$\int \frac{\partial ^{2}_{z'}\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'=\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }\partial ^{2}_{z}\mathbf{m}.$$
Therefore from the definition (\[H+\]) we immediately conclude that in the case of a symmetric Hamiltonian $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+}=\widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{*} $ the two sets of eigenfunctions are related through $ \langle \mathbf{r}|\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }=\langle \mathbf{r}|\alpha \rangle ^{*}\equiv \langle \alpha |\mathbf{r}\rangle $. Expression (\[modes-weights\]) for the relative weights of the modes simplifies then to $$\label{Ham-symm-modes-weights}
\left( \int \langle \mathbf{r}|\alpha \rangle d^{3}\mathbf{r}\right) ^{2}.$$ Note that the (complex) value itself of the integral is squared, not its absolute value, as it would be should the Hamiltonian be Hermitian. We will use the expression (\[Ham-symm-modes-weights\]) for the modes weights in numerical calculations of the spectra.
Numerical approach
------------------
One of the methods for solving a spectral Sturm-Liouville problem (conceptually, perhaps, the simplest) consists in its finite-dimensional approximation. Formally, we then are left with standard algebraic spectral problem. For the solution of the latter one can implement one of ready safe well-established algorithms. However, one must be cautious with the dimension of approximation.
One of the possible discretization techniques is to find eigenfunctions in the representation of some complete orthonormal set of functions when the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) would become a matrix. Such a scheme was developed in application to spin waves in Ref. [@candela; @1], [@candela; @2].
A handy orthonormal set to choose is that of eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator satisfying the boundary conditions for the geometry in question $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \partial ^{2}+k_{\mu }^{2}\right] |\mu \rangle & = & 0,\label{eigenLaplace} \\
\left. \widehat{n}_{i}\partial _{i}|\mu \rangle \right| _{\partial } & = & 0.\label{bcLaplace} \end{aligned}$$ Here $ \mu $ stands for a complete set of indices needed to describe a state, $ k_{\mu } $ are waveconstants. In the case of such a choice of the set the first term of the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) becomes trivial and the boundary conditions are met automatically.
The eigenfunctions $ |\alpha \rangle $, $ |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ of the operators $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}} $, $ \widehat{\mathcal{H}}^{+} $ then take the form $$|\alpha \rangle =\sum _{\mu }|\mu \rangle \langle \mu |\alpha \rangle ,\quad \quad |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }=\sum _{\nu }|\nu \rangle \langle \nu |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }.$$ where the coefficients of expansion $ \langle \mu |\alpha \rangle $ and $ \langle \nu |\alpha {\rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle \! \! \rangle }$ are found numerically as right and left eigenvectors of the matrix form of the Hamiltonian (\[dip-term\]) corresponding to eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum _{\nu }\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }\langle \nu |\alpha \rangle & = & \omega _{\alpha }\langle \mu |\alpha \rangle ,\label{matrix-H-right} \\
\sum _{\nu }{\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\nu \rangle \mathcal{H}_{\nu \mu } & = & \omega _{\alpha }{\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |\mu \rangle ,\label{matrix-H-left} \end{aligned}$$
where $ \mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }=\langle \mu |\widehat{\mathcal{H}}|\nu \rangle $.
For a sphere $ \mu $ denotes the set $ n $, $ l $, $ m $ of the radial, polar and azimuthal quantum numbers: $ n $, $ l=0 $, $ 1 $, $ 2 $, $ \ldots $, $ m=-l $, $ -l+1 $, $ \ldots $, $ l-1 $, $ l $. The corresponding basis is $$\label{mu}
\langle \mathbf{r}|\mu \rangle =\langle \mathbf{r}|nlm\rangle =c_{nl}j_{l}(k_{nl}r)Y^{m}_{l}(\widehat{\mathbf{r}})$$ where $ j_{l} $ is the spherical Bessel function, $ Y^{m}_{l} $ is the spherical harmonic, and renormalization coefficients $ c_{nl} $ are defined according to $$\label{sph-norm}
c_{nl}c_{n'l}\int ^{R}_{0}j_{l}(k_{nl}r)j_{l}(k_{n'l}r)r^{2}dr=\delta _{nn'}.$$
The waveconstants $ k_{nl} $ depend on the boundary condition. That of (\[bcLaplace\]) requires that $ k_{nl}R $ be the $ (n+1) $-th zero of the derivative $ \partial _{r}j_{l}(r) $ of the spherical Bessel function.
Since we are interested only in axisymmetric modes, which couple to a homogeneous rf field, we may simplify the formulas by working with a sub-basis $ |nl0\rangle $.
Infinite indexing $ n $, $ l $ is to be truncated at some finite values for numerical computation. Maximum values of $ n_{\mathrm{max}} $, $ l_{\mathrm{max}} $ are restricted by computational tractability of resulting matrices.
On the other hand, justification for such a truncation is that coefficients $ \langle nl|\alpha \rangle $ tend to zero for large $ n $, $ l $ because of the oscillating character of $ j_{l} $. We expect $ \langle nl|\alpha \rangle $ close to zero when the characteristic scale $ \xi $ of the function $ \langle \mathbf{r}|\alpha \rangle $ becomes greater then the period $ \sim R/n $ of the oscillations of the basis function $ j_{l} $. Empirically, $ n_{\mathrm{max}}=10 $ is already quite good for customary $ \xi /R\sim 0.1 $. Note that the change in $ j_{l}(k_{nl}r) $ with increasing $ l $ is much less dramatic. So more $ l $’s are to be retained in the sub-basis. We used $ l_{\mathrm{max}}=51 $. Further increase of $ n_{\mathrm{max}} $, $ l_{\mathrm{max}} $ proved to have no apparent effect on the spectra for $ \xi /R\sim 0.1 $.
However, for $ \xi /R\rightarrow 0 $ more and more sub-basis functions should be kept, which leads to rapid slowing down of the computations. In this limit adiabatic approximation (see Sec. IV) gives safer results.
It is convenient to seek for the eigenfrequencies $ \omega _{\alpha } $ in the form $ \omega _{L}+R\nabla \omega _{L}f_{\alpha } $. The Hamiltonian for the matrix equation on $ f_{\alpha } $ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle nl|\widehat{\mathcal{H}}_{f}|n'l'\rangle & = & -{\textstyle \bigl (\frac{\xi }{R}\bigr )^{3}\left( 1+\frac{i}{C}\right) }\left( k_{nl}R\right) ^{2}\delta _{nn'}\delta _{ll'}\nonumber \\
& + & \left\langle nl\left| {\textstyle \frac{z}{R}}\right| n'l'\right\rangle \label{f-ham} \\
& + & {\textstyle \frac{\omega _{M}}{2R\nabla \omega _{L}}}\left\langle nl\left| {\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}-\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}\right| n'l'\right\rangle \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ comprises three parameters — $ \xi /R $, the ratio $ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L} $ of $ \omega _{M} $ to the total field gradient over the sample and the regime parameter $ C $. Here we have used $ 1-2n_{\mathrm{sphere}}^{(z)}=\frac{1}{3} $.
The matrix elements of $ z/R $ and of $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz} $ by integrating over the solid angle with appropriate spherical functions reduce to integrals over the radial coordinate $ r $.
The matrix elements of $ z/R $ were written in [@candela; @2], the integrals arising should be calculated numerically. The rather lengthy calculations of the matrix elements of $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz} $ were separated into Appendix \[AppMatrixElements\].
We cite here only the results. The matrix elements of $ z/R=r\cos \theta /R $, where $ \theta $ is the spherical polar angle are non-zero only if $ l'=l\pm 1 $ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle nl| & z/R & |n',l'=l\pm 1\rangle \label{grad-me} \\
& = & c^{0}_{\lambda }c_{nl}c_{n'l'}\int ^{R}_{0}j_{l}(k_{nl}r)j_{l'}(k_{n'l'}r)r^{3}dr/R.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here $ \lambda $ is the greater of $ l $, $ l' $ and $$c_{\lambda }^{0}=\lambda /\sqrt{4\lambda ^{2}-1}.$$
The matrix elements of $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz} $ are non-zero only if $ l'=\{l,l\pm 2\} $ (see (\[App-me\]) in Appendix \[AppMatrixElements\]) $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle n & l|{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}-\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}|n'l\rangle =\delta _{nn'}\left[ {\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}-\left( c_{l}^{0}\right) ^{2}-\left( c_{l+1}^{0}\right) ^{2}\right] ,\label{me-dip} \\
& \langle n & l|{\textstyle \frac{1}{3}}-\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}|n',l'=l\pm 2\rangle =c^{0}_{\lambda }c^{0}_{\lambda -1}c_{nl}c_{n'l'}R^{2}\nonumber \\
& \times & \frac{k_{nl}j_{l+1}(k_{nl}R)j_{l}(k_{n'l'}R)-k_{n'l'}j_{l+1}(k_{n'l'}R)j_{l}(k_{nl}R)}{k_{nl}^{2}-k_{n'l'}^{2}}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
It may be verified that the matrix $ \langle nl|\widehat{\mathcal{H}}_{f}|n'l'\rangle $ is indeed symmetric.
The algebraic eigenvalue problem for (\[f-ham\]) with (\[grad-me\]) was solved using standard subroutine from the Linear Algebra Package LAPACK. Eigenvectors were then normalized and the left and right eigenvectors used to find the modes weights.
In calculating modes weights using (\[matrix-H-right\]), (\[matrix-H-left\]) we note that $ \langle \mathbf{r}|000\rangle =1/\sqrt{V} $, where $ V=4\pi R^{3}/3 $ is the sphere volume. Thus $$\int \langle \mathbf{r}|nlm\rangle d^{3}\mathbf{r}=\sqrt{V}\langle 000|nlm\rangle =\sqrt{V}\delta _{n0}\delta _{l0}\delta _{m0}.$$ The general formula (\[modes-weights\]) in this case reduces to $$V\langle 000|\alpha \rangle {\langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle \! \! \langle }\alpha |000\rangle .$$
Results of simulations
----------------------
Numerical results in the absence of the dipolar field were obtained in Ref. [@candela; @2]. When $ \omega _{M}=0 $ there remain only two parameters in the problem — the ratio $ \xi /R $ of the characteristic wavelength to the sphere radius and the regime parameter $ C $ which determines half-widths of the modes. The dependence of the spin wave spectrum on $ \xi /R $ in the limit of weak demagnetizing field was plotted in Fig. \[Fig-comparison\] to compare adiabatic approximation with simulations. A typical absorption signal in the absence of the dipolar field is depicted as grey filled curves in Fig. \[Fig-o0o1onC\] for several $ C $. Decrease in $ C $ results in modes broadening without changing their positions.
When $ \omega _{M} $ is small enough the dipolar field constitutes a perturbation to conventional Silin spin waves. It is this regime which was studied perturbationally in Sec. IV.2.
In this subsection we shortly consider other results of numerical calculations, viz., regimes of intermediate and strong demagnetizing fields. Although these regimes were not realized so far in Fermi liquids (see Table I), one cannot leave out what is to be expected.
As $ \omega _{M} $ increases the spin wave spectrum undergoes crossover from Silin type for small demagnetizing fields ($ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L}<1 $) to magnetostatic type for large demagnetizing fields ($ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L}>1 $). On a gross scale this transition is represented in Fig. \[Fig-C5C20onO\] for $ \xi /R=0.1 $ and $ C=20 $ (grey filled curves) and $ C=5 $ (solid curves). Modes weights change so that adjacent Silin modes group into fewer magnetostatic modes. These separate at even larger $ \omega _{M} $ until a uniform (Kittel) mode singles out at extremely large $ \omega _{M} $.
This latter mode is the only one to remain because we chose a uniform radio-frequency field for the response of the system. And a non-uniform rf field is required to couple to non-uniform magnetostatic modes since the influence of external field gradient $ \nabla \omega _{L} $ is negligible for large $ \omega _{M} $.
The behavior described is not altered by larger dissipation (smaller $ C $) other than Silin modes grouping becomes more pronounced (see solid curves on Fig. \[Fig-C5C20onO\]).
The dependence on $ C $ of a spectrum for a demagnetizing field of an intermediate strength ($ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L}=1 $) is plotted in Fig. \[Fig-o0o1onC\] as solid curves. Pronounced adjacent modes for larger $ C $ merge into magnetostatic conglomerates with no distinction for smaller $ C $. No apparent relation, especially for smaller $ C $, can be seen with the spectrum in the absence of the demagnetizing field.
Discussions
===========
The method
----------
We studied the influence of the dipolar (or demagnetizing) field on the spectrum of linear standing spin waves in a polarized Fermi liquid in a finite container.
A somewhat resembling problem was studied in the 70s in ferrimagnets. deWames and Wolfram [@patton] considered not the Larmor-precession case (\[precession\]), but the true Landau-Lifshitz equations of inhomogeneous magnetization dynamics that contain an additional exchange torque term depending on the Laplacian of the magnetization. This term is similar to that arising from the Leggett equations (see Eq. (\[torque-term\])).
The situation in ferrimagnets and in polarized Fermi-liquids belong however to different limiting cases. In ferrimagnets the dipolar field effects — magnetostatic waves — are pronounced and exchange is a perturbation. In a paramagnetic Fermi liquid under conventional experimental conditions, on the contrary, it is the dipolar field whose effect is smaller.
There is another obstacle of transplanting the approach of deWames and Wolfram to our needs. In order to accommodate all the inhomogeneities — both from the Landau-Lifshitz equations and from the Maxwell equations (\[ms\]) — the resulting differential equation for magnetostatic potential is of the sixth order in spatial derivatives. Though it was manageable in a quasi-1D situation (ferrimagnetic substance yttrium iron garnet YIG is grown as thin films), it becomes virtually intractable in any, even the simplest, 3D geometry.
An approach to include dipolar field into magnetization dynamics analogous to ours was used by Deville et al. [@Deville] in application to solid bcc $ ^{3} $He. In this material the dipolar field gives rise to multiple spin echos at times $ n\tau $ following two isolated rf pulses at times $ 0 $ and $ \tau $. Ref. [@Deville] explained this phenomenon quantitatively using a simplified local approximation for the dipolar field valid for a slab infinite in the directions perpendicular to the external field (although this restriction was not properly emphasized in the paper). Later Fomin and Vermeulen [@FominVermeulen] utilized the form of the dipolar field term of Ref. [@Deville] to study dipolar corrections to a two-domain coherently precessing structure.
As for linear spin waves, in this local approximation neither the relative positions of the modes nor their half-widths and heights change, and the spectrum only shifts as a whole. The demagnetizing field is by definition shape-dependent and it is erroneous to use the local approximation *a priori*.
Main results
------------
The strength of the demagnetizing field is proportional to the polarization of the liquid. So in conventional weakly-polarized liquids the dipolar field can be neglected, while for strong enough polarizations its effects overwhelm usual Fermi liquid exchange field spin dynamics.
Because of its long-range character, the dipolar interaction introduces an additional non-local term into the equations of the spin dynamics. This term is an integro-differential operator on the magnetization, wherein the integration is taken over the volume of the liquid. As a consequence the corrections to the spin dynamics depend strongly on the shape of the container.
[cccccccccccc]{} & concen-& magneti-& Larmor& field& modes& & & & & & dipolar\
& tration& zation& frequency& gradient& distance& & & & & & parameter\
parameters & $ x $,& $ {\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_{0}}} $& $ {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{L}}{2\pi }} $,& $ \nabla H^{e} $,& $ {\displaystyle \frac{\xi \nabla \omega _{L}}{2\pi }} $,& $ {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{M}}{2\pi }} $,& $ R $,& $ {\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{R}} $,& $ C $& $ {\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{M}}{2R\nabla \omega _{L}}} $,& (\[parameter\]) or (\[paramater-sph\])\
and units& $ 10^{-3} $& & MHz& G/sm& Hz& Hz& mm& $ \times 10^{-3} $& & $ \times 10^{-3} $& $ \times 10^{-3} $\
pure $ ^{3} $He in a& & 1& 1& 2& 122& 0.48& & (189)& 3.7& (0.37)& 1.17\
rectangular box,& -& 1& 2& 2& 97& 0.97& 1& (150)& 7.3& (0.74)& 2.5\
[@candela; @1], $ T=1 $ mK& & 1& 4& 2& 77& 1.93& & (119)& 14.6& (1.49)& 5.5\
\
$ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He in a sphere,& $ 1.82 $& 1& 258& 3.62& 60& 9.2& 0.4& 133& 2.5& 10.1& 38\
[@candela; @2], $ T=20 $ mK& $ 0.63 $& 1& 258& 2.01& 30& 3.9& 0.6& 77& 3& 4.95& 28\
\
$ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He in a & & 1& & & 78.4& 23.5& & 121& 9.7& 18.1& 73\
hemisphere, [@Roni],& & 2& & & 36.2& 47.0& & 96& 19& 36.3& 173\
$ T=20 $ mK& 93& 3& 341& 4& 54.4& 70.6& 0.5& 84& 29& 54.4& 288\
& & 4& & & 49.4& 94.1& & 76& 39& 72.5& 413\
\
pure $ ^{3} $He in& & 1& & & 21.9& 241& & 6.6& 2.3& 36& 252\
a finite& & 2& & & 17.4& 482& & 5.2& 4.5& 73& 532\
cylinder, [@Roni],& -& 3& 312& 5.1& 15.2& 723& 2.0& 4.6& 6.8& 109& 809\
$ T=20 $ mK& & 4& & & 13.8& 963& & 4.2& 9.1& 146& 1099\
& & 5& & & 12.8& 1204& & 3.9& 11& 182& 1385\
\
$ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He in& & 1& & & 150& 23.5& & 22& 9.6& 1.7& 9.6\
a finite& & 2& & & 119& 47.0& & 17& 19& 3.4& 20\
cylinder, [@vermeulen],& 93& 3& 341& 10.6& 104& 70.6& 2.0& 15& 29& 5.1& 31\
$ T=20 $ mK& & 4& & & 95& 94.6& & 14& 39& 6.8& 42\
In particular, the influence of the demagnetizing field on the spectrum of standing spin waves in an (*infinite*) slab reduces for an arbitrary strength of the dipolar field simply to uniform shift of all the modes by $ -\omega _{M}=-4\pi \gamma M $, where $ M $ is the static magnetization of the liquid in an external field, $ \gamma $ — gyromagnetic ratio.
In a *finite* volume of a liquid strengthening of the demagnetizing field results in the crossover from the Silin type spin wave regime to the regime of magnetostatic waves. In this latter the mechanism of the forming of the standing spin waves has nothing to do with the exchange physics of Fermi liquids. Magnetostatic spectra are in no way specific to the Fermi liquid and so contain no information on its parameters.
For intermediate polarizations the demagnetizing field in a finite volume of a liquid leads to the corrections to Silin type spin wave spectra, both shifting the spectra uniformly and also changing the distances between the modes and the modes widths. These changes of the second type which distort the spectra are undesirable from the point of view of deriving parameters of the liquid from the spectra.
We have seen that the parameter determining the influence of the demagnetizing field on the spectra of spin waves in a finite cylinder in the first order of perturbation theory is $$\label{parameter}
\frac{2\omega _{M}}{\pi \xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\frac{\xi }{R}\log \frac{\sqrt{R^{\Phi }L^{\Psi }}}{\xi ^{\Phi +\Psi }},$$ where $ \omega _{M}=4\pi \gamma M $ characterizes the magnetization density, $ \nabla \omega _{L} $ is the gradient of the Larmor frequency, $ R $ is the radius of the cylinder base, $ L $ its height and $ \xi $ is the wavelength (\[lambda\]) of an Airy-type standing spin wave. The quantity $ \xi \nabla \omega _{L} $ gives the average distance between modes in the units of frequency. $ \Phi $ and $ \Psi $ are numbers of the order of unity.
For a sphere, an analogous parameter was $$\label{paramater-sph}
\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\omega _{M}}{4\xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\xi }{2R}}.$$ The values of these parameters (along with the values of some others having appeared in the text) for several recent spin-wave experiments are arranged into Table \[conditions\].
The ratio $ M/M_{0} $ of the absolute value $ M $ of the static magnetization to the equilibrium magnetization $ M_{0} $ accounts for the possible higher then equilibrium polarization of the liquid. Polarizing a liquid $ M/M_{0} $ times its equilibrium value increases proportionally the strength of the demagnetizing field as well as the parameters (\[parameter\]), (\[paramater-sph\]). For the experiments [@vermeulen], [@Roni], where $ M/M_{0} $ could be changed, we present in Table I the data for several integer values of $ M/M_{0} $ which are close to the real experimental values.
For conditions when dipolar parameter (\[parameter\]) or (\[paramater-sph\]) is smaller than unity one can use perturbation theory to get corrections to the modes frequencies.
As the comparison between perturbation theory based analytical calculations and numerical simulations for a sphere shows (see Fig. \[Fig-modesOnOmega\]) perturbation theory has acceptable accuracy up to the values of $ \omega _{M}/2R\nabla \omega _{L}\sim 0.1 $ or (\[parameter\]), (\[paramater-sph\]) $ \sim 0.4 $. However, at greater values of the parameters (\[parameter\]), (\[paramater-sph\]) the discrepancy between perturbation theory and numerics grows dramatically.
When the spin wave spectra are used for measuring the transverse relaxation time $ \tau $, a proper treatment of experimental data taking into account dipolar field corrections is necessary. We estimated that the dipolar restrictions on the correct determination of $ \tau $ from the conventional interpretation of the spectra are of the order of the parameter (\[parameter\]) or (\[paramater-sph\]). In particular, for the experiment [@vermeulen] about 4.2%. The latter means that the effect of a dipolar field can not significantly change the main conclusion of this article that the polarization induced zero temperature spin wave damping does not exist, which is in disagreement with previous spin echo experiments [@Wei], [@candela; @OB], [@Ager], [@OB].
A major inference for planning future experiments is the proposal to use ellipsoidal, in particular, spherical containers, not only because the estimation of the shape-dependent dipolar field effects is simpler, but also because there are two roughly equal contributions to the spin wave spectrum distortion, — one from the inhomogeneity of the static demagnetizing field and the other from the demagnetizing field produced by the rotating part of the magnetization. The first contribution exists only in non-ellipsoidal samples, in which a homogeneous static magnetization produces inhomogeneous demagnetizing field. For this reason implementation of such shapes for the experiments on the elicitation of the liquids characteristics from the spectra is disadvantageous.
The dependencies of (\[parameter\]), (\[paramater-sph\]) on experimentally controllable parameters are as follows (\[parameter\])$ \propto \omega _{L}\log \omega _{L} $, $ \propto \log (D_{0}/\kappa \tau _{1}) $, $ \propto \nabla \omega _{L}^{-1}\log \nabla \omega _{L} $, $ \propto R^{-1} $, and (\[paramater-sph\])$ \propto \omega ^{5/4}_{L} $, $ \propto (D_{0}/\kappa \tau _{1})^{-1/4} $, $ \propto \nabla \omega _{L}^{-3/4} $, $ \propto R^{-1/4} $. So a bigger $ R $ and a bigger gradient diminish the contribution of the demagnetizing field.
But for typical experimental conditions as one can see from Table \[conditions\], strongly-polarized $ ^{3} $He-$ ^{4} $He solutions never are too far beyond the regime of Silin spin waves perturbed by demagnetizing field, whereas pure $ ^{3} $He at strong polarizations is in the “deep intermediate” regime, for which the results of Sec. V apply. In view of this, even at most favorable cell size and field gradient, pure highly-polarized $ ^{3} $He seems to be unsuitable for a study of Silin waves spectra.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to Prof. I. A. Fomin for sharing with them his preliminary view of the problem. One of us (P. K.) also thanks the staff of the CRTBT for their hospitality.
The work was financially supported by the Program ”Jumelage entre ENS et Institut Landau” and the Landau Scholarship from Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany (P. K.).
Spin waves in an infinite medium in a uniform magnetic field\[AppInfinite\]
===========================================================================
The non-local dipolar term $ \underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{m}] $ is known to become local in the important case of a medium infinite in two directions, with the proviso that $ \mathbf{m} $ depends on only the remaining third coordinate. The direction in which $ \mathbf{m} $ varies we denote as $ \hat{s} $, and then the medium should be infinite in the two directions perpendicular to $ \hat{s} $.
In such conditions $$\label{didj}
\partial _{i}\partial _{j}\int\limits _{V}\frac{f(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}'=\hat{s}_{i}\hat{s}_{j}\partial _{s}\int \partial _{s}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{1\mathrm{d}}(s-s')f(s')ds',$$ where by definition $$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{a}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{1\mathrm{d}}(a) & = & \int\limits ^{\infty }_{-\infty }\partial _{a}\frac{d^{2}\mathbf{r}_{\bot }'}{\sqrt{\mathbf{r}_{\bot }'^{2}+a^{2}}}=-\pi a\int\limits ^{\infty }_{a^{2}}\frac{dy}{y^{3/2}}=-2\pi \mathrm{sgn}a\end{aligned}$$ Here $ \mathbf{r}_{\bot } $ denotes the coordinate vector in the plane perpendicular to $ \hat{s} $.
So $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{ij}[f]=\hat{s}_{i}\hat{s}_{j}f $ and $$\label{n_{i}j}
\underline{\widehat{n}}[\mathbf{m}]=\hat{s}(\hat{s}\mathbf{m}).$$
The case of an infinite medium in a uniform magnetic field (i.e. $ \nabla \omega _{L}=0 $) is the simplest. Looking for a solution of (\[motion\]) in the form of a running wave $$\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r})=\mathbf{m}_{0}e^{i\mathbf{kr}}$$ we have $ \hat{s}=\hat{k} $. Hence, Eq. (\[motion\]) from which the components of the constant $ \mathbf{m}_{0} $ are to be found, becomes a linear algebraic equation $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\widetilde{\omega }_{L}+\omega _{M}\hat{k}^{2}_{x} & -i\widetilde{\omega }+\omega _{M}\hat{k}_{x}\hat{k}_{y}\\
i\widetilde{\omega }+\omega _{M}\hat{k}_{x}\hat{k}_{y} & \widetilde{\omega }_{L}+\omega _{M}\hat{k}^{2}_{y}
\end{array}\right) \mathbf{m}_{0}=\frac{\omega _{M}}{4\pi }\mathbf{h}^{e}_{\bot },$$ where $ \widetilde{\omega }_{L}=\omega _{L}-Dk^{2} $ and $ \widetilde{\omega }=\omega +i(D/C)k^{2} $.
$ \mathbf{m}_{0} $ as a function of frequency has resonance at the $ \omega $ which render the determinant of the matrix zero. This gives a Holstein-Primakoff type spectrum with an additional attenuation term due to dissipation $ C^{-1}\neq 0 $ $$\omega =\sqrt{\left( \omega _{L}-Dk^{2}\right) \left( \omega _{L}-Dk^{2}+\omega _{M}\sin ^{2}\theta \right) }-i\frac{D}{C}k^{2},$$ where $ \theta $ is the angle between $ \widehat{z} $ and $ \mathbf{k} $.
Spin wave spectrum\[AppSpinSpectrum\]
=====================================
A specimen placed into the field of an NMR coil changes its impedance in two ways. First, the inductance $ L $ alters because so does the average energy of the field [@LL] $$\frac{LI^{2}}{2c^{2}}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\int \overline{\mathbf{H}(t,\mathbf{r})\mathbf{B}(t,\mathbf{r})}d^{3}\mathbf{r}$$ due to dispersion. $ I $ is the current through the coil. A line over an expression here designates time average over oscillation period.
Secondly, the resistance $ R $ appears owing to the dissipation of the energy of the field in the specimen $$RI^{2}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\int \overline{\mathbf{H}(t,\mathbf{r})\partial _{t}\mathbf{B}(t,\mathbf{r})}d^{3}\mathbf{r}.$$
Making use of the general solution (\[B-dip-2\])–(\[B-dip\]) and of the expansion (\[linear\]) we write $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{H}(t) & = & H^{e}\widehat{z}+\mathbf{h}^{e}(t)+\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{dip}},\\
\mathbf{B}(t) & = & (H^{e}+4\pi M)\widehat{z}+\mathbf{h}^{e}(t)+4\pi \mathbf{m}(t)+\mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{dip}}.\end{aligned}$$ In taking space integrals of mutual scalar products of different terms of $ \mathbf{H}(t) $ and $ \mathbf{B}(t) $ we note that those containing $ \mathbf{H}_{\mathrm{dip}} $ transform into integrals over a remote surface. Since beyond the specimen magnetization is zero, such integrals vanish.
In bilinear expressions we should write the monochromatic rf field $ \mathbf{h}^{e}(t)=\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{m}}^{e}\cos \omega t $ as $ \mathbf{h}^{e}(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{h}^{e}+\mathbf{h}^{e*}) $, where $ \mathbf{h}^{e}=\mathbf{h}_{\mathrm{m}}^{e}e^{-i\omega t} $. Similarly, the rotating part of the magnetization should be written in the form $ \mathbf{m}(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{m}+\mathbf{m}^{*}) $, where $ \mathbf{m}=m_{\mathrm{m}}\mathrm{e}^{-i(\omega t+\varphi )}(1,i) $.
Then the impedance $ Z=R-i\omega L/c^{2} $ of an NMR coil can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
Z & = & Z_{0}+I^{-2}\int \overline{\mathbf{h}^{e}(t,\mathbf{r})\left( \partial _{t}-i\omega \right) \mathbf{m}(t,\mathbf{r})}d^{3}\mathbf{r}\nonumber \\
& = & Z_{0}-i\omega I^{-2}\int \mathbf{h}^{e*}\mathbf{m}d^{3}\mathbf{r},\end{aligned}$$ where $ Z_{0} $ is the impedance without sample. So the change in the impedance of the coil due to sample is proportional to $$2\int \mathbf{h}^{e*}\mathbf{m}d^{3}\mathbf{r}\approx \langle h^{e+}|m^{+}\rangle .$$ The real part of this quantity gives the dispersion spectrum, while imaginary — absorption.
Introducing Green operator $ \widehat{\mathcal{G}}_{\omega } $ (\[Green-operator\]) and normalizing, we arrive at expression (\[self-inductance\]).
Dipolar corrections to modes in a finite cylinder\[AppDipFinCyl\]
=================================================================
In this Appendix we derive expression (\[slab-corrections\]) for mode shifts due to dipolar field in a finite cylindrical cell.
The normalization coefficients of transversely homogeneous $ n_{\rho }=m=0 $ modes (\[trhmodes\]) are $$c^{-2}_{n_{z}}=\pi R^{2}\xi \int ^{L/\xi \rightarrow \infty }_{0}\mathrm{Ai}^{2}\left( x+\alpha '_{n_{z}}\right) dx.$$ The upper limit may be put equal to infinity and then the last dimensionless integral is a number depending only on $ n_{z} $.
In calculating the integrals in (\[ddip-cyl\]) we use the expansion of the Green function in cylindrical coordinates [@Jackson p. 140] $$\label{r-r'expansion}
\frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}=\sum ^{+\infty }_{m=-\infty }e^{im(\varphi -\varphi ')}\int ^{\infty }_{0}e^{-k|z-z'|}J_{m}(k\rho )J_{m}(k\rho ')dk.$$
Integrals over $ \varphi $ and $ \varphi ' $ give $ (2\pi )^{2}\delta _{m0} $. Then the integrals over $ \rho $ and $ \rho ' $ with $ J_{0} $ give $ R^{2}J^{2}_{1}(kR)/k^{2} $ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\int _{V} & \Psi & (z)\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}\left[ \Phi (z)\right] d^{3}\mathbf{r}=\\
& - & \pi R^{2}\int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\frac{J^{2}_{1}(kR)}{k^{2}}\int\limits ^{L}_{0}\Psi (z)\int\limits ^{L}_{0}\Phi (z')\partial ^{2}_{z}e^{-k|z-z'|}dz'dzdk.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In the first integral in (\[ddip-cyl\]) $ \Psi (z)=\psi ^{2}_{n_{z}}(z) $, $ \Phi (z)=1 $, while in the second — $ \Psi (z)=\Phi (z)=\psi _{n_{z}}(z) $.
As a result of differentiating expansion (\[r-r’expansion\]) we have $$\label{dxekx}
\partial ^{2}_{z}e^{-k|z-z'|}=-2k\delta (z-z')+k^{2}e^{-k|z-z'|}.$$ The integral of the $ \delta $-functional part is the simpler, using $ \int x^{-1}J^{2}_{1}(x)dx=\frac{1}{2} $, we obtain $ \pi R^{2}\int ^{L}_{0}\Psi (z)\Phi (z)dz $. For both integrals in (\[ddip-cyl\]) this gives unity.
So the $ \delta $-functional part in the dipolar operator for transversely homogeneous spatial distributions gives the local slab value (\[n-reduces-to-1\]).
The second part in (\[dxekx\]) is shown below to be non-zero only for finite samples. Indeed, it yields $$-\pi R\int ^{L}_{0}\Psi (z)\int ^{L}_{0}\Phi (z')F\left( \frac{|z-z'|}{R}\right) dz'dz,$$ where $$F(p)=\int ^{\infty }_{0}J^{2}_{1}(x)e^{-px}dx$$ is the Laplace transform of $ J^{2}_{1} $. Although its value can be found in tables (see, e.g. [@GR formula 6.612]) for our purposes it is sufficient to know its value for small $ p $, where it diverges logarithmically $$F\left( \frac{|z-z'|}{R}\right) \approx -\frac{1}{\pi }\log \frac{e^{2}|z-z'|}{8R}.$$
Writing for small $ z $ $$\int ^{L}_{0}\log \frac{e^{2}|z-z'|}{8R}dz'=L\log \frac{eL}{8R}+z\log \frac{z}{eL}+O(z^{2})$$ and substituting $ \frac{L-z}{\xi }\rightarrow x $ we obtain for the first integral in (\[ddip-cyl\]) $$\label{1st-order-2}
1+\frac{L}{\pi R}\log \frac{eL}{8R}+\frac{\Psi _{n_{z}}}{\pi }\frac{\xi }{R}\log \frac{\Theta _{n_{z}}\xi }{Le}.$$
And for the second integral in (\[ddip-cyl\]) $$\label{1st-order-1}
1+\frac{2\Phi _{n_{z}}}{\pi }\frac{\xi }{R}\log \frac{e^{2}\Xi _{n_{z}}\xi }{8R}.$$
Here the $ n_{z} $-dependent constants $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi _{n_{z}} & = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{(\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\mathrm{Ai}(x)dx)^{2}}{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\mathrm{Ai}^{2}(x)dx},\\
\log \Xi _{n_{z}} & = & \frac{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\log \left| x-x'\right| \mathrm{Ai}(x)\mathrm{Ai}(x')dxdx'}{(\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\mathrm{Ai}(x)dx)^{2}}\\
\Psi _{n_{z}} & = & \frac{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}x\mathrm{Ai}^{2}(x)dx}{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}\mathrm{Ai}^{2}(x)dx},\\
\log \Theta _{n_{z}} & = & \frac{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}x\log (x)\mathrm{Ai}^{2}(x)dx}{\int ^{\infty }_{-\alpha '_{n_{z}}}x\mathrm{Ai}^{2}(x)dx}\end{aligned}$$ are of the order unity, as is seen from Table \[TableFinCyl\], where they are calculated numerically for the first six modes.
$ n_{z} $ 0 1 2 3 4 5
--------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$ \Phi _{n_{z}} $ 1.1197 0.9377 0.6949 0.6449 0.5717 0.5443
$ \Xi _{n_{z}} $ 0.5431 0.3525 0.2441 0.2384 0.2019 0.1989
$ \Psi _{n_{z}} $ 0.6792 2.165 3.2134 4.109 4.915 5.659
$ \Theta _{n_{z}} $ 0.9189 2.481 3.657 4.667 5.576 6.419
: Numerical constants in the expression (\[slab-corrections\]) for mode shifts due to dipolar field as functions of the mode number.\[TableFinCyl\]
Plugging (\[1st-order-2\]) and (\[1st-order-1\]) into (\[ddip-cyl\]) we get for the dipolar corrections to the modes frequencies in a finite cylinder expression (\[slab-corrections\]).
Dipolar error to transverse relaxation time
-------------------------------------------
We are now in a position to estimate the error in the determination of the transverse relaxation time because of the dipolar field.
As an example, we consider the experiment [@vermeulen], wherein $ \tau $ was obtained from the regime parameter $ C, $ which, in its turn, was determined from the slope of the linear fit to the dependence of modes half-widths $ \Im \omega _{\alpha } $ on their position $ \Re (\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{L}-L\nabla \omega _{L}) $. In the collisionless regime in a finite cylinder, as is seen from (\[spectrum-slab\]) and (\[xi-substitute\]), the two quantities are related through $$\label{1/3C}
\frac{\Im \omega _{\alpha }}{\Re (\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{L}-L\nabla \omega _{L})}\approx \frac{1}{3C}.$$ We now find the dipolar correction to this value.
For finite $ C^{-1} $ the scale $ \xi $ should be replaced with the complex $ \xi (1+i/C)^{1/3} $. This means that the dipolar field changes also imaginary parts of the eigenfrequencies and hence half-widths of the modes. In the collisionless regime ($ C\gg 1 $) the imaginary part of the correction (\[slab-corrections\]) equals $$\label{slab-Im-corrections}
\delta _{\mathrm{dip}}\Im \omega ^{\mathrm{cylinder}}_{n_{z}}=\frac{\omega _{M}}{3C}\frac{\xi }{\pi R}\bigl (\Phi _{n_{z}}\log \frac{8R}{e^{3}\Xi _{n_{z}}\xi }+\Psi _{n_{z}}\log \frac{L}{\Theta _{n_{z}}\xi }\bigr ).$$
So the dipolar field changes the widths of the modes proportionally to $ \omega _{M} $. Since for all parameters being positive the initial imaginary parts $ \frac{1}{3C}\alpha _{n_{z}}'\xi \nabla \omega _{L} $ of the modes (\[spectrum-slab\]) are negative, the modes narrow down in the first approximation.
As a matter of fact, experimentally measured are not the absolute positions of the modes frequencies but rather their positions relative to each other. So modes positions in Ref. [@vermeulen] were determined relatively to the position $ \omega _{0} $ of the zeroth mode: not $ \omega _{\alpha } $ but $ \omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{0} $.
To diminish the error due to the data scattering in the value of the slope derived from the fitting, it is desirable to fix the Larmor frequency at the wall $ \omega _{L}+L\nabla \omega _{L} $ which is experimentally badly determinable. So the position $ \omega _{0} $ was put equal to its value $ \omega ^{(0)}_{0}=\omega _{L}+L\nabla \omega _{L}+\alpha _{0}'\xi \nabla \omega _{L} $ in the absence of the dipolar field. This means that instead of $ \omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{L}-L\nabla \omega _{L} $ in the denominator of (\[1/3C\]) actually used in Ref. [@vermeulen] was $ \Re ((\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{0})+\alpha _{0}'\xi \nabla \omega _{L})\equiv \Re ((\omega _{\alpha }-\omega _{0})-\omega _{L}-L\nabla \omega _{L}+\omega ^{(0)}_{0}) $.
Calculating the ratio of $ \Im \omega _{\alpha } $ to this quantity taking into account the dipolar corrections (\[slab-corrections\]), (\[slab-Im-corrections\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{3C}\Bigl (1 & - & \frac{\omega _{M}}{\alpha '_{n_{z}}\xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\frac{\xi }{\pi R}\bigl (\Phi _{0}\log \frac{8R}{e^{2+\Phi _{n_{z}}/\Phi _{0}}\Xi _{0}\xi }\nonumber \\
& + & \Psi _{0}\log \frac{e^{1-\Psi _{n_{z}}/\Psi _{0}}L}{\Theta _{0}\xi }\bigr )\Bigr ).\end{aligned}$$
So the error introduced to the determination of $ C $ is of the order of (\[parameter\]).
Solutions for a spherical cell in adiabatic approximation\[AppSph\]
===================================================================
In this Appendix we obtain spin wave solutions in a sphere neglecting the dipolar field.
For a solution of the three-dimensional eigenvalue problem in a sphere of a radius $ R $ $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ D\partial ^{2}+z\nabla \omega _{L}\right] u(z,\mathbf{r}_{\bot }) & = & \delta \omega \, u(z,\mathbf{r}_{\bot }),\label{AD-task} \\
\left. \partial _{r}u\right| _{r=R} & = & 0,\label{AD-taskbc} \end{aligned}$$ where we denoted $ \delta \omega =\omega -\omega _{L} $ for brevity, the adiabatic approximation consists in the substitution $$u(z,\mathbf{r}_{\bot })=v(z;\rho )w(\rho )e^{im\varphi },$$ where $ v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho ) $ are the eigenfunctions of the equation $$\label{AD-subtask1}
\left[ D\partial _{z}^{2}+z\nabla \omega _{L}\right] v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho )=\omega _{n_{z}}(\rho )v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho ).$$
The coordinate notations are represented in Fig. \[scheme\]. The appropriate boundary conditions for (\[AD-subtask1\]) will be discussed below.
Then Eq. (\[AD-task\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho )\left[ D\partial ^{2}_{\bot }+\omega _{n_{z}}(\rho )-\delta \omega \right] w(\rho )e^{im\varphi } & & \nonumber \\
+De^{im\varphi }\left( w\partial ^{2}_{\bot }v_{n_{z}}+2\partial _{\rho }w\partial _{\rho }v_{n_{z}}\right) & = & 0.\label{AD-neglect} \end{aligned}$$ Adiabatic approximation utilizes the fact that the second term could be for certain conditions neglected with respect to $ D\partial ^{2}_{\bot }w(\rho ) $. Then we would obtain an effectively decoupled eigenvalue problem describing the slow transverse motion $$\label{AD-transverse}
\left[ D\partial ^{2}_{\bot }+\omega _{n_{z}}(\rho )\right] w(\rho )e^{im\varphi }=\delta \omega \, w(\rho )e^{im\varphi }.$$
For an estimate of the conditions of the possibility of that neglect we write $$\partial _{\rho }v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho )\sim \partial _{\rho }z\partial _{z}v_{n_{z}}\sim (\rho /R)\partial _{z}v_{n_{z}},$$ and from (\[AD-subtask1\]) we see that $ \partial _{z}v_{n_{z}}\sim v_{n_{z}}/\xi $, where $ \xi $ is the Airy spin wave characteristic wavelength (\[lambda\]). On the other hand $ \partial _{\rho }w\sim w/\rho $. So, the condition of applicability of the adiabatic approximation to this problem is that the ratio of the second term in (\[AD-neglect\]) to $ D\partial ^{2}_{\bot }w(\rho ) $ should be smaller than unity $$\rho ^{2}/R\xi \ll 1.$$
The boundary condition (\[AD-taskbc\]) on $ u $ reads $$[\cos \theta \partial _{z}+\sin \theta \partial _{\rho }]v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho )w(\rho )e^{im\varphi }=0.$$ For small $ \theta $ we have $ \cos \theta \approx 1-\rho ^{2}/2R^{2} $ and $ \sin \theta \approx \rho /R $. Estimating $ \partial _{\rho }v_{n_{z}} $ as above, we see that $ \sin \theta \partial _{\rho }v_{n_{z}} $ is of the order of $ (\rho /R)^{2}\partial _{z}v_{n_{z}} $, and in first order in $ \rho /R $ the boundary conditions are $$\left( w\partial _{z}v_{n_{z}}+\frac{\rho }{R}v_{n_{z}}\partial _{\rho }w\right) _{z\approx R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}}=0.$$
The first term is proportional to $ 1/\xi $, while the second to $ 1/R $ and in the case $ \xi \ll R $ the boundary conditions reduce to a much simpler form $$\label{AD-bc}
\left. \partial _{z}v_{n_{z}}\right| _{z\approx R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}}=0$$
Finally we formulate once again all our assumptions, i.e. $ \rho $, $ \xi $, $ \rho ^{2}/\xi \ll R $. These three reduce to $ \xi \ll R $ if $ \rho \sim 1/\sqrt{a} $, where $ 1/\sqrt{a} $ is the characteristic transverse spatial scale of the wave function (see Eq. (\[a\]) below).
Now we proceed to the solution itself. First, Eq. (\[AD-subtask1\]) should be solved with the boundary conditions (i) (\[AD-bc\]) at $ z=R-\rho ^{2}/2R $ and (ii) $ v_{i}\rightarrow 0 $ as $ z\rightarrow -\infty $.
The solution is then $$\label{sphere-eigen}
v_{n_{z}}(z;\rho )=\mathrm{Ai}\left( \frac{\omega _{n_{z}}(\rho )-z\nabla \omega _{L}}{\xi \nabla \omega _{L}}\right) ,$$ where $$\omega _{n_{z}}(\rho )=\left( R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}+\xi \alpha _{n_{z}}'\right) \nabla \omega _{L}$$ and $ \alpha _{n}'<0 $ is the $ n $-th zero of the derivative of the Airy function $ \mathrm{Ai}' $.
Then Eq. (\[AD-transverse\]) describes a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ D\partial ^{2}_{\bot }-\frac{\nabla \omega _{L}}{R}\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2}\right] w(\rho )e^{im\varphi } & = & \nonumber \\
\left( \omega -\left( \alpha _{n_{z}}'\xi +R\right) \nabla \omega _{L}\right) w(\rho )e^{im\varphi }. & & \end{aligned}$$
Solution in polar coordinates is $$\label{sphere-eigen-2}
w_{n_{\rho }m}(\rho )=\rho ^{|m|}e^{-a\rho ^{2}/2}L^{|m|}_{n_{\rho }}(a\rho ^{2}),$$ where $ L^{\alpha }_{n}(z) $ are the Laguerre polynomials and we denoted $$\label{a}
a^{2}=\frac{\nabla \omega _{L}}{2DR}\equiv \frac{1}{2\xi ^{3}R}.$$
The corresponding eigenfrequencies are $$\omega _{n_{z}n}=\omega _{L}+R\nabla \omega _{L}+\xi \nabla \omega _{L}\left[ \alpha _{n_{z}}'-\sqrt{2\frac{\xi }{R}}(n+1)\right] ,$$ where $ \omega _{L} $ is the Larmor frequency in the center of the sphere, $ n=2n_{\rho }+|m| $.
Again we remark that only the modes with zero azimuthal quantum number $ m $ couple to the rf field. Eigenfunctions with $ m=0 $ occur for even $ n=2n_{\rho } $, as is written in (\[spectrum-sphere\]).
Effects of dipolar field in the first order of perturbation theory
------------------------------------------------------------------
We now calculate the demagnetizing field corrections (\[ddip-cyl\]) to the modes in a sphere.
As we saw in the previous subsection, the dipolar-free solution of the equations of motion satisfying boundary conditions (\[boundary-condition\]) is $$\psi _{n_{z}n_{\rho }0}=c_{n_{z}n_{\rho }0}\mathrm{Ai}\bigl ({\textstyle \frac{R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}-z}{\xi }}+\alpha '_{n_{z}}\bigr )e^{-a\rho ^{2}/2}L_{n_{\rho }}(a\rho ^{2}),$$ where $ n_{z},n_{\rho }=0,1,2,...,\infty $, and $ m $ was put equal to zero because only the modes with $ m=0 $ couple to the homogeneous rf field. Furthermore, for simplicity we consider modes with $ n_{\rho }=0 $ for which $ L_{n_{\rho }}=1 $.
In order to calculate the normalization coefficient $ c_{n_{z}00} $ $$c^{-2}_{n_{z}00}=2\pi \int ^{\infty }_{0}e^{-a\rho ^{2}}\int ^{R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}}_{-R+\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}}\mathrm{Ai}^{2}\bigl ({\textstyle \frac{R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}-z}{\xi }}\bigr )dz\, \rho d\rho$$ we make the substitution $ x=(R-\rho ^{2}/2R-z)/\xi $ $$\begin{aligned}
c^{-2}_{n_{z}00} & = & 2\pi \xi \int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}e^{-a\rho ^{2}}\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \int\limits ^{2\frac{R-\frac{\rho ^{2}}{2R}}{\xi }\rightarrow \infty }_{0}\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \mathrm{Ai}^{2}\left( x+\alpha '_{n_{z}}\right) dx\, \rho d\rho \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\pi \xi }{a}\int ^{\infty }_{0}\mathrm{Ai}^{2}\left( x+\alpha '_{n_{z}}\right) dx,\end{aligned}$$ Here the upper limit of integration over $ x $ may be estimated as $ \sim (R/\xi -1/aR\xi )=(R/\xi -\sqrt{2\xi /R})\gg 1 $, after which the integral over $ x $ decouples from that over $ \rho $ in the approximation $ \xi /R\ll 1 $.
In the case of a sphere $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}[1]=n^{(z)}=\frac{1}{3} $ and as was already mentioned there is no contribution to the spectrum distortion from the static dipolar field. One needs only to calculate the second integral in (\[ddip-cyl\]).
Again, the $ \delta - $functional term in (\[dxekx\]) using [@Jackson] $$\int ^{\infty }_{0}kJ_{\nu }(k\rho )J_{\nu }(k\rho ')dk=\frac{1}{\rho }\delta (\rho -\rho ')$$ can be easily seen to give a constant $ 1 $ as it should. In the limit $ \xi /R\rightarrow 0 $ a sphere transforms into a half-space, the modes being localized near the boundary. A half-space is a particular case of a slab, with the height $ L\rightarrow \infty $. Hence the solutions in a sphere in the limit $ \xi /R\rightarrow 0 $ transform into solutions for a thick slab depending on only $ z $. The demagnetizing tensor for such solutions reduces to a constant (\[n-reduces-to-1\]).
The second term in (\[dxekx\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits _{V} & \! \! \! \! \psi _{n_{z}} & \! \! \! \! (z)\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}\left[ \psi _{n_{z}}(z)\right] d^{3}\mathbf{r}=-\pi c^{2}_{n_{z}}\xi ^{2}\! \! \int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\! \! k^{2}\int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\! \! e^{-a\rho ^{2}/2}J_{0}(k\rho )\nonumber \\
& \times & \int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\! \! e^{-a\rho '^{2}/2}J_{0}(k\rho ')\! \! \int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\! \! \mathrm{Ai}(x+\alpha '_{n_{z}})\! \! \int\limits ^{\infty }_{0}\! \! \mathrm{Ai}(x'+\alpha '_{n_{z}})\nonumber \\
& \times & e^{-k\xi \left| x-x'+\frac{\rho ^{2}-\rho '^{2}}{2R\xi }\right| }dx'\, dx\, \rho 'd\rho '\, \rho d\rho \, dk.\end{aligned}$$ The two terms under the module sign appeared from $ |z-z'| $. We can estimate $ x-x'\sim 1 $ and $ (\rho ^{2}-\rho '^{2})/2R\xi \sim 1/2R\xi a=\sqrt{\xi /2R} $, therefore $ |z-z'|\approx \xi |x-x'| $. Then the integrals over $ \rho $ and $ \rho ' $ can be taken [@GR formula 6.631] $$\int ^{\infty }_{0}e^{-a\rho ^{2}/2}J_{0}(k\rho )\rho d\rho =\frac{1}{a}e^{-k^{2}/2a}.$$
The integral over $ k $ $$\label{over-k}
\int ^{\infty }_{0}e^{-k^{2}/a}e^{-kp}k^{2}dk,$$ where $ p=\xi |x-x'| $, is a function of $ p\sqrt{a}\sim \sqrt[4]{\xi /R} $. Therefore, we can substitute (\[over-k\]) with the zeroth term of its expansion in series with respect to $ p\sqrt{a} $, which is $ \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\pi a^{3}} $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int _{V} & \psi _{n_{z}} & (z)\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}\left[ \psi _{n_{z}}(z)\right] d^{3}\mathbf{r}=1-\frac{\Phi _{n_{z}}}{2}\sqrt{\pi a}\xi \nonumber \\
& = & 1-\frac{\Phi _{n_{z}}\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\xi }{2R}},\end{aligned}$$ where $ \Phi _{n_{z}} $ are the same numbers as in the case of a cylinder.
In the end we obtain (\[sphere-corrections\]) for the corrections to the modes.
Matrix elements of the demagnetizing operator\[AppMatrixElements\]
==================================================================
In this Appendix we are going into the detail of calculation of the matrix elements of the dipolar integro-differential operator $ \underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz} $. We show that only those elements $ \langle nlm|\underline{\widehat{n}}_{zz}|n'l'm'\rangle $ are non-zero that are between the states with $ m=m' $ and $ l'=l,l\pm 2 $.
Before proceeding we remark on notations. We will write the integral operator in (\[demag-tensor\]) as $$\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r})=\int \frac{\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^{3}\mathbf{r}',$$ justification being that $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty } $ is the Green operator for Laplace equation with the boundary condition of vanishing at infinity.
So our plan for this section is, first, to calculate $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle $. Then, secondly, we calculate the result of acting of $ \partial _{z}^{2} $ on an arbitrary function $ f(\mathbf{r}) $ expanded in spherical harmonics $$\label{f}
f(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{lm}f_{lm}(r)Y^{m}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})$$
By substituting $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle $ for $ f $ we eventually find the matrix elements themselves.
Calculation of $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle \protect $
------------------------------------------------------------------
We find $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle $ directly by integration, using a well-known formula from the theory of spherical harmonics $$\frac{1}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}=\sum _{lm}\frac{4\pi }{2l+1}Y^{m}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})Y^{m*}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}')\frac{r^{l}_{<}}{r^{l+1}_{>}},$$ where $ r_{<} $ ($ r_{>} $) is the smaller (larger) of $ r $ and $ r' $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle & = & \frac{4\pi }{2l+1}c_{nl}Y^{m}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\label{App-2} \\
& \times & \left( \int ^{r}_{0}\frac{r'^{l}}{r^{l+1}}+\int ^{R}_{r}\frac{r^{l}}{r'^{l+1}}\right) j_{l}(k_{nl}r')r'^{2}dr'.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
The integrals at the right-hand side can be taken easily as follows. We notice that [@abramovitz] $$\begin{aligned}
x^{-l}j_{l+1}(x) & = & -\partial _{x}\left[ x^{-l}j_{l}(x)\right] ,\\
x^{l+1}j_{l-1}(x) & = & \partial _{x}\left[ x^{l+1}j_{l}(x)\right] .\label{j-l-1} \end{aligned}$$ Taking integrals from the two sides we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\int ^{x}_{0}\left( \frac{y}{x}\right) ^{l+1}j_{l-1}(y)dy & = & j_{l}(x),\\
\int ^{a}_{x}\left( \frac{x}{y}\right) ^{l}j_{l+1}(y)dy & = & j_{l}(x)-\left( \frac{x}{a}\right) ^{l}j_{l}(a).\end{aligned}$$
On plugging the above into (\[App-2\]) and using another property of the spherical Bessel functions $$\label{j-l-1-l+1}
j_{l+1}\left( x\right) +j_{l-1}\left( x\right) =\frac{2l+1}{x}j_{l}(x)$$ we get a sum of two terms $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle & = & \frac{4\pi R^{2}}{(k_{nl}R)^{2}}|nlm\rangle \label{G-inf-nlm} \\
& - & \frac{4\pi R^{2}}{2l+1}\frac{c_{nl}}{k_{nl}R}Y^{m}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\left( \frac{r}{R}\right) ^{l}j_{l-1}(k_{nl}R).\nonumber \label{G-inf-nkm} \end{aligned}$$ This expression is inapplicable when $ k_{nl}R=0 $, which takes place for $ n=l=0 $. In this particular case, integrating explicitly, we get $$\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|000\rangle =4\pi c_{00}Y^{0}_{0}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})j_{0}(0)\left( \frac{R^{2}}{2}-\frac{r^{2}}{6}\right) .$$
Calculation of $ \partial ^{2}_{z}f(\mathbf{r})\protect $ \[transverse\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making use of the overt expressions of the basis vectors in the spherical coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathbf{r}} & = & \widehat{\mathbf{x}}\sin \theta \cos \varphi +\widehat{\mathbf{y}}\sin \theta \sin \varphi +\widehat{\mathbf{z}}\cos \theta ,\nonumber \\
\widehat{{\mbox {\boldmath\(\theta\)}} } & = & \widehat{\mathbf{x}}\cos \theta \cos \varphi +\widehat{\mathbf{y}}\cos \theta \sin \varphi -\widehat{\mathbf{z}}\sin \theta ,\\
\widehat{{\mbox {\boldmath\(\varphi\)}} } & = & -\widehat{\mathbf{x}}\sin \varphi +\widehat{\mathbf{y}}\cos \varphi ,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and of the nabla operator $${\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} =\widehat{\mathbf{r}}\partial _{r}+\widehat{{\mbox {\boldmath\(\theta\)}} }\frac{1}{r}\partial _{\theta }+\widehat{{\mbox {\boldmath\(\varphi\)}} }\frac{1}{r\sin \theta }\partial _{\varphi },$$ it can be verified that $$\label{dz}
\partial _{z}=\cos \theta \partial _{r}+\frac{1}{2r}\sin \theta \left( e^{i\varphi }\hat{l}_{-}-e^{-i\varphi }\hat{l}_{+}\right) .$$
Here $ \hat{\mathbf{l}}=-i\mathbf{r}\times {\mbox {\boldmath\(\partial\)}} $ is the angular momentum operator $$\hat{l}_{z}=-i\partial _{\varphi },\quad \hat{l}_{\pm }=e^{\pm i\varphi }(\pm \partial _{\theta }+i\cot \theta \partial _{\varphi }),$$ which has the well known effect on the spherical harmonics $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{l}_{z}Y_{l}^{m} & = & mY_{l}^{m},\\
\hat{l}_{+}Y_{l}^{m} & = & \sqrt{(l-m)(l+m+1)}Y_{l}^{m+1},\\
\hat{l}_{-}Y_{l}^{m} & = & \sqrt{(l+m)(l-m+1)}Y_{l}^{m-1}.\end{aligned}$$
The product of each spherical harmonic with $ \sin \theta e^{i\varphi }\propto Y^{1}_{1} $, $ \cos \theta \propto Y^{0}_{1} $, or $ \sin \theta e^{-i\varphi }\propto Y^{-1}_{1} $, is a sum [@merzbacher]
$$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle \sin \theta e^{-i\varphi }Y^{m}_{l} & = & a^{m}_{l}Y^{m-1}_{l+1}-b^{m}_{l}Y^{m-1}_{l-1},\\
\sin \theta e^{i\varphi }Y^{m}_{l} & = & -a^{-m}_{l}Y^{m+1}_{l+1}+b^{-m}_{l}Y^{m+1}_{l-1},\\
\cos \theta Y^{m}_{l} & = & c^{m}_{l+1}Y^{m}_{l+1}+c^{m}_{l}Y^{m}_{l-1}\label{cos} \end{aligned}$$
of the harmonics with the adjacent $ l $ and $ m $ multiplied each by a coefficient (which, in fact, are particular cases of the Clebsh-Gordan coefficients) $$\begin{aligned}
a^{m}_{l} & = & \sqrt{{\textstyle \frac{l-m+1}{2l+1}\frac{l-m+2}{2l+3}}},\nonumber \\
b^{m}_{l} & = & \sqrt{{\textstyle \frac{l+m}{2l+1}\frac{l+m-1}{2l-1}}},\label{ab} \\
c^{m}_{l} & = & \sqrt{{\textstyle \frac{l+m}{2l+1}\frac{l-m}{2l-1}}}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Hence from (\[dz\]) $$\label{d-f}
\partial _{z}f=\sum _{lm}\left( -c^{m}_{l+1}Y^{m}_{l+1}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+}+c^{m}_{l}Y^{m}_{l-1}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-}\right) f_{lm}(r).$$ Here the coefficients turn out to be the same as in (\[cos\]), and we introduced two differentiating operators $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+} & = & -\partial _{r}+l/r,\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-} & = & \partial _{r}+(l+1)/r.\label{L} \end{aligned}$$
We may rewrite (\[d-f\]) by shifting the summation indices as $$\partial _{z}f(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{lm}(\partial _{z}f)_{lm}(r)Y_{l}^{m}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}),$$ where $$(\partial _{z}f)_{lm}=-c^{m}_{l}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l-1}^{+}f_{l-1,m}+c^{m}_{l+1}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l+1}^{-}f_{l+1,m}.$$
Then repeating the procedure, we get $$\partial ^{2}_{z}f(\mathbf{r})=\sum _{lm}(\partial ^{2}_{z}f)_{lm}(r)Y_{l}^{m}(\hat{\mathbf{r}}),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \partial ^{2}_{z}f\right) _{lm} & = & c^{m}_{l}c^{m}_{l-1}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l-1}^{+}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l-2}^{+}f_{l-2,m}\\
& + & \left[ \left( c^{m}_{l}\right) ^{2}+\left( c^{m}_{l+1}\right) ^{2}\right] \left( \partial ^{2}\right) _{l}f_{lm}\nonumber \\
& + & c^{m}_{l+1}c^{m}_{l+2}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l+1}^{-}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l+2}^{-}f_{l+2,m}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Here we used that $ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l-1}^{+}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-}=\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l+1}^{-}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+}=-\left( \partial ^{2}\right) _{l} $, where $ \left( \partial ^{2}\right) _{l} $ is the $ l $-th component of the Laplace operator $$\left( \partial ^{2}\right) _{l}=\partial ^{2}_{r}+2\frac{\partial _{r}}{r}-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}.$$
Changing the summation indices in each term again we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\partial ^{2}_{z}f & =\sum _{lm} & \left( c^{m}_{l+1}c^{m}_{l+2}Y^{m}_{l+2}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l+1}^{+}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+}\right. \label{dzz} \\
& + & \left[ \left( c^{m}_{l}\right) ^{2}+\left( c^{m}_{l+1}\right) ^{2}\right] Y^{m}_{l}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\left( \partial ^{2}\right) _{l}\nonumber \\
& + & \left. c^{m}_{l-1}c^{m}_{l}Y^{m}_{l-2}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l-1}^{-}\hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-}\right) f_{lm}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Matrix elements
---------------
$ f(r) $ $ r^{l} $ $ 1/r^{l+1} $ $ j_{l}(r) $ $ j_{l}(\mathrm{const}\: r) $
-------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------------------------------------------
$ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+}f $ $ 0 $ $ (2l+1)f/r $ $ j_{l+1}(r) $ $ \mathrm{const}\: j_{l+1}(\mathrm{const}\: r) $
$ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-}f $ $ (2l+1)f/r $ $ 0 $ $ j_{l-1}(r) $ $ \mathrm{const}\: j_{l-1}(\mathrm{const}\: r) $
: Operators $ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+}\protect $, $ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-}\protect $.\[TableOperators\]
Substituting $ \hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle $ from (\[G-inf-nlm\]) into (\[dzz\]) and using the properties of $ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{+} $, $ \hat{\mathcal{L}}_{l}^{-} $ summarized in Table \[TableOperators\], we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4\pi }\partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle & = & c^{m}_{l+1}c^{m}_{l+2}c_{nl}j_{l+2}(k_{nl}r)Y^{m}_{l+2}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\nonumber \\
& - & \left[ \left( c^{m}_{l}\right) ^{2}+\left( c^{m}_{l+1}\right) ^{2}\right] |nlm\rangle \\
& + & c^{m}_{l-1}c^{m}_{l}c_{nl}Y^{m}_{l-2}(\hat{\mathbf{r}})\Biggl (j_{l-2}(k_{nl}r)\nonumber \\
& - & (2l-1)\frac{j_{l-1}(k_{nl}R)}{k_{nl}R}\left( \frac{r}{R}\right) ^{l-2}\Biggl ).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ It is not hard to verify by straightforward differentiating that this expression holds also for $ n=l=m=0 $.
The matrix elements $ \langle n'l'm'|\partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|nlm\rangle $ are to be obtained from this expression by integrating with the complex conjugate of (\[mu\]) over the spherical volume of our sample. In doing so we see that only the elements with $ m'=m $, $ l'=l,l\pm 2 $ are non-zero as we already mentioned in the text $$\begin{aligned}
\langle nlm| & \frac{1}{4\pi } & \partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|n',l'=l-2,m\rangle \nonumber \\
& = & (c^{m}_{l-1}c^{m}_{l})\int ^{R}_{0}cc'j_{l}(kr)j_{l}(k'r)r^{2}dr;\nonumber \\
\langle nlm| & \frac{1}{4\pi } & \partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|n'lm\rangle =-\left[ \left( c^{m}_{l}\right) ^{2}+\left( c^{m}_{l+1}\right) ^{2}\right] \delta _{nn'};\nonumber \\
\langle nlm| & \frac{1}{4\pi } & \partial ^{2}_{z}\hat{\mathcal{G}}_{\infty }|n',l'=l+2,m\rangle \label{App-me} \\
& = & (c^{m}_{l'-1}c^{m}_{l'})cc'\Biggl (\int ^{R}_{0}j_{l}(kr)j_{l}(k'r)r^{2}dr\nonumber \\
& & -(2l+3)R^{3}\frac{j_{l+1}(kR)}{kR}\frac{j_{l+1}(k'R)}{k'R}\Biggl ),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where we introduced shorthand notations $ k=k_{nl} $, $ k'=k_{n'l'} $, $ c=c_{nl} $, $ c'=c_{n'l'} $.
In the last term we used $$\label{App-int}
\int ^{R}_{0}j_{l}(kr)r^{l+2}dr/R^{l}=R^{3}j_{l+1}(kR)/kR$$ with $ k=k_{nl} $. There is one exception, though, when $ l=n=0 $ — then $ k_{nl}=k_{00}=0 $ and the division in the right-hand side of (\[App-int\]) is undefined. Integrating straightforwardly, we get instead $ R^{3}j_{0}(0)/3 $.
At the end, we take integrals in the off-diagonal elements of (\[App-me\]) using the formulas below [@GR formula 5.54]
$$\begin{aligned}
\int & j_{l}( & ax)j_{l}(bx)x^{2}dx\label{ja-jb} \\
& = & x^{2}\frac{bj_{l-1}(bx)j_{l}(ax)-aj_{l-1}(ax)j_{l}(bx)}{a^{2}-b^{2}}\nonumber \\
& \equiv & x^{2}\frac{-bj_{l+1}(bx)j_{l}(ax)+aj_{l+1}(ax)j_{l}(bx)}{a^{2}-b^{2}}\nonumber \\
& \equiv & x^{2}\frac{bj_{l+1}(bx)j_{l+2}(ax)-aj_{l+1}(ax)j_{l+2}(bx)}{a^{2}-b^{2}}\nonumber \\
& & +(2l+3)x^{3}\frac{j_{l+1}(ax)}{ax}\frac{j_{l+1}(bx)}{bx}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Here $ a\neq b $ and we consecutively applied recurrent relation (\[j-l-1-l+1\]) first to $ j_{l-1} $ and then to $ j_{l} $.
Plugging the integration limits we see that above-diagonal ($ l'=l+2 $) elements equal corresponding below-diagonal ($ l'=l-2 $) with the appropriate change $ l'\leftrightarrow l $. (For $ n=l=0 $ this is to be verified manually.)
Finally, we get formula (\[me-dip\]) in the text for the dipolar part of the Hamiltonian.
The case $ a=b $ in (\[ja-jb\]) is used in the calculation of the normalization coefficients $ c_{nl} $ (\[sph-norm\]) $$\int j^{2}_{l}(ax)x^{2}dx=\frac{x^{3}}{2}\left( j^{2}_{l}(ax)-j_{l-1}(ax)j_{l+1}(ax)\right) .$$ We get $$\begin{aligned}
c_{nl} & = & \left( \frac{R^{3}}{2}\left[ j^{2}_{l}(k_{nl}R)-j_{l-1}(k_{nl}R)j_{l+1}(k_{nl}R)\right] \right) ^{-1/2},\\
& = & \Bigl (\frac{R^{3}}{2}\bigl [j^{2}_{l}(k_{nl}R)+j^{2}_{l+1}(k_{nl}R)\\
& - & \frac{2l+1}{k_{nl}R}j_{l}(k_{nl}R)j_{l+1}(k_{nl}R)\bigr ]\Bigr )^{-1/2},\end{aligned}$$ when $ n+l\geq 1 $. For $ n=l=0 $ we have $ k_{00}=0 $ and $ j_{l-1} $ grows unlimitedly when its argument tends to zero. Then we integrate directly $ c_{00}=\left( R^{3}j^{2}_{0}/3\right) ^{-1/2}. $
[10]{} A. E. Meyerovich, Phys. Lett. **A107**, 177 (1985). J. W. Jeon and W. J. Mullin, J. Phys. (Paris) **49**, 1691 (1988); Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 2691 (1989); W. J. Mullin and J. W. Jeon, J. Low Temp. Phys. **88**, 433 (1992). A. E. Meyerovich and K. A. Musaelian, J. Low Temp. Phys. **89**, 781 (1992); J. Low Temp. Phys. **94**, 249 (1994); J. Low Temp. Phys. **95**, 789 (1994); Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 1710 (1994). D. I. Golosov and A. E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett., **74**, 1613 (1995); J. Low Temp. Phys. **112**, 265 (1998). I. A. Fomin, JETP Lett., **65**, 749 (1997). D. Candela, D. R. McAllaster, L-J. Wei, and N. Kalechofsky, J. Low Temp. Phys. **89**, 307 (1992); L.-J. Wei, N. Kalechofsky and D. Candela, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 879 (1993). D. Candela, H. Akimoto, R. M. Bowley, O. Buu, D. Clubb, J. R. Owers-Bradley, J. Low Temp. Phys. **121**, 767 (2000). J. H. Ager, A. Child, R. Konig et al., J. Low Temp. Phys. **99**, 683 (1995). J. R. Owers-Bradley, R. M. Bowley, O. Buu, D. Clubb and G. Vermeulen, J. Low Temp. Phys. **121**, 779 (2000). G. A. Vermeulen, A. Roni, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 248 (2001). D. S. Golubev and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 1074 (1998), Phys. Rev. B **59**, 9195 (1999). I. L. Aleiner, B. L. Altshuler, M. E. Gershenson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 3190 (1999). D. Cohen, J. Imry, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 11143 (1999). Ch. Kittel, Phys. Rev. **71**, 270 (1947), Phys. Rev. **73**, 155 (1948). L. R. Walker, Phys. Rev. **105**, 390 (1957), J. Appl. Phys. **29**, 318 (1958). D. Candela, N. Masuhara, D. S. Sherill, and D. O. Edwards, J. Low Temp. Phys. **63**, 369 (1986). D. Candela, D. R. McAllaster, and L-J. Wei, Phys. Rev. B **44**, 7510 (1991). A. Roni and G. Vermeulen, Physica B**280**, 87 (2000); A. Roni, PhD thesis, Université Joseph Fourier-Grenoble I, 1999, in French (unpublished, available in pdf format from [www-crtbt.polycnrs-gre.fr/he3pol/dilution/spinwaves.html](www-crtbt.polycnrs-gre.fr/he3pol/dilution/spinwaves.html)). For susceptibility of the saturated dilute phase we used table II of A. Rodriguez and G. Vermeulen, J. Low Temp. Phys. **108**, 103 (1997) based on the susceptibility data of A. I. Ahonen, M. A. Paalanen, R. C. Richardson, and Y. Takano, J. Low Temp. Phys. **24**, 733 (1976) and molar volume and concentration data of G. E. Watson, J. D. Reppy, and R. C Richardson, Phys. Rev. **188**, 384 (1968). For the susceptibility of pure $ ^{3} $He, we used a fit to H. Ramm, P. Pedroni, J. R. Thompson, and H. Meyer, J. Low Temp. Phys. **2**, 539 (1970) and the molar volume given by Greywall, Phys. Rev. B**33**, 7520 (1986). The zero-temperature susceptibility of the very dilute mixtures is calculated from $ m^{*} $ and $ T_{\mathrm{F}} $ written in Ref. [@candela; @2]. A susceptibility at a finite temperature then was read from the temperature dependence in Fig. 4 of the same reference. And molar volume data were taken from Watson et al. Spin diffusion data are taken from the respective sources, for pure $ ^{3} $He at 8 bar in [@Roni] we used the spin diffusion data for 6.3 bar from [@candela; @1]. A. J. Leggett, J. Phys. C **3**, 448 (1970). Our notation of $ \mathbf{M} $ as magnetization — the local average macroscopic magnetic moment density — differs from Leggett’s $ \mathbf{M} $ as the local spin density by the factor $ \gamma \hbar $. The same holds for the current. In Leggett’s paper the external magnetic field $ \mathbf{H}^{e} $ entered the equations (\[laggett-1\]), (\[laggett-2\]) instead of $ \mathbf{B} $. Strictly speaking, it should be the exact microscopic field $ \mathbf{h} $, but the particles motion with ranges greater than interatomic distances leads to its averaging, giving magnetic flux $ \mathbf{B} $. See discussion at the end of §62 of L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, *Course of Theoretical Physics*, 2nd edition, Vol. IX, Pergamon Press, 1980. J. D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics*, 3rd edition, Wiley, NY, 1999. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, *Course of Theoretical Physics*, 2nd edition, Vol. VIII, Chapter IX, Pergamon Press, 1984. P. M. Morse and H. Feshbach, *Methods of Theoretical Physics,* Vol. I, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1953. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, *Tables of Integrals, Series and Products,* 5th edition, Academic Press, 1994*.* M. Abramovitz and I. A. Stegun, ed., *Handbook of Mathematical Functions*, 9th edition, Dover, NY, 1972. E. Merzbacher, *Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd edition, Wiley, NY, 1970. The original results of deWames and Wolfram were published rather fragmentarily in several papers. A good review of the work and all the references may be found in a review article by C. E. Patton, Phys. Rep. **103**, 251 (1984). G. Deville, M. Bernier, and J. M. Delrieux, Phys. Rev. B **19**, 5666 (1979). I. A. Fomin and G. A. Vermeulen, J. Low Temp. Phys. **106**, 133 (1997).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford,\
CA 94309, USA
author:
- 'THOMAS G. RIZZO [^1] [^2]'
title: PHENOMENOLOGY OF HIGGSLESS ELECTROWEAK SYMMETRY BREAKING
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
\#1[\_[.25ex]{}]{} / plus0pt minus0pt
In the SM the conventional Higgs doublet plays several roles, in particular, generating the fermion as well as the $W/Z$ masses with $\rho=1$ and insuring perturbative unitarity (PU) in, , $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering. We can, however, easily imagine electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) mechanisms wherein things are not quite so simple. One of the latest attempts [[@us]]{} at describing EWSB makes use of generalized boundary conditions (BC’s) in a 5-$d$ warped, Higgsless Left-Right Symmetric model. Such a breaking of gauge symmetries as happens in these models cannot occur in the case of the usual orbifold BC’s due to, , the periodicity requirement. In addition, the usual BC’s imposed on the 4-$d$ components of a bulk gauge field, $\partial A_\mu |=0$, forces the wavefunction for the lightest mode to be flat in the extra dimension and therefore the corresponding state to be massless thus leaving all gauge symmetries unbroken. Of course the choice of BC’s is not arbitrary and must be consistent with, , the variation of the action.
For such a scenario to be successful it must a mechanism to do all that the Higgs does without the introduction of additional scalars. Fortunately, this scenario indeed gives rise to a pattern of masses and couplings for gauge fiels which is qualitatively very similar to the usual SM with a doublet Higgs. In this Randall-Sundrum type setup the BC’s are specifically chosen to break $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L} \to
U(1)_Y$ on the Planck brane with the subsequent breaking $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\to U(1)_{QED}$ on the TeV brane. After the Planck scale symmetry breaking occurs, a global $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ symmetry remains in the brane picture; this breaks on the TeV-brane to a diagonal group $SU(2)_D$ corresponding to the custodial $SU(2)$ symmetry present in the SM. This custodial $SU(2)_D$ helps maintain the tree level $\rho=1$ result. We note that in general such a model contains a large number of parameters: an overall mass scale, the 3 gauge couplings, $g_{L,R,B}$, and also four parameters describing the various gauge field kinetic terms, localized on the two 3-branes, which we denote as $\delta_{B,D,L,Y}$. At tree level, two of the gauge couplings as well as the mass scale are fixed by the values of $G_F$ and $M_{W,Z}$, which we use as input, while the remaining ratio, $\kappa=g_R/g_L$, is found to be restricted to values not far from unity by various detailed model considerations. In pricipal, the brane terms remain unrestricted.
Unfortunately, as we will discuss below, a completely realistic model of this kind has yet to be constructed due to the tensions between the various constraints that need to be satisfied. Not only must the correct pattern of EWSB be obtained but we also demand PU while not permitting the gauge boson excitations to be sufficiently light or strongly coupled to have shown up at the Tevatron or indirectly in contact interaction searches at LEP II. Recall that in the SM without a Higgs, PU violation in $W_L^+W_L^-$ elastic scattering occurs at $\sqrt s \simeq 1.8$ TeV and thus we must expect light neutral KK states significantly below this mass scale to compensate for the lack of a Higgs.
An example of one such tension problem in the present scheme is the existence of 3 different $\sin^2 \theta$’s in this model all of which are identical in the SM at tree level: $\sin^2 \theta_{OS}=1-M_W^2/M_Z^2$, which is fixed by the input parameters, as well as $\sin^2 \theta_{eg}=e^2/g_W^2$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{eff}$ as defined on the $Z$ pole. An example of this is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]; clearly for a successful model we must require that all three of these parameters take on very similar values which greatly reduces the size of the allowed parameter space. Similarly, we must demand that deviations of the $\rho$ parameter from unity as defined, , through the $Z$ couplings, must also be small. As we see in another example shown in Fig. \[fig1\] this too constrains the parameter space as we would want $\delta \rho$ to be less than, say, $\sim few ~10^{-3}$. In this simple example this would imply that $\delta_D$ not be too large. It is important to observe that this set of three quantities; $\delta \rho$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{eg,eff}$ can be used to describe all of the deviations from the tree level SM in precision measurements.
The next set of constraints arises from failed searches at the Tevatron for the charged and neutral KK excitations, analogous to $W'$ and $Z'$ searches, respectively, as well as contact interaction bounds from LEP II. Sample constraints on the Higgsless model parameter space arising from these considerations are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. Here we see that these constraints tend to favor small values for the $\delta_i$ parameters corresponding to larger KK masses while the ‘matching’ of the three $\sin^2 \theta$’s tend to favor larger values for these brane terms.
A last consideration is PU and its violation in $W_L^+W_L^-$ scattering. In the SM the individual diagrams consisting only of gauge bosons each lead to amplitudes which grow $\sim s^2$; gauge invariance removes this growth when the diagrams are summed yielding a $\sim s$ growth. At this point the Higgs contribution enters removing this growth leaving only constant terms and results in PU. Here, with no Higgs, the $W$ 4-point and $WWZ_n$ couplings must be judiously modified to cancel both the $\sim s^2$ and $\sim s$ terms. To explore how well this cancellation occurs one can ask at what value of $\sqrt s$ PU is violated, , 1.8 TeV in the SM with no Higgs, but which is essentially infinite in the case of the SM with a light Higgs. Clearly, the larger the value of $\sqrt s$ we obtain the better we have done at cancelling all of the dangerous terms. Fig. \[fig3\] shows some sample results for PU violation in the Higgsless case. Here we see that variations in the brane terms can lead to substantial alterations in the scale at which PU violation occurs, for some values of the parameters by up to a factor of 4 in comparison to the SM with no Higgs. In the most ‘successful’cases the brane term forces the lightest neutral KK to couple to isospin thus enhancing its couplings to $WW$. Such types of couplings are probably necessary in any realistic model in order to obtain PU. We have not found, however, any parameter space regions where the PU violation scale gets very large, , 100 TeV. Some such regions may exist but they have yet to be discovered.
As can be seen from the discussion and examples above it is very difficult for Higgsless models to simultaneously satisfy all of the required constraints and thus it is not trivial to fully imagine what a completely realistic model, if it exists, will look like. However, it is clear that the existence of light KK excitations coupling to isospin will most likely be a necessary ingredient if we want to obtain PU. In addition, such states must have reduced couplings to the SM fermions on the Planck brane in order to avoid present search constraints. Thus one should look for light KK’s at future colliders which are somewhat narrow and live in the mass range of 400-1000 GeV. This is an ideal match for both LHC and LC search capabilities as can be seen from Fig. \[fig4\]. Since the width to mass ratios of these KK states are expected to be small, , $\Gamma/M \sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$, detector smearing issues become of significance at the LHC as do the corresponding issues of beam energy spread at the LC [[@freitas]]{}. It is clear from these figures however that if our qualitative understanding of the nature of a ‘full’ theory is correct we can conclude that such KK states will be observable at both colliders. This may be necessary as it will be the role of the LC to identify the resonance as a KK state arising from a Higgsless model once it is discovered at the LHC.
In summary, we have explored the constraints imposed on the construction of a successful model of Higgsless EWSB and the possible collider signatures for such a scenario. While such a theory does not yet exist, the challenging search continues.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} For details of this analysis and original references, see H. Davoudiasl, J.L. Hewett, B. Lillie and T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/0312193 and 0403300. See A. Freitas, these proceedings.
[^1]: Work supported by the Department of Energy, Contract DE-AC03-76SF00515
[^2]: Talk given at LCWS2004, Paris, France, April 2004
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Anti-de Sitter supergravity models are considered in three dimensions. Precise asymptotic conditions involving a chiral projection are given on the Rarita-Schwinger fields. Together with the known boundary conditions on the bosonic fields, these ensure that the asymptotic symmetry algebra is the superconformal algebra. The classical central charge is computed and found to be equal to the one of pure gravity. It is also indicated that the asymptotic degrees of freedom are described by $2D$ “induced supergravity" and that the boundary conditions “transmute" the non-vanishing components of the WZW supercurrent into the supercharges.'
address: |
$^a$Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad de Zaragoza, Ciudad Universitaria 50009, Zaragoza, Spain,\
$^b$Centro de Estudios Científicos de Santiago, Casilla 16443, Santiago 9, Chile.\
$^c$Physique Théorique et Mathématique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Campus Plaine C.P. 231, B–1050 Bruxelles, Belgium,\
$^d$Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure[^1], 24, rue Lhomond, 75230 Paris Cedex 05, France,\
$^e$Theoretical Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ, UK.
author:
- |
Máximo Bañados$^{a,b}$, Karin Bautier$^{c}$, Olivier Coussaert$^{c}$, Marc Henneaux$^{b,c,d}$\
and Miguel Ortiz$^{e}$
title: ' Anti-de Sitter/CFT Correspondence in Three-Dimensional Supergravity'
---
Introduction
============
It has been pointed out in [@Brown-Henneaux] that the asymptotic symmetry group of anti-de Sitter gravity in three dimensions is the conformal group in two dimensions with a central charge $c=3l/2G$. The emergence of the conformal group at infinity can be understood either in terms of Penrose conformal treatment of infinity [@Penrose] or by working out explicitly the boundary conditions and solving the asymptotic Killing equations [@Brown-Henneaux]. It is a purely asymptotic phenomenon, in the sense that the infinite-dimensional conformal group in two dimensions is not the isometry group of any $3D$ background geometry. This is one feature that makes the three-dimensional case particularly interesting and which actually allows for a non trivial central charge in the dynamical realization of the asymptotic symmetry algebra [@Brown-Henneaux].
Another interesting feature of three-dimensional gravitational theories is that they have no bulk degrees of freedom, so that the rôle of the boundary degrees of freedom in the adS/CFT correspondence [@W1; @MS; @Maldacena; @GKP; @W2] can be investigated more easily. That the boundary degrees of freedom may be quite significant has been stressed recently in [@MV]. The pure gravitational case has been analysed in [@CHvD], where it was shown that the boundary dynamics at infinity is described by “induced $2D$ gravity" (Liouville theory) up to terms involving the zero modes and the holonomies that were not worked out.
The purpose of this paper is to extend the analysis of [@Brown-Henneaux; @CHvD] to the supersymmetric context, which is known to play a central rôle in black hole physics. The new non-trivial ingredient to be fed in is the precise asymptotic behavior of the Rarita-Schwinger fields, which must be compatible with the symmetries. In particular, one must understand how the boundary conditions implement two-dimensional supersymmetry at infinity.
The supersymmetry properties of $3D$ black holes were investigated in [@CH], assuming the existence of asymptotic conditions on the Rarita-Schwinger fields fulfilling the required properties. However, the asymptotic conditions in question were not given. The main object of our paper is to fill this gap, which appears necessary since otherwise, the discussion of the asymptotic dynamics remains rather formal. We also verify that the given fall-off conditions reduce the theory to induced $2D$ supergravity. The symmetry algebra is the super-conformal algebra with unchanged central charge $c=3l/2G$. The boundary conditions involve a chiral projection, in a way very similar to what has been discussed for Dirac fields in [@HS].
Boundary conditions
===================
AdS supergravity in three dimensional spacetime can be written as a Chern-Simons theory [@Achucarro-Townsend]. We shall adopt the Chern-Simons point of view from the outset and consider almost exclusively the (1,1) theory. The relevant group is $OSp(1|2)\times
OSp(1|2)$. The $(1,1)$-supergravity action is $$I[A,\psi;\tilde{A}, \tilde{\psi}] = I[A,\psi] - I[\tilde{A},
\tilde{\psi}]
\label{a1}$$ where $I[A, \psi]$ and $I[\tilde{A}, \tilde{\psi}]$ are the Chern-Simons actions for the supergroup $OSp(1|2)$, $$I[A,\psi] = \frac{k}{4\pi} \int \left[ \mbox{Tr}(A dA + \frac{2}{3}
A^3)
+ i \bar \psi \wedge D \psi \right]
\label{a2}$$ (with a similar expression for $I[\tilde{A}, \tilde{\psi}]$). Here $A
= (1/2) A^a \gamma_a$ and the symbol Tr stands for the trace in the spinorial representation of $SO(2,1)$ generated by $J_a = (1/2)
\gamma_a$ (our conventions are summarized in [@con]). The constant $k$ is related to the $3D$ Newton constant $G$ and the anti-de Sitter radius $l$ through $k = l/4G$.
Assuming that the topology of the three dimensional manifold $M$ is $\Sigma \times \Re$, the action (\[a2\]) can be recast in Hamiltonian form as $$I = \int \left[ -\frac{k \epsilon^{ij}}{4\pi} \left(
\frac{\eta_{ab}}{2} A^a_i \dot A^b_j + i \bar\psi_i \dot \psi_j
\right) - A_0^a {\cal G}_a - \bar \psi_0 {\cal S} \right]
\label{a3}$$ where the constraints ${\cal G}_a$ and ${\cal S}$ are given by ${\cal G}_a \equiv -(k \epsilon^{ij}/8\pi) \eta_{ab} (F^b_{ij} -i
\bar \psi_i \gamma^b \psi_j ) = 0 $, ${\cal S} \equiv -(ik/2\pi)\epsilon^{ij} D_i \psi_j = 0 $ and satisfy the $OSp(1|2)$ algebra in the Poisson brackets $[A^a_i,A^b_j] = (4\pi/k) \eta^{ab} \epsilon_{ij}$, $\{\psi^\alpha_i,\psi^\beta_j \} = (2\pi i/k) \epsilon_{ij}
(\gamma_0)^{\alpha\beta}$ which are derived from (\[a3\]). The canonical generator of the gauge transformations (including the fermionic ones) is $G(\lambda^a) + S(\rho)$ with $$G(\lambda^a) = \int_\Sigma \lambda^a {\cal G}_a + B , \;
S(\rho) = \int_\Sigma \bar \rho {\cal S} + F \label{S}$$ The boundary terms $B$ and $F$ must be chosen so that the generators $G$ and $S$ have well-defined functional derivatives [@RT], and their precise form depends on the boundary conditions.
The boundary conditions at infinity on the bosonic fields have been given in [@Brown-Henneaux] in the metric representation and they were reexpressed in the connection representation in [@CHvD]. (See [@Max; @MM] for a different approach to the problem of boundary conditions in the connection representation.) The bosonic boundary conditions must be supplemented by appropriate boundary conditions on the fermionic fields. We consider only one $OSp(1|2)$ copy, the other copy being treated similarly.
The searched-for boundary conditions can be determined by following the procedure of [@HT]: one starts with the known physical metrics that should be included in the theory - here, the black hole solutions [@BTZ] - and acts on them with the anti-de Sitter supergroup. This suggests to adopt for the Rarita-Schwinger fields the following boundary conditions (in the standard orthonormal frames) $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_t &\sim& r^{-\frac{1}{2}} [1 + \gamma_1] \chi(t, \phi)
, \label{b1}\\
\psi_\phi &\sim& r^{-\frac{1}{2}} [1 + \gamma_1] \chi(t, \phi)
, \label{bc}\\
\psi_r &\sim& r^{-\frac{5}{2}} [1 - \gamma_1] \chi_r(t, \phi).\end{aligned}$$ Apart from an irrelevant replacement of $\gamma_1$ by $ - \gamma_1$ (due to conventions), the boundary conditions differ from those of [@HT] (Eqn. (V.I)) in two respects. First, they involve a slower rate of decrease at infinity (one less power of $r$). This was to be expected since we are one dimension lower and also holds for the bosonic fields [@Brown-Henneaux]. Second, they have the same leading order for both $\psi_t$ and $\psi_\phi$. The equality of the leading orders of $\psi_t$ and $\psi_\phi$ is consistent with the fact that the adS Killing spinors of $(1,0)$ supergravity depend only on $t+ \phi$ [@CH]. The boundary conditions are otherwise identical and in particular, they crucially involve a projection onto the eigenspaces of the radial $\gamma$-matrix, which makes the induced spinors chiral in two dimensions (recall that $\gamma_1$ appears as the “$\gamma_5$"-matrix on the surface at infinity). A similar phenomenon is described in [@HS].
Asymptotic symmetries
=====================
The algebra of coordinate and supersymmetry transformations that preserves the boundary conditions (“asymptotic symmetry algebra") is the infinite-dimensional super-Virasoro algebra. To discuss this issue, it is most convenient to work in the superconnection representation where the transformations take a simpler form.
Combining the above boundary conditions on the fermions with those of [@Brown-Henneaux; @CHvD] on the bosons, one finds that the superconnection must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
A_v = 0, \ & \ \psi_v = 0, \label{chi} \\
A_r = b^{-1} \partial_r b, \ & \ \psi_r = 0 \label{r} \end{aligned}$$ and $$l A_u = b^{-1} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & L/k \\
1 & 0
\end{array} \right) b,
\ \ l \psi_u =
b^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}
Q/k \\
0
\end{array} \right)
\label{A+}$$ asymptotically. Here, $u = t +l \phi$, $v = t-l \phi$ and $L=L(t,\varphi)$ and $Q=Q(t,\varphi)$ are arbitrary functions which will be shown to be equal to the generators of the super-Virasoro algebra. The group element $b(r)$ is equal to $$b(r) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} (r/l)^{1/2} & 0 \\
0 & (r/l)^{-1/2}
\end{array} \right)$$ and satisfies $b\gamma_0 b = \gamma_0$. Note that $A_\phi = l A_u$, $\psi_\phi = l \psi_u$ since $A_v=0$, $\psi_v = 0$. The other $OSp(1|2)$ field satisfies analogous boundary conditions, with $u$ and $v$ interchanged, and depends on two additional functions $\tilde L$ and $\tilde Q$. For positive values of $L_0$ and $\tilde{L}_0$ the boundary conditions (\[A+\]) represent a black hole. The black hole ground state ($M=0$) is obtained for $L=\tilde L=0$. Anti de Sitter space corresponds to $L/k=\tilde L/k=-1/4$ and is the only configuration for which the holonomies are trivial. (Note, however, that because $A$ is written in the spinorial representation, the holonomy (in polar coordinates) is only trivial under a $4\pi$ rotation).
The fact that the second component of $\psi_u$ is zero just expresses the chirality condition on the fermion enforced by the boundary conditions (\[b1\]) and (\[bc\]). One may rewrite the asymptotic form (\[A+\]) of the superconnection in terms of supermatrices as $$\Gamma_u = b^{-1} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & L/k & Q/(\sqrt{2}k) \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & Q/(\sqrt{2}k) & 0
\end{array} \right) b
\label{psi+}$$ where $b$ is now the $3 \times 3$ supermatrix obtained by completing the above $b$ by adding $0$ in the fermionic positions and $1$ in position $(3,3)$. The advantage of the connection representation is that one can completely eliminate the $r$-dependence through the gauge transformation generated by $b$. After this gauge transformation has been performed, all the asymptotically relevant components of the fields occur at the same order $O(1)$. Furthermore, because $r$ has dropped out, the analysis could be carried out in the same way at any finite value of $r$. A Virasoro algebra for all values of $r$ has been investigated in [@MM].
The most general supergauge transformations that preserve the boundary conditions (\[chi\]), (\[r\]) and (\[A+\]) are characterized by gauge parameters $(\lambda^a, \rho)$ that must fulfill, to leading order, $$\lambda(u, r) = b^{-1} \eta(u) b, \ \ \rho(r,u) = b^{-1}
\varepsilon(u)
\label{geneform}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^+ &=& \frac{\eta^- L}{k}
- (1/2) (\eta^-)''+ \frac{iQ\epsilon}{2 k}, \label{p1} \\
\eta^1 &=& - (\eta^-)' \label{p2} \\
\varepsilon &=& \left(\begin{array}{c}
-\epsilon' +\eta^- Q/k \\
\epsilon
\end{array} \right)
\label{res-susy}\end{aligned}$$ where $'$ denotes derivative with respect to the argument. We have expanded the algebra element $\eta$ in the Cartan basis $\eta = \eta^1
J_1 + \eta^+ J_+ + \eta^- J_-$. Equations (\[p1\])-(\[res-susy\]) imply that the full residual symmetry can be expressed in terms of two functions of the lightlike coordinate $u$, one bosonic ($\eta^-$) and one fermionic ($\epsilon$).
Any three-dimensional gauge transformation whose parameters fulfill (\[p1\])-(\[res-susy\]) asymptotically is called “an asymptotic symmetry". Two gauge transformations that tend to the same $\eta^-$ and $\epsilon$ at infinity should be identified because they differ by a “proper gauge transformation", which it is legitimate to quotient out [@RT; @Benguria] (as will be clear below, these transformations have in particular the same global charges). The resulting quotient superalgebra is the “asymptotic symmetry superalgebra".
If one computes the graded commutator of two Chern-Simons gauge transformations fulfilling the above asymptotic conditions and characterized by asymptotic parameters $(\eta^-_{1}, \epsilon_{1})$ and $(\eta^-_{2}, \epsilon_{2})$, one finds another such transformation with asymptotic gauge parameters related to $(\eta^-_{1}, \epsilon_{1})$ and $(\eta^-_{2}, \epsilon_{2})$ [*exactly according to the graded commutation rules of the super-Virasoro algebra*]{}. Hence, after the quotient by the ideal of the proper gauge transformations (with $\eta^-=0, \epsilon=0$) is taken, one is left with the super-Virasoro algebra as asymptotic symmetry superalgebra. This infinite-dimensional algebra contains $OSp(1|2)$ as a subalgebra when the fermions are anti-periodic (Fourier modes $0$ and $\pm 1$ of $\eta^-$ and modes $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ of $\epsilon$). Note, in particular, that the Lie algebra commutator $[\lambda^a_{1},
\lambda^b_{2}]$ of two bosonic gauge transformations restricted by (\[geneform\]) and (\[p1\]) reduces at infinity to the Lie bracket of the residual functions $\eta^-_{1}$ and $\eta^-_{2}$ viewed as vector fields on the circle. A similar statement holds for the fermionic sector.
adS central charge
==================
We now turn to the discussion of the canonical realization of the asymptotic symmetry algebra. As is known, the bracket of the canonical generators of the asymptotic symmetries provides a projective representation of the algebra [@Brown-Henneaux; @Brown-Henneaux2]. To determine the central charges, one must first work out the complete form of the generators (\[S\]). This is now possible since the asymptotic form of both the fields and the symmetry transformations has been obtained. One finds that with the above asymptotic conditions, the boundary terms in the variation of the generators (\[S\]) cancel out if one takes $$B = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\partial\Sigma} \eta^- L,
\ \ \ \ F = \frac{-i}{2\pi}\int_{\partial\Sigma}
\epsilon Q
\label{surfT}$$ i.e., the surface terms are precisely $L$ and $Q$ (up to numerical factors). We have adjusted the constants in the charges so that these vanish for the zero mass black hole, which has $L=0$. The surface terms (\[surfT\]) are of course equal to the surface terms that one would obtain through a more orthodox “non-Chern-Simons-based" approach (see [@HT] for the four-dimensional treatment). In particular, the bosonic piece $B$ is equal to the charge (4.11) of [@Brown-Henneaux] written in terms of the metric, while the fermionic surface term may be re-expressed as $$F = \frac{ik}{2\pi}\int_{\partial\Sigma} \bar{\rho} \psi_\phi.$$
Because the components $L$ and $Q$ of the connection that remain at infinity enter the surface terms in the canonical generators of the asymptotic symmetries, it is useful to know how they transform under the asymptotic symmetry group. The transformation law for the superconnection $\delta \Gamma = D
\Lambda$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\delta L &=& (\eta^- L)' + (\eta^-)' L - \frac{k}{2} (\eta^-)'''
+(\frac{iQ\epsilon}{2})' + i Q \epsilon'
\label{dL} \\
\delta Q &=& -k\epsilon'' + L \epsilon
+(\eta^- Q)' + \frac{1}{2} (\eta^-)' Q.
\label{dQ}\end{aligned}$$ The equations (\[dL\]) and (\[dQ\]) indicate that $L$ and $Q$ form a super-Virasoro algebra. More importantly, the transformation laws (\[dL\]) and (\[dQ\]) give also the central charge $c$, equal to $6k$ ($c/12 = k/2$).
By using the general argument of [@Brown-Henneaux2; @Brown-Henneaux], or by direct calculation, one finds that the Poisson brackets of the improved generators (\[S\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
~[G(\lambda_{1}),G(\lambda_{2}) ] &=& G([\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}])
- \frac{k}{4\pi}\int_{\partial\Sigma}
\eta^-_{1} (\eta^-_{2})''' \\
~[G(\lambda),S(\rho)] &=& S( \lambda^a \gamma_a \rho) \\
~\{S(\rho_{1}),S(\rho_{2}) \} &=& G( -i \bar\rho_{1}\gamma^a \rho_{2})
+
\frac{i k}{2\pi}\int_{\partial\Sigma} \epsilon_{1}
(\epsilon_{2})'' \label{cons-al}\end{aligned}$$ The central term is just that of (\[dL\]), (\[dQ\]). The Chern-Simons formulation of adS supergravity provides a particularly efficient derivation of the adS central charge.
The above algebra involves both the proper gauge symmetries and the improper ones [@RT; @Benguria]. The proper gauge symmetries have (weakly) vanishing Poisson brackets with all the other generators, i.e., form also an ideal in the Poisson sense. It follows that the generators of the asymptotic symmetries are “first class" and well defined in the reduced phase space obtained by quotientizing the proper gauge symmetries. Using standard terminology, they are “observables". The Poisson bracket (in the reduced phase space) of these observables is the same as their Poisson bracket in the original phase space (see e.g. [@HT2]). That the global charges at the boundary define observables has been particularly emphasized recently in [@Balachandran]. The super-Virasoro algebra is therefore realized in the space of physical observables, where it is generated by $L$ and $Q$ (the constraints are zero in the reduced phase space). After Fourier transformation, the asymptotic superalgebra takes the familiar form (using quantum-mechanical notation and rescaling $Q$ by $\sqrt{2}$), $$\begin{aligned}
~[L_m,L_n] &=& (n-m) L_{n+m} + \frac{k}{2} n^3 \delta_{n+m,0}
\label{vis1}\\
~[L_m,Q_n] &=& \left(\frac{1}{2}m - n\right) Q_{m+n} \\
~\{Q_m,Q_n\}&=& 2L_{m+n} + 2k m^2 \delta_{m+n, 0}
\label{vis3}\end{aligned}$$ with a central charge equal to $c=6k$. A practical way to factor out the proper gauge symmetries is to fix the gauge in the bulk and use Dirac brackets [@Benguria]. In that case, the reduced brackets in the above algebra would appear as Dirac brackets.
Note that if we had imposed only the chirality boundary condition (\[chi\]), as is usually done in the Chern-Simons $\rightarrow$ chiral WZW reduction, we would have obtained a current (Kac-Moody) algebra rather than the super-Virasoro algebra. The key point leading to the super-Virasoro algebra is the presence of the extra boundary conditions (\[A+\]) which “transmute" the residual gauge field components functions $L$ and $Q$ into super-Virasoro charges [@P5; @P1; @Al; @Ber; @oR]. These extra boundary conditions express (with the other boundary conditions given above) adS asymptotics.
From the point of view of the chiral WZW theory, this transmutation can be seen explicitly as follows. Let affine $SL(2,\Re)_k$ be generated by $J^\pm,J^1$. Impose $J^-=1$ and $J^1=0$ (see (\[A+\])). These are second class constraints because their Poisson bracket is an invertible matrix. It follows that $J^+=L$ satisfies, in the Dirac bracket, the Virasoro algebra with $c=6k$. This argument is extended directly to the supergravity theory and will be given a dynamical interpretation in the next section.
In (\[vis1\])-(\[vis3\]), the fermions can be periodic (index on $Q$ integer-moded) or anti-periodic (index on $Q$ half-integer moded). The form of the algebra is adapted to the periodic (“Ramond") case, which has the zero mass black hole as the $L_0=0$ ground state [@CH]. The central charge vanishes for the sub-algebra generated by $(L_0, Q_0)$, which corresponds to the true symmetries of this background. The anti-de Sitter background has $M= -1$, i.e. $L_0 =
-c/24$. It is the ground state of the anti-periodic (“Neveu-Schwarz") sector [@CH]. If one shifts $L_0$ by $c/24$ so that $L_0$ vanishes on the anti-de Sitter solution, one finds that the central charge vanishes for $(L_{\pm1}, L_0, Q_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}$), which are true ($OSp(1|2)$) symmetries of the anti-de Sitter background).
What we have done for one $OSp(1|2)$ factor can be repeated for the other $OSp(1|2)$ factor. The corresponding spinor fields are projected on the other chirality and one finds another copy of the super-Virasoro algebra, this time depending on $v = t-l \phi$, with same central charge. The two super-Virasoro algebras give the conformal superalgebra.
Dynamics at infinity
====================
As anticipated above, the emergence of the super-conformal algebra at infinity with a non-vanishing central charge can be understood at the dynamical level, in the light of Polyakov’s discovery of the “hidden $SL(2,\Re)$ symmetry" of $2D$ gravity [@P5; @P1; @Al; @Ber; @oR]. The argument runs as follows [@CHvD]. As shown by [@W1; @MS], the Chern-Simons theory under the boundary condition (\[chi\]) induces the chiral Wess-Zumino-Witten model at the boundary. The corresponding Kac-Moody currents are just the $\phi$-components of the connection. Combining the two chiral WZW models of opposite chiralities obtained from each $SL(2,\Re)$-factor, one finds a non-chiral $SL(2,R)$ WZW theory (modulo zero modes and holonomies not discussed here because they affect neither the asymptotic symmetry nor the central charge). The constraints on the Kac-Moody currents arising from the anti-de Sitter asymptotics lead then to $2D$-gravity [@CHvD].
In a similar way, the further constraint that the component of the Kac-Moody current along the fermionic generator $f$ vanishes (see (\[A+\])) turns out to be precisely the constraint that reduces the WZW theory based on the supergroup $OSp(1|2)$ to chiral $2D$ supergravity [@P1; @BersOo2; @susy; @Inami]. Although the $OSp(1|2)$-WZW theory is not superconformal, the resulting theory is. What happens is that the other component (along $e$) of the fermionic Kac-Moody supercurrent is “transmuted" into the super-Virasoro generator since its transformation law becomes (\[dQ\]) once the gauge parameters are restricted by (\[p1\]) and (\[res-susy\]). From the WZW point of view, supersymmetry on the worldsheet arises therefore in a non trivial way. It is rather interesting that these features are in fact all contained in the $3D$ boundary conditions expressing anti-de Sitter asymptotics, thus the adS/CFT correspondence is explicit in this context. Bringing in the other $OSp(1|2)$ factor leads to the non-chiral $(1,1)$-supergravity, which is described, in the $2D$ super-conformal gauge, by super-Liouville theory. We have explicitly checked, using the Gauss decomposition for $OSp(1|2)$ and following the same lines as in [@CHvD], that the $3D$ supergravity action(\[a1\]) yields the super-Liouville action (up to zero modes and holonomies that we have not explicitly worked out).
Conclusions
===========
We have shown in this paper that the anti-de Sitter boundary conditions in $(1,1)$ $3D$-supergravity theory lead to an asymptotic symmetry algebra which is (twice) the super-Virasoro algebra with a central charge equal to $6k$. The precise boundary conditions given here on the spinors involve a chiral projection and legitimate the assumptions of [@CH].
The appearence of the Virasoro algebra as the boundary symmetry algebra of anti-de Sitter space is purely kinematical in the sense that the only ingredients that enter the derivation of both the symmetry algebra and the central charge in (\[vis1\]) are (i) the asymptotic boundary conditions that dictate the approach to anti-de Sitter; and (ii) the fact that the surface terms at infinity in the Virasoro generators involve only the (bosonic) gravitational variables, i.e., the triads and the spin connection. Any theory with these features will have the same central charge in the commutator involving two $L_n$’s. In particular the extended $(p,q)$-supergravity models fulfill these properties and have as asymptotic symmetry algebra the relevant graded extension of the conformal group with Virasoro algebra fulfilling (\[vis1\]) with same $c=3l/2G$. The triads, spin connection and spinor fields obey the same asymptotic conditions as above, while the $SO(N)$-connection $A^{ij}_\mu$ fulfills $A^{ij}_v = 0 = A^{ij}_r$, $A^{ij}_u = T^{ij}(t,\phi)$. Of course, since the generators in these extended superconformal algebras contain, besides the Virasoro generators, only the $N$ supercharges of conformal spin $3/2$ and the $SO(N)$-currents of conformal spin $1$, with no generator of lower conformal spin, the supersymmetric extensions in question are those described in [@Kni; @Bersh2; @Fradkin]. These algebra close quadratically in the $SO(N)$-currents, except for $N=2$ and $N=4$ (with boundary conditions breaking $SO(4)$ to one of its $SU(2)$ subgroups), for which one recovers the linear algebras of [@Adem]. The Hamiltonian reduction of the corresponding WZW models has been analyzed in [@Ito; @Sevrin].
As observed in [@Strominger] the degeneracy of states for a conformal field theory with this central charge gives rise to, under appropriate conditions, exactly the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for the $2+1$ black hole (see also [@Birmingham]). An earlier statistical description of the $2+1$ black hole entropy was given by Carlip [@Carlip] in terms of horizon degrees of freedom. For further work in these directions, see [@MM; @Bala; @Kal; @MSt; @Mar; @IPZ; @BBG; @Cvetic]. In view of the relevance of the $2+1$ black hole to higher dimensional ones [@U1; @U2], this question clearly deserves further study.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Useful discussions with Bernard Julia and Steve Carlip are gratefully acknowledged. M.H. thanks the Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure for kind hospitality while this work was completed. K. B. is “Chercheur F.R.I.A." (Belgium).
J.D. Brown and M. Henneaux, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**104**]{}, 207 (1986). R. Penrose, in [*Relativity, Groups and Topology*]{}, eds C. De Witt and B. De Witt, Gordon and Breach (New York: 1964). E. Witten, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**121**]{} (1989) 351. G. Moore and N. Seiberg, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**220 B**]{} (1989)422; S. Elitzur, G. Moore, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 326**]{} (1989) 108. J. Maldacena, [*The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*]{}, hep-th/9711200. S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, [*Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory*]{}, hep-th/9802109. E. Witten, [*Anti-de Sitter space and holography*]{}, hep-th/9802150; [*Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition and confinement in gauge theories*]{}, hep-th/9803131. C. Vafa, [*Puzzles at large N*]{}, hep-th/9804172. O. Coussaert, M. Henneaux and P. van Driel, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**12**]{} (1995) 2961. O. Coussaert and M. Henneaux,[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} (1994) 183. M. Henningson and K. Sfetsos, [*Spinors and the adS/CFT correspondence*]{}, hep-th/9803251. See also R. Leigh and M. Rozali, [*the large N limit of the $(2,0)$ superconformal field theory*]{}, hep-th/9803068 as well as the earlier work P. Breitenlohner and D.Z. Freedman, [*Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)*]{} [**144**]{} (1982) 197. A. Achúcarro and P.K. Townsend, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B180**]{}, 89 (1986). Our conventions for the spinors are the following. The spinors are real so that $\bar \psi = \psi^t \gamma_0$. The Dirac matrices are taken to be $$\gamma_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array} \right), \ \ \
\gamma_1 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array} \right), \ \ \
\gamma_2 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array} \right)
% \label{g0}$$ and satisfy $
~[ \gamma_a, \gamma_b] = 2\epsilon_{abc} \gamma^c, %\ \ \
% \mbox{Tr}(\gamma_a\gamma_b) = 2\eta_{ab}, \ \ \ \
%(\gamma_0 \gamma_a)^t = \gamma_0 \gamma_a
%\end{equation}
$ where we use $\epsilon^{012}=1$. The covariant derivative $D$ in (\[a2\]) acting on a spinor $\lambda$ is defined as $D \lambda = d\lambda + \frac{1}{2}A^a \gamma_a \lambda $ and satisfies $D\wedge D \lambda = \frac{1}{2} F^a \gamma_a \lambda$ with $F^a= dA^a + (1/2) \epsilon^a_{\ bc} A^b \wedge A^c$. The generators of the super-algebra $OSp(1|2)$ are $3 \times 3$ supermatrices. The bosonic generators are obtained by augmenting the previous $J_a=(1/2)\gamma_a$ with one row and one column of zeros (they will still be denoted by $J_a$). The fermionic generators are $$e = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{array} \right), \ \ \
f = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right),$$ and one has $e^2 = J_+, f^2 = - J_-$ where $J_\pm = J_2\pm J_0$. Let $\psi$ be a $2$-component spinors and let $\Psi$ be the fermionic supermatrix $\sqrt{2} \tilde{\psi} = \psi_1 e + \psi_2 f$. Redefining the product of anticommuting numbers by inserting an i, $ab \equiv i a
\cdot b$ – so that $(a \cdot b)^{*} = a^{*} \cdot b^{*}$ –, one gets $sTr(\Psi \cdot \Xi) = i \bar{\psi} \xi$ and one may rewrite the action (\[a2\]) in the manifest super-Chern-Simons form $(k/4 \pi) \int sTr( \Gamma \cdot d \Gamma + \frac{2}{3}
\Gamma\cdot \Gamma \cdot \Gamma)$ with $\Gamma = A + \Psi$, where $sTr$ is the supertrace. The supercurvature is ${\cal F} = d \Gamma +
\Gamma\cdot \Gamma$, and the equations of motion are just ${\cal F} =
0$. The gauge transformations are $\delta \Gamma = d \Lambda + \Gamma
\cdot \Lambda - \Lambda \cdot \Gamma$ with $\Lambda \in osp(1|2)$. T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, [*Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)*]{} [ **88**]{} (1974) 286. M. Bañados, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [ **D52**]{} (1996) 5816 M. Bañados, T. Brotz and M. Ortiz, [*Boundary dynamics and the statistical mechanics of the 2+1 dimensional black hole*]{}, hep-th/9802076. M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**98**]{} (1985) 391. M. Bañados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992) 1849; M. Bañados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 48**]{} (1993) 1506. R. Benguria, P. Cordero, C. Teitelboim [*Nucl. Phys.*]{}[**B122**]{} (1977) 61. J.D. Brown and M. Henneaux, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**27**]{} (1986) 489-491. M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Quantization of Gauge Systems", Princeton University Press (Princeton: 1992), chapter 2. A. P. Balachandran, L. Chandar, and A. Momen, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B461**]{} (1996) 581. A.M. Polyakov, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (1990) 833. A. M. Polyakov, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A2**]{} (1987) 893; V. G. Knizhnik, A. M. Polyakov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, [ *Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A3**]{} (1988) 819; A. M. Polyakov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A3**]{} (1988) 1213. A. Alekseev and S. Shatashvili, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 323**]{} (1989) 719. M. Bershadsky and H. Ooguri, [ *Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**126**]{} (1989) 49. P. Forgács, A. Wipf, J. Balog, L. Fehér and L. O’Raifeartaigh, [ *Phys. Lett.*]{} [**227 B**]{} (1989) 214. M. Bershadsky and H. Ooguri, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 229**]{} (1989) 374. M.T. Grisaru and R. M. Xu, [*Phys. lett.*]{} [**205 B**]{} (1988) 486; W.A. Sabra, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 6**]{} (1991) 875; [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 375**]{} (1992) 82. T. Inami and K.I. Izawa, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 255**]{} (1991) 521. V. G. Knizhnik, [*Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**66**]{} (1986) 68. M. Bershadsky, [*Phys. lett.*]{} [**174**]{} (1986) 285. E. S. Fradkin and V. Ya. Linetsky, [*Phys. lett.*]{} [**291**]{} (1992) 71. M. Ademollo et al, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 62**]{} (1976) 105; [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 111**]{} (1976) 77; [**B 114**]{} (1976) 297. K. Ito, J. O. Madsen and J. L. Petersen, [*Extended Superconformal Algebras From Classical and Quantum Hamiltonian Reduction*]{}, hep-th/9211019. A. Sevrin, K. Thielemans and W. Troost, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 407**]{} (1993) 459. A. Strominger, [*Black hole entropy from near-horizon microstates*]{}, hep-th/9712251. D. Birmingham, I. Sachs and A. Sen, [*Entropy of three-dimensional black holes in string theory*]{}, hep-th/9801019. S. Carlip, [ *Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 51**]{} (1995) 632. V. Balasubramanian and F. Larsen, [*Near horizon geometry and black holes in four dimensions*]{}, hep-th/9802198. N.Kaloper, [*Entropy count for extremal three-dimensional black strings*]{}, hep-th/9804062. J. Maldacena and A. Strominger, [*$AdS_3$ black holes and a stringy exclusion principle*]{}, hep-th/9804085. E. Martinec, [*Matrix models of AdS gravity*]{}, hep-th/9804111. M. Iofa and L. P. Pando Zayas, [*Statistical entropy of Calabi-Yau black holes*]{}, hep-th/9804129. K. Behrndt, I. Brunner and I. Gaida, [*Entropy and conformal field theories of $AdS_3$ models*]{}, hep-th/9804159. M. Cvetič and F. Larsen, [*Microstates of four-dimensional rotating black holes from near-horizon geometry*]{}, hep-th/9805146; [*Near-horizon geometry of rotating black holes in five-dimensions*]{}, hep-th/9805097. S. Hyun, [*U-duality between three and higher dimensional black holes*]{}, hep-th/9704005 K. Sfetsos and K. Skenderis, [*Microscopic derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula for non-extremal black holes*]{}, hep-th/9711138; H. J. Boonstra, B. Peeters and K. Skenderis, [*Branes intersections, anti-de Sitter spacetimes and dual superconformal theories*]{}, hep-th/9803231.
[^1]: Unité Propre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, associée à l’Ecole Normale Supérieure et à l’Université de Paris-Sud
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a review on possible starburst-AGN (active galactic nuclei) connections from high redshift to the present day. First, we give a historical review on some basic ideas related to the starburst-AGN connection published in the literature. Second, we focus our attention to the so-called Magorrian relation which is the close relationship between the nuclear black hole mass and the bulge mass, established in nearby galaxies. If the Magorrian relation is universal, we obtain an important implication that any supermassive black holes were made through successive merging processes of starburst remnants (i.e., neutron stars and stellar-sized black holes), providing a channel of the starburst-AGN connection. Third, we briefly discuss a possible new scenario for the formation of quasar nuclei at very high redshift based on an idea that the successive mergers of starburst remnants formed in subgalactic gaseous clouds.'
author:
- Yoshiaki Taniguchi
title: 'Starburst-AGN Connection from High Redshift to the Present Day'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
General Introduction
====================
Introduction
------------
Nuclear (or circumnuclear) gas is often ionized at some level in most nearby galaxies (in particular, disk galaxies). It is known that there are two fundamental types of nuclear activity; (1) the nuclear starburst activity and (2) the nonthermal nuclear activity. Nuclear gas in the former class of galaxies is photoionized by massive OB stars while than in the latter class of galaxies is photoionized by nonthermal ionizing continuum emission from the central engine of active galactic nuclei (AGN) (e.g., Rees 1984). According to the recent extensive spectroscopic study of nuclear regions of 486 nearby galaxies promoted by Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent (1997), the both types of galactic nuclei share approximately 40%, respectively, if we include objects with low emission-line luminosity or low activity. However, typical luminous starburst nuclei share approximately several percent of nearby galaxies (e.g., Balzano 1983). Also, Seyfert nuclei, typical AGNs in nearby universe, are found in approximately 10 percent of nearby galaxies (Ho et al. 1997). Therefore, roughly speaking, $\approx$ 10% of galactic nuclei experience the nuclear starburst activity, $\approx$ 10% of galactic nuclei experience the nonthermal activity, and the remaining $\approx$ 80% of galactic nuclei show little evidence for significantly high level of such activities (i.e., nearly normal galactic nuclei, hereafter NGNs).
Here a question arises as; \`\`Why do some galactic nuclei experience the nuclear starburst ? Why do some galactic nuclei have an AGN ? Why do the majority of nearby galaxies show little evidence for such activities in their nuclear regions ?“ These fundamental questions can be replaced by a fascinating question; \`\`Are there any evolutionary connections among the three types of galactic nuclei ?” If this is the case, we have further important questions; \`\`How are they connected ? What are important physical processes in such connections ?" Indeed, many astronomers, including the authors, have been enslaved by the so-called starburst-AGN connection. We will introduce main ideas proposed up to now in next section.
Proposed Starburst-AGN Connections in the Literature
----------------------------------------------------
Although many ideas on the starburst-AGN connections have been proposed up to now, they may be broadly classified as follows.
[\[1\]]{} [*From starburst to AGN through the formation of a supermassive black hole*]{}: This idea suggests that a supermassive black hole (SMBH), which is believed as the key ingredient of the central engine of AGNs, is made through successive mergers among starburst remnants (e.g., Weedman 1983; Norman & Scoville 1988; Taniguchi, Ikeuchi, & Shioya 1999; Ebisuzaki et al. 2001; see also Taniguchi et al. 2002b; Mouri & Taniguchi 2002b).
[\[2\]]{} [*From starburst to AGN due to the starburst-driven gas fueling onto a supermassive black hole*]{}: This idea suggests that the gas fueling can be supplied either from gaseous envelope of supergiant stars near the supermassive black hole (Scoville & Norman 1988), from supernova ejecta (Taniguchi 1992), or from the gas associated with the nucleus of a merging partner (Taniguchi 1999; see also Taniguchi & Wada 1996).
[\[3\]]{} [*From starburst to AGN-like phenomena*]{}: This idea is completely different from the above two ideas because the photoionization of nuclear gas is attributed to some descendents of massive stars; e.g., hot Wolf-Rayet stars (Warmers: Terlevich & Melnick 1985), supernovae in dense gas media (Terlevich et al. 1992), shock heating by superwinds (Heckman 1980; Taniguchi 1987; Taniguchi et al. 1999), or hot planetary nebula nuclei (Taniguchi, Shioya, & Murayama 2000a; see also Shioya et al. 2002). Note that the shock heating is though to work in some LINERs (=Low Ionization Nuclear Emission-line Regions) and ULIRGs (= Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies, or ULIGs). See also Rieke et al. (1988) for a possible evolutionary path of a nuclear starburst.
[\[4\]]{} [*From ULIRGs to quasars*]{}: This idea suggests an evolutionary link between ULIRGs and quasars; i.e., ULIRGs are precursors of quasars in the local universe (Sanders et al. 1988). In this model, mergers between two or more gas-rich galaxies are crucially important to initiate very luminous nuclear starbursts in the central region of the merger remnant (see also Taniguchi & Shioya 1998; Taniguchi 1999).
[\[5\]]{} [*From ULIRGs and/or LIRGs through S2s to S1s*]{}: In this idea, type 2 Seyferts (S2s) are considered as a possible missing link between ULIRGs and/or LIRGs (=luminous infrared galaxies) and type 1 Seyferts (S1s) (Heckman et al. 1989; Mouri & Taniguchi 1992, 2002a). The reason for this is that S2s tend to have circumnuclear starburst regions more often than S1s and their starburst ages appears older than those of typical nuclear starbursts (e.g., Cid Fernandes et al. 2001; Storchi-Bergman et al. 2001; Mouri & Taniguchi 2002a and references therein).
Although all the above ideas may not always work in actual galaxies, it seems better to keep in mind the following points. (a) Massive stars formed in a nuclear starburst evolve through hot phases (i.e., Wolf-Rayet stars, planetary nebula nuclei, and so on) to supernova explosions inevitably. Therefore, we have to take account of all the evolutionary phases when we discuss the evolution of starburst nuclei. (b) Compact remnants (i.e., stellar-sized black holes and neutron stars) are also inevitably remained in the nuclear starburst region. Therefore, we have to think about the dynamical evolution of such remnants under a realistic gravitational potential together with dynamical interactions with existing stars in the concerned region. Careful consideration on these two points makes it possible to discuss the starburst-AGN connection.
Toward a Simple Unified Model for Triggering AGNs
-------------------------------------------------
As outlined briefly, there are some possible evolutionary connections among AGNs, starburst galactic nuclei (SGNs), and NGNs. Prior going to discussion on the starburst-AGN connection, let us consider why some galactic nuclei are AGNs in which the central SMBH plays an important role. If only galaxies with an AGN could have a SMBH in their nucleus, it would be easily understood why some galaxies have AGNs. However, recent high-resolution optical spectroscopy of a sample of nearby, normal galaxies have shown that most nucleated galaxies have a SMBH in their center (e.g., Richstone et al. 1998; Magorrian et al. 1998). Furthermore, the relationship between the SMBH mass and the bulge (or spheroid) mass is basically similar for AGNs and NGNs (Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese et al. 2001; Wandel 2002). Therefore, the presence of a SMBH in the nucleus is not a crucial discriminator between AGNs and NGNs.
The frequency of occurrence of luminous AGNs (i.e., Seyfert nuclei) in nearby galaxies (i.e., $\approx$ 10%) implies that a typical lifetime of such nuclear activity is $\sim 10^9$ yr. Therefore, it is suggested strongly that some NGNs could be triggered to evolve to AGNs and then die after a duration of $\sim 10^9$ yr. The dead nuclei should be regarded again as NGNs. From this point of view, it seems reasonable to imagine that SGNs may provide a missing link between AGNs and NGNs. We think that this is indeed the starburst-AGN connection which we want to understand. In order to explore the whole evolutionary links among AGNs, SGNs, and NGNs, we have to take account of both the dynamical structure of host galaxies of all types of nuclei and the environmental effect (see Figure 1).
Recent systematic studies for large samples of Seyfert nuclei have shown that; 1) Seyfert nuclei do not prefer barred galaxies as their hosts (e.g., Mulchaey & Regan 1997; Hunt et al. 1999), and 2) only $\simeq$ 10% of Seyfert galaxies have companion galaxies (e.g., De Robertis, Hayhoe, & Yee 1998a; De Robertis et al. 1998b). Therefore, it is suggested that both the dynamical effect by non-axisymmetric structures and the interaction with a companion galaxy give no simple triggering mechanism for AGNs. On the other hand, it is quite likely that any galaxies have been experiencing minor mergers during their lives (e.g., Ostriker & Tremaine 1975; Tremaine 1981; see also Zaritsky et al. 1997). Accordingly, Taniguchi (1999) suggested that the minor-merger-driven fueling appears consistent with almost all important observational properties of Seyfert galaxies (see also Taniguchi & Wada 1996). Nucleated (i.e., either a SMBH or a dense nuclear star cluster) galaxies and satellites seem necessary to ensure that the gas in the host disk is surely fueled into the very inner region (e.g., $\ll$ 1 pc). Taking account that local quasars may be formed by major mergers between/among galaxies (e.g., Sanders et al. 1988; Taniguchi & Shioya 1998; Taniguchi et al. 1999a), we may have a simple unified formation mechanism of AGN in the local universe; i.e., all AGNs in the local universe are triggered by minor or major mergers between/among (nucleated) galaxies, including satellite galaxies.
Lesson from the Magorrian Relation
==================================
As briefly introduced in Section 1.3, the recent high-resolution optical spectroscopy of a sample of nearby, normal galaxies have shown that most nucleated galaxies have a SMBH in their center (e.g., Richstone et al. 1998; Magorrian et al. 1998); i.e., the Magorrian relation, hereafter MR. The most important point of MR in the context of starburst-AGN connection is that the ratio between the SMBH mass ($M_\bullet$) and the bulge (or spheroid) mass ($M_\circ$), $\approx 0.001$ – 0.002, is basically similar for AGNs and NGNs[^1] (Gebhardt et al. 2000; Ferrarese et al. 2001; Wandel 2002). Therefore, we note again that the presence of a SMBH in the nucleus is not a discriminator between AGNs and NGNs. Namely, this implies that AGN phenomena are not associated with the formation process of a SMBH itself.
Recently, Merrifield et al. (2000) investigated a relationship between the $M_\bullet$/$M_\circ$ ratio and the age of the spheroidal system for a sample of nearby galaxies and found that galactic bulges with younger stellar populations tend to have smaller $M_\bullet$/$M_\circ$ ratios. This suggests that MR is slightly affected by the recent past starburst. Since the age spread in their sample galaxies is over several Gyr, one may estimate the growth timescale of a SMBH, $\tau_\bullet \sim$ 1 Gyr. However, the above tendency appears weak and thus the $M_\bullet$/$M_\circ$ ratio can be regarded as constant for galaxies with various bulge ages.
In summary, what we have learned from MR can be summarized as follows.
[\[1\]]{} Since MR means that the $M_\bullet$/$M_\circ$ ratio is almost constant for many nearby galaxies, it is suggested that the SMBH formation is linked physically to the spheroidal formation. A natural implication seems that a SMBH comes from the coalescence of nuclear star clusters which formed at the major epoch of spheroidal formation; i.e., a SMBH comes from mergers of compact remnants of massive stars born in the spheroidal formation.
[\[2\]]{} The same MR is found for both AGNs and NGNs. This suggests that AGN phenomena are not directly linked to the SMBH formation. Another implication is that the triggering process is much more important to turn on the nuclear activity.
[\[3\]]{} The $M_\bullet$/$M_\circ$ ratio appears to be constant for galaxies with various bulge ages, suggesting that the MR is approximately universal for many galaxies with the spheroidal component.
[\[4\]]{} The longer growth timescale of a SMBH ( $\tau_\bullet \sim$ 1 Gyr) suggests that SMBHs in AGNs may not grow up through the gas accretion process which helps the mass growth to some extent. This also results in the same implication as that of Item \[1\].
As mentioned before, MR provides us some important implications for the understanding of starburst-AGN connection. Here, adopting a working hypothesis that MR is universal for galaxies from high redshift to the present day, we further discuss what MR means.
Suppose that new gas fueling to the spheroidal component of a galaxy occurred at epoch $t_1$ with the fueled gas mass, $\Delta M_\circ$. At this epoch, a SMBH with mass of $M_\bullet(t_1)$ was present in the galaxy center. We observe this system at epoch $t_2$. The spheroidal mass and the SMBH mass are $M_\circ(t_2)$ and $M_\bullet(t_2)$, respectively. At this epoch, we assume that the SMBH grows up in mass, $\Delta M_\bullet$. Therefore, we have the following two relations.
$$M_\bullet(t_2) = M_\bullet(t_1) + \Delta M_\bullet,$$
and,
$$M_\circ(t_2) = M_\circ(t_1) + \Delta M_\circ.$$
If MR is universal, we find
$${{M_\bullet(t_2)} \over {M_\circ(t_2)}}
\approx {{M_\bullet(t_1)} \over {M_\circ(t_1)}}.$$
In order to achieve the condition given in equation (3), there are two alternative cases.
[\[1\]]{} $\Delta M_\bullet \ll M_\bullet(t_1)$, and $\Delta M_\circ \ll M_\circ(t_1)$.
[\[2\]]{} $\Delta M_\bullet \gg M_\bullet(t_1)$, and $\Delta M_\circ \gg M_\circ(t_1)$.
In the first case, the mass increases in both the SMBH and the spheroidal component is negligibly small compared to their original masses. This case may be applicable to new gas supply onto the nucleus of a typical disk galaxy in which a SMBH already exists; i.e., the starburst-AGN connection for SGNs and AGNs like Seyfert nuclei.
On the other hand, in the second case, the mass increases in both the SMBH and the spheroidal component are significantly larger than their original masses. The conditions \[2\] require the following relation,
$${{M_\bullet(t_2)} \over {M_\circ(t_2)}}
\approx {{\Delta M_\bullet} \over {\Delta M_\circ}}
\equiv f_{\rm BH}.$$
This case may be applicable both to the ULIRG-quasar connection at low and intermediate redshift and to the forming galaxy-quasar connection at high redshift. It is noted that the universal MR means $f_{\rm BH} \simeq 0.001$ – 0.002 from high redshift to the present day. Nice examples for this case are ULIRGs which are believed to be made from mergers between or among gas-rich galaxies. The nearest ULIRG, Arp 220, has a number of nuclear super star clusters (SSCs). Such SSCs will fall into the nuclear region via the dynamical friction within $\sim 10^{7 -9}$ yr (Shaya et al. 1994; Taniguchi et al. 1999a), probably making a SMBH with $M_\bullet \sim
10^9 M_\odot$ (see also Norman & Scoville 1988; Ebisuzaki et al. 2001; Mouri & Taniguchi 2002b). Indeed, based on their elaborate numerical simulations, Bekki & Couch (2001) found $f_{\rm BH} \simeq 0.003$ for the aftermath of ultraluminous starburst occurred in a ULIRG.
The formation of SMBHs has been a long standing problem in modern astrophysics (Rees 1978, 1984). It is still uncertain how such SMBHs could be born in the nucleus of high-redshift quasars up to $z \sim 6$. However, recent high-resolution X-ray imaging studies have discovered possible candidates of intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) with masses of $M_\bullet \sim 10^{2-4} M_\odot$ in circumnuclear regions of many (disk) galaxies (e.g., Colbert & Mushotzky 1999; Matsumoto & Tsuru 1999; Makishima et al. 2000; Strickland et al. 2001; Zezas & Fabbiano 2002). It is known that a large number of massive stars are formed in a circumnuclear giant H [ii]{} region. Therefore, Taniguchi et al. (2000b) proposed that a continual merger of compact remnants left from these massive stars is responsible for the formation of such an IMBH within a timescale of $\sim 10^9$ yr. A necessary condition is that several hundreds of massive stars are formed in a compact region with a radius of a few parsecs. Then Ebisuzaki et al. (2001) proposed that the runaway merging is an important dynamical process in such a star cluster; its timescale may be as short as $\sim 10^7$ yr (see also Mouri & Taniguchi 2002b). They also proposed that circumnuclear star clusters themselves could merge into one during the course of dynamical evolution in the galaxy potential within a timescale of $\sim 10^9$ yr.
This idea can be applied to the formation of SMBHs in the hearts of quasars at high redshift. The number density of quasars peaks at $z \simeq 2$. Since the growth timescale of a SMBH with $M_\bullet \sim
10^9 M_\odot$ may be $\sim 10^9$ yr, it is required that episodic massive star formation could occur $\sim 10^9$ yr before $z \simeq 2$; i.e., $z_{\rm SF} \sim 15$. Even in this dark age, subgalactic gas clumps with mass of $\sim 10^{7-8} M_\odot$ could form in the context of cold dark matter scenarios (e.g., Gnedin & Ostriker 1997). If numerous subgalactic gas clumps were formed in a localized region with a dimension of $\sim$ 10 kpc, piling up compact remnants could make it possible to form a SMBH with mass of $\sim 10^9 M_\odot$. According to the universal MR, the spheroidal mass of a quasar host is $\sim 10^{12} M_\odot$, being comparable to massive galaxies in the present day. Although recent optical deep imaging surveys have shown that bulge formers at high redshift (e.g., Lyman break galaxies at $z \sim$ 2 – 4) are very small systems and thus it is unlikely that they are massive galaxies. On the other hand, recent submillimeter deep surveys have revealed that massive galaxies are really present at high redshift although they are basically hidden in the optical because of heavy extinction by a lot of dust grains (e.g., Frayer et al. 1998, 1999; Genzel et al. 2002). Indeed, a high redshift quasar BR 1202$-$0725 at $z=4.7$ is associated with a massive gaseous system with mass of $\sim 10^{11 - 12} M_\odot$ (Ohta et al. 1996; Omont et al. 1996). The first ULIRG beyond $z=2$, IRAS F10214+4724, is also a very massive system (Downes et al. 1992). Therefore, since it is likely that precursors of high-redshift quasars are dust enshrouded massive objects, we can apply the universal MR for such high-redshift quasars.
Formation of Quasar Nuclei at High Redshift
===========================================
Now let us consider the formation of quasars at high redshift. In the nearby universe, quasars are associated with nuclei of (giant) galaxies (e.g., Bahcall et al. 1997). Therefore, another interesting issue is to investigate a causal relationship between quasars and galaxies in the early universe (e.g., Ikeuchi 1981; Ostriker & Cowie 1981; Turner 1991; Silk & Rees 1998; Madau & Rees 2001). Here we give an outline of new scenario for the formation of quasar nuclei (i.e., supermassive black holes with mass of $\sim 10^8 M_\odot$) at high redshift ($z \approx$ 2 – 5) proposed by Ikeuchi & Taniguchi (2002).
[Step I]{}: The formation of subgalactic gas clumps occurs at $z \approx 15$ as predicted by cold dark matter models. We assume that the total mass of the clump is $\sim 10^8 M_\odot$ and the gas mass is $\sim 2\times 10^7 M_\odot$. Approximately one thousand clumps located within a radius of 10 kpc will be used to build up a galaxy with a mass of $\sim 10^{11} M_\odot$.
[Step II]{}: The gravitational instability in clumps could lead to the formation of massive stars in them. Given the star formation efficiency of 50%, $\sim 10^6$ stars with a mass of 10 $M_\odot$ are formed in each clump. These stars ionize about one third of the gas in the clump.
[Step III]{}: All these massive stars evolve within a timescale of $\sim 10^7$ yr and then explode as supernovae (SNe). These SNe overlap each other and then blow out as a superbubble. Superbubbles arisen from one thousand clumps also overlap and then evolve into one huge superbubble. This superbubble can expand at a radius of $\sim$ 500 kpc within a duration of $\sim 5 \times 10^8$ yr. Since this radius is larger than the mean separation among galaxies, the IGM is completely ionized by these superbubbles; i.e., the reionization of the universe. They also contribute to the metal enrichment up to a level of $Z \sim 0.01 Z_\odot$.
[Step IV]{}: Compact remnants left from massive stars after the supernova explosions can merge into one within a duration of $\sim 10^9$ yr. This leads to the formation of a seed SMBH with a mass of $\sim 2 \times 10^6 M_\odot$.
[Step V]{}: Approximately fifty seed SMBHs located within a radius of 500 pc of the galaxy merge into one within a duration of $\sim 10^9$ yr. Thus a SMBH with a mass of $\sim 10^8 M_\odot$ is made a few $10^9$ yr after the initial starbursts in the subgalactic clumps. This means that quasar nuclei (i.e, SMBHs with $M_{\rm BH}
\sim 10^8 M_\odot$) can be made at $z \approx$ 2 – 5.
We would like to thank my colleagues, in particular, Satoru Ikeuchi, Hideaki Mouri, Yasuhiro Shioya, Takashi Murayama, Tohru Nagao, Youichi Ohyama, and Neil Trentham for useful discussion.
Bahcall, J. N., Kirhakos, S., Saxe, D. H., & Schneider, D. P. 1997, ApJ, 479, 642 Balzano, V. A. 1983, ApJ, 268, 602 Bekki, K., & Couch, W. J. 2001, ApJ, 557, L19 Cid Fernandes, R., Heckman, T., Schmitt, H., Gonzáres Delgado, R. M., & Storchi-Bergman, T. 2001, ApJ, 558, 81 Colbert E.J.M., Mushotzky R.F. 1999, ApJ 519, 89 De Robertis, M. M., Hayhoe, K., & Yee, H. K. C. 1998a, ApJS, 115, 163 De Robertis, M. M., Yee, H. K. C., & Hayhoe, K. 1998b, ApJ, 496, 93 Downes, D., Radford, J. E., Greve, A., Thum, C., Solomon, P. M., & Wink, J. E. 1992, ApJ, 398, L25 Ebisuzaki, T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L19 Ferrarese, L., Pogge, R. W., Peterson, B. M., Merritt, D., Wandel, A., & Joseph, C. L. 2001, ApJ, 555, L79 Frayer, D. T., et al. 1998, ApJ, 506, L7 Frayer, D. T., et al. 1999, ApJ, 514, L13 Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, L5; Erratum, ApJ, 555, L75 Genzel, R., et al. 2002, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0210449) Gnedin, N. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 486, 581 Heckman, T. M. 1980, A&A, 87, 142 Heckman, T. M., Blitz, L., Wilson, A. S., Armus, L., & Miley, G. K. 1989, ApJ, 342, 735 Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJ, 487, 591 Hunt, L. K., Malkan, M. A., Moriondo, G., & Salvati, M. 1999, ApJ, 510, 637 Ikeuchi, S. 1981, PASJ, 33, 211 Ikeuchi, S., & Taniguchi, Y. 2002, in preparation Madau, P., & Rees, M. J. 2001, ApJ, 551, L27 Magorrian, J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285 Makishima, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 535, 632 Matsumoto, H., & Tsuru, G. T. 1999, PASJ 51, 321 Merrifield, M. R., Duncan, F., A., Terlevich, A. I. 2000, MNRAS, 313, L29 Moles, M., Márquez, I., & Pérez, E. 1995, ApJ, 438, 604 Mouri, H., & Taniguchi, Y. 1992, ApJ, 386, 68 Mouri, H., & Taniguchi, Y. 2002a, ApJ, 565, 786 Mouri, H., & Taniguchi, Y. 2002b, ApJ, 566, L17 Mulchaey, J. S., & Regan, M. 1997, ApJ, 482, L135 Norman, C., & Scoville, N. 1988, ApJ, 332, 124 Ohta, K., et al. 1996, Nature, 382, 426 Omont, A., et al. 1996, Nature, 382, 428 Ostriker, J. P., & Cowie, L. L. 1981, ApJ, 243, L127 Ostriker, J. P., & Tremaine, S. 1975, ApJ, 202, L113 Rees, M. J. 1978, Observatory, 98, 210 Rees, M. J. 1984, ARA & A, 22, 471 Richstone, D., et al. 1998, Nature, 395A, 14 Rieke, G. H., Lebofsky, M. J., & Walker, C. E. 1988, ApJ, 325, 679 Sanders, D. B., et al. 1988, ApJ, 325, 74 Scoville, N., & Norman, C. 1988, ApJ, 332, 163 Shaya, E. J., Dowling, D. M., Currie, D. G., Faber, S. M., & Groth, E. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 1675 Shioya, Y., Taniguchi, Y., Murayama, T., Nishiura, S., Nagao, T., & Kakazu, Y. 2002, ApJ, 576, 36 Silk, J., & Rees, M. J. 1998, A&A, 331, L1 Storchi-Bergman, T., Gonzáles Delgado, R.M., Schmitt, H. R., Cid Fernandes, R., & Heckman, T. 2001, ApJ, 559, 147 Strickland, D. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 707 Taniguchi, Y., 1987, ApJ, 317, L57 Taniguchi, Y. 1992, Astron. Sco. Pacific Conference Ser., Vol. 31, Taipei Astrophysics Workshop on [Relationships between Active Galactic Nuclei and Starburst Galaxies]{}, Ed. A V. Filippenko, p. 357 Taniguchi, Y., 1999, ApJ, 524, 65 Taniguchi, Y., Ikeuchi, S., & Shioya, Y. 1999a, ApJ, 514, L9 Taniguchi, Y., & Shioya, Y. 1998, ApJ, 501, L167 Taniguchi, Y., Shioya, Y., & Murayama, T. 2000a, AJ, 120, 1265 Taniguchi, Y., Shioya, Y., Tsuru, G. T., & Ikeuchi, S. 2000b, PASJ, 52, 533 Taniguchi, Y., & Wada, K. 1996, ApJ, 469, 581 Taniguchi, Y., Yoshino, A., Ohyama, Y., & Nishiura, S. 1999b, ApJ, 514, 660 Terlevich, R., & Melnick, J. 1985, MNRAS, 213, 841 Terlevich, R., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Franco, J., & Melnick, J. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 713 Tremaine, S. 1981, in The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed. S. M. Fall, & D. Lynden-Bell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 67 Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740 Turner, E. L. 1991, AJ, 101, 5 Wandel, A. 2002, ApJ, 565, 762 Weedman, D. W. 1983, ApJ, 266, 479 Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 478, 39 Zezas, A., & Fabbiano, G. 2002, ApJ, 577, 726
[^1]: The Magorrian relation is now considered as the relationship between $M_\bullet$ and the central velocity dispersion of the spheroidal system (e.g., Tremaine et al. 2002 and references therein). However, for simplicity, we use the original MR between $M_\bullet$ and $M_\circ$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Stefan Neukamm[^1]'
- 'Mario Varga[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'REFAB.bib'
date: '28.02.2018'
title: 'Stochastic unfolding and homogenization of spring network models[^3]'
---
Introduction
============
The motivation for this paper is twofold: First, we introduce the method of *stochastic unfolding* as an analogue to the periodic unfolding method, which in recent years has been successfully applied in the analysis and modeling of multiscale problems with periodic microstructure. Our intention is to provide an easily accessible method for stochastic homogenization and discrete-to-continuum analysis that enjoys many parallels to periodic homogenization via unfolding. Second, we analyze the macroscopic behavior (based on stochastic unfolding) of a rate-independent system describing a network of elasto-plastic springs with random coefficients. Our result derives (via stochastic homogenization) a continuum evolutionary rate-independent (linear) plasticity system starting from a discrete model. Discrete spring networks depict solid media as collections of material points that interact via one-dimensional elements with certain constitutive laws. They are widely used in material science and the mechanical engineering community. On the one hand, they are used to model materials with an intrinsic discreteness (on a scale larger than the atomistic scale), such as granular media, truss-like structures, and composites. On the other hand, spring network models are used as a numerical approximation scheme for continuum models. We refer to [@ostoja2002lattice; @jagota1994spring; @hahn2010discrete] and the references therein. In this introduction we first give a brief overview of the stochastic unfolding method that we develop in this paper, and then discuss the discrete-to-continuum limits of random spring networks.
In order to give a brief overview of the stochastic unfolding, let us consider for a moment a prototypical example of convex homogenization: Let $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be open and bounded, $p\in(1,\infty)$, $\varepsilon>0$, and consider the minimization problem $$\label{eq1}
\min_{u\in W^{1,p}(O)}\int_{O}V{_{\varepsilon}}{\left({x,\nabla u(x)}\right) }dx \qquad\text{(subject to suitable boundary conditions)}.$$ Above $V{_{\varepsilon}}(x,F)$ denotes a family of energy densities that are convex in $F$, and which we assume to rapidly oscillate in $x$ on a scale $\varepsilon$. The objective of homogenization is to derive a simpler minimization problem, say $$\min_{u\in W^{1,p}(O)}\int_{O}V_{0}{\left({\nabla u(x)}\right) }dx \qquad\text{(subject to suitable boundary conditions)},$$ with an effective (and simpler) energy density $V_{0}$ that captures the behavior of (\[eq1\]) for small $\varepsilon$. This is done by an asymptotic analysis for $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, and a classical way to approach this type of problems is based on two-scale convergence methods. The notion of (periodic) two-scale convergence was introduced and developed by Nguetseng [@nguetseng1989general] and Allaire [@allaire1992homogenization] (see also [@lukkassen2002two]). A sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(O)$ is said to two-scale converge to $u\in L^p(O \times \Box)$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{O}u{_{\varepsilon}}(x)\varphi{\left({x,\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\right) }dx \to \int_O\int_{\Box}u(x,y)\varphi(x,y)dy dx \quad \text{as }\varepsilon\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi\in L^q(O,C_{\mathsf{per}}(\Box))$. Here, $\Box:=[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d$ is the unit box, and $C_{\mathsf{per}}(\Box)$ is the space of continuous, $\Box$-periodic functions. The two-scale limit of a sequence refines its weak limit by capturing oscillations on a prescribed scale $\varepsilon$. It is therefore especially useful in homogenization problems involving linear (or monotone) operators and convex potentials with *periodic coefficients*. With regard to problem (\[eq1\]), two-scale convergence methods apply, e.g. if $V_{\varepsilon}(x,F)=V(x,\frac{x}{\varepsilon},F)$ with $V$ being periodic in its second component and sufficiently regular (e.g. continuous) in its first component.
In [@cioranescu2002periodic] the method of periodic unfolding was introduced based on the dilation technique [@arbogast1990derivation]. The idea of unfolding, which is closely related to two-scale convergence, is to introduce an operator (the unfolding operator), which embeds sequences of oscillating functions into a larger two-scale space, with the effect that two-scale convergence can be characterized by the usual weak convergence in the two-scale space. In some cases, this method facilitates a more straightforward, and operator theory flavored, analysis of periodic homogenization problems. In recent years periodic unfolding has been applied to a large variety of multiscale problems; e.g., see [@cioranescu2004homogenization; @griso2004error; @mielke2007two; @neukamm2010homogenization; @mielke2014two; @ptashnyk2015locally; @cazeaux2015homogenization; @liero2015homogenization; @piatnitski2017homogenization; @hanke2017phase]. For a systematic investigation of two-scale calculus associated with the use of the periodic unfolding method we refer to [@cioranescu2008periodic; @visintin2004some; @visintin2006towards; @mielke2007two; @cioranescu2012periodic].
Motivated by periodic two-scale convergence, in [@bourgeat1994stochastic] a related notion of *stochastic two-scale convergence in the mean* was introduced. It is tailor-made for the study of stochastic homogenization problems. In particular, it applies to a stochastic version of problem (\[eq1\]): Let $\Omega$ be a probability space with a corresponding measure-preserving dynamical system ${\left\lbrace {T_x} \right\rbrace}_{x\in\mathbb{R}^d}$ (see Section \[section:297\]). In the context of stochastic homogenization, we might view $\Omega$ as a configuration space, and ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ (the associated expected value) as an ensemble average w.r.t. configurations. Then we might consider a stochastic version of , namely $$\label{eq2}
\min_{u\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(O)} {\left\langle {\int_{O}V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,\nabla_x u(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle},$$ where the potential $V(\omega,F)$ is parametrized by $\omega\in\Omega$, and thus minimizers of are random fields, i.e., they depend on $\omega\in\Omega$. The random potential $V{_{\varepsilon}}(x,\cdot)=V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,\cdot)$ in is rapidly oscillating, and its statistics is homogeneous in space (i.e., for any finite number of points $x_1,...,x_m\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and all $F\in \mathbb{R}^d$, the joint distribution of $\{V(T_{x_i+z}\cdot,F)\}_{i=1,\ldots,m}$ is independent of the shift $z\in\mathbb{R}^d$). In contrast to periodic two-scale convergence, stochastic two-scale convergence requires test-functions defined not only on the physical space $O\subset\mathbb{R}^d$, but also on the probability space $\Omega$ (see Remark \[remark1\], where we recall the definition of stochastic two-scale convergence in the mean from [@bourgeat1994stochastic; @andrews1998stochastic] in a discrete version).
**Stochastic unfolding.** In this paper we introduce a *stochastic unfolding* *method*, that (analogously to the periodic case) allows to characterize stochastic two-scale convergence in the mean by mere weak convergence in an extended space. Having discrete-to-continuum problems in mind, we concentrate in this paper on a discrete setting: For example, in (\[eq2\]) $O$ is replaced by the discrete set $O{_{\varepsilon}}:=O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ (equipped with a rescaled counting measure $m_{\varepsilon}$), and instead of the gradient we consider difference quotients (see Section \[Physical\_space\] for the specific discrete setting). As we shall demonstrate, the *stochastic unfolding method* features many analogies to the periodic case; as a consequence it allows us to lift systematically and easily homogenization results and multiscale models for periodic media to the level of random media. In the following, in particular for readers familiar with periodic unfolding, we briefly summarize the main properties of stochastic unfolding and its analogies to the periodic case:
- We introduce an operator $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}: L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\rightarrow L^p(\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^d)$ which is a linear isometry, and we call it a stochastic unfolding operator (see Section \[section31\]).
- Two-scale convergence in the mean for $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega\times\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ reduces to weak convergence of the unfolding $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ (see Remark \[remark1\]).
- We define weak (strong) stochastic two-scale convergence as weak (strong) convergence of the unfolded sequence $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}$ (see Definition \[definitionUnf\]).
- (Compactness). Bounded sequences converge (up to a subsequence) in the weak stochastic two-scale sense (see Lemma \[basicfacts\]).
- (Compactness for gradients). If $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega\times\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ is bounded and its (discrete) gradient is bounded, then (up to extracting a subsequence) $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ weakly two-scale converges to $U_{0} \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Moreover, its gradient weakly two-scale converges, and the limit has a specific structure: $\nabla U_{0}+\chi$, where $\chi\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Here, $\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega):=\overline{\left\lbrace D\varphi: \varphi \in L^p(\Omega) \right\rbrace}$, where $D$ denotes the *horizontal derivative* for random variables and the closure is taken in $L^p(\Omega)$, and $L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)$ is the space of shift-invariant functions (see Section \[section:297\] for precise definitions). In the ergodic case, the latter reduces to the space of constant functions, and thus the two-scale limit $U_0$ is deterministic, i.e., it does not depend on $\omega\in\Omega$. The general structure of this compactness statement for gradients is quite similar to its analogon in the periodic case, which we briefly recall: Up to a subsequence, a bounded sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ converges weakly to some $u_0\in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and the gradient $\nabla u{_{\varepsilon}}$ weakly two-scale converges to $\nabla u_0(x)+v(x,y)$, where $v\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)\otimes L^p_{\mathsf{pot},\mathsf{per}}(\Box)$ with $\Box$ denoting the reference cell of periodicity (e.g. $\Box=[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d$). In the periodic case, thanks to Poincaré’s inequality on $\Box$, any periodic, conservative field $v\in L^p_{\mathsf{pot},\mathsf{per}}(\Box)$, can be represented as $v=\nabla_y\varphi$ for some potential $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_{\mathsf{per}}(\Box)$. Thus, the weak two-scale limit of $\nabla u{_{\varepsilon}}$ takes the form $\nabla u_0(x)+\nabla_y\varphi(x,y)$ with $\varphi\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^d,W^{1,p}_{\mathsf{per}}(\Box))$.
In the stochastic case, typically it is not possible to represent $v\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)$ with the help of a potential defined on $\Omega$. This is one of the main differences between stochastic and periodic homogenization.
- (Recovery sequences). For $U_0$ and $\chi$ as above, we construct a sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ which satisfies $$\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon} \to U_0, \quad \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}\nabla^{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon} \to \nabla U_0 + \chi \quad \text{strongly in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$$ (see Corollary \[rem5\]).
- The following transformation formula holds: $${\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,v(\omega,x))dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}.$$ Using this formula and the previous properties, the $\Gamma$-convergence analysis of the discrete version of (\[eq2\]) becomes straightforward, and relies (as the only noteworthy additional ingredient) on the weak lower-semicontinuity of convex integral functionals; see Proposition \[pro67\] and Theorem \[gammatheorem\].
We would like to remark that some of the statements above (in particular those that involve only *weak* two-scale convergence) have already been established in the continuum setting in [@bourgeat1994stochastic]. However, the arguments that we present have a different twist, since they are based on the unfolding operator and apply to the discrete setting.
In contrast to periodic (deterministic) two-scale convergence, in the stochastic case different meaningful notions for two-scale convergence exist, since one may ask for convergence in the $L^p(\Omega)$-sense ($\Omega$ being the probability space) or in a quenched sense, i.e., for a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$. The former corresponds to stochastic two-scale convergence in the mean and the notion of stochastic unfolding that we introduce in this paper. The latter corresponds to a finer notion of (quenched) stochastic two-scale convergence, as considered in [@zhikov2006homogenization; @heida2011extension], we also refer to [@mathieu2007quenched; @faggionato2008random] for a discrete version of (quenched) two-scale convergence.
**Discrete-to-continuum limits of random spring networks.** In the second part of this paper, we study the macroscopic, rate-independent behavior of periodic networks formed of elasto-plastic springs with random material properties. In the following, we briefly summarize our result in the simplest (nontrivial) two-dimensional setting. In Section \[section:4\] we shall treat a general, multidimensional case. To explain the model, we first consider a single spring that in a natural state has endpoints $x_0,x_1\in\mathbb{R}^d$, and thus is aligned with $b:=x_1-x_0$. We describe a deformation of the spring with the help of a displacement function $v$ that maps an endpoint $x_i$ to its new position $x_i+v(x_i)$. As the measure of relative elongation (resp. compression) of the spring, we consider the Cauchy strain $\frac{|(b+|b|\partial_b v)|-|b|}{|b|}$ with $\partial_b v:=\frac{v(x_0+b)-v(x_0)}{|b|}$. If the displacement is (infinitesimally) small $v=\delta u$ with $0<\delta \ll 1$ and $u: {\left\lbrace {x_0,x_1} \right\rbrace} \to \mathbb{R}^d$, we arrive (by rescaling the strain $\frac{1}{\delta}\frac{|(b+|b|\partial_b v)|-|b|}{|b|}$ and passing to the limit $\delta \to 0$) at the *linearized* strain $\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_b u$. As is usual in linear elasto-plasticity (see e.g. [@han2012plasticity Section 3]), we assume that the linearized strain admits an additive decomposition $\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_b u=e+z$, where $e$ and $z$ are its elastic and plastic parts, respectively. The force (its intensity) exerted by the spring is linear in the elastic strain: $\sigma=ae$, $a>0$ being the spring constant. We define a free energy (describing materials with linear kinematic hardening) $$\mathcal E_b(u,z):=\frac{1}{2}a {\left({\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_b u-z}\right) }^2+\frac{1}{2}h z^2,$$ where $h>0$ denotes a hardening parameter. The rate-independent evolution of the elasto-plastic spring under a loading $l:[0,T]\times {\left\lbrace {x_0,x_1} \right\rbrace}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ev11}
\begin{split}
& (-1)^{i}{\left({\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_b u(t)-z(t)}\right) }\frac{b}{|b|}+l(t,x_i)=0,\; i=1,2,\\
& \dot{z}(t)\in \partial I_{[-\sigma_y,\sigma_y]}{\left({-\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}_b}{\partial z}(u(t),z(t))}\right) }.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[ev11\]), $\sigma_y\geq 0$ is the yield stress of the spring, $\partial I_{[-\sigma_y,\sigma_y]}$ denotes the convex subdifferential of $I_{[-\sigma_y,\sigma_y]}$, which is the indicator function of the set $[-\sigma_y,\sigma_y]$. Note that the first two equations are force balance equations (inertial terms are disregarded), reasonable in regimes of small displacements, and the second expression is a flow rule for the variable $z$.
We consider a network of springs $E=\{ e=[x,x+\varepsilon b]\,:\,x \in\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2},\, b\in\{e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2\} \}$, where the nodes $x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ represent the reference configuration of particles connected by springs. The displacement of the network is described with help of a map $u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}^2$, and the plastic strains of the springs are accounted by an internal variable $z: \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}^3$ (e.g. $z_1(x)$ is the plastic strain of the spring $[x,x+\varepsilon e_1]$). We assume that the particles outside of a set $O{_{\varepsilon}}=O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ are fixed, i.e., $u=0$ in $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} \setminus O{_{\varepsilon}}$; furthermore, we suppose that $z$ is supported in $O{_{\varepsilon}}^+:={\left\lbrace {x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2}:(x,x+\varepsilon b)\cap O \neq \emptyset \text{ for some }b\in {\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace}} \right\rbrace}$. A small external force $\varepsilon l{_{\varepsilon}}:[0,T]\times O{_{\varepsilon}}\to \mathbb{R}^2$ acts on the system. According to the evolution law (\[ev11\]) for single springs, the evolution of the network is determined by (for $t\in [0,T]$) $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{b\in {\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace}} -\partial_{-\varepsilon b}{\left({|b|a(x,b){\left({\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_{\varepsilon b} u(t,x)-z_b(t,x)}\right) }}\right) } \frac{b}{|b|}+l{_{\varepsilon}}(t,x)=0 \text{ in }O{_{\varepsilon}},\\
& \dot{z}_b(t,x)\in \partial I_{[-\sigma_y(x,b),\sigma_y(x,b)]}{\left({-\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}_b}{\partial z_b}(u(t,x),z_b(t,x))}\right) } \text{ in }O{_{\varepsilon}}^+, b\in{\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace},\end{aligned}$$ which is a superposition of (\[ev11\]). We tacitly identify $b\in {\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace}$ with indices $i={1,2,3}$. The coefficients $a(x,b)$, $h(x,b)$, $\sigma_y(x,b)$ describe the properties of the spring $[x,x+\varepsilon b]$. The above equations may be equivalently recast in the global energetic formulation for rate-independent systems (see Appendix \[appendix2\]) with the help of energy and dissipation functionals, respectively: $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}:[0,T]\times L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}})^2\times L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}}^+)^3\to \mathbb{R}$, $\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}:L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}})^2\times L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}}^+)^3\to [0,\infty)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,u,z)= & \int_{O{_{\varepsilon}}^+}\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}(x){\left({\nabla^{\varepsilon}_{s}u(x)-z(x)}\right) }\cdot {\left({\nabla^{\varepsilon}_{s}u(x)-z(x)}\right) } \\ &+\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{H}(x)z(x)\cdot z(x) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)-\int_{O{_{\varepsilon}}}l{_{\varepsilon}}(t,x)\cdot u(x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x),\\
\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(u,z)= & \sum_{b\in {\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace}} |b|\int_{O{_{\varepsilon}}^+} \sigma_y(x,b)|z_b(x)|dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Above, the coefficients are given in the form $\mathcal{A}(x)=diag{\left({a(x,e_1),a(x,e_2), \sqrt{2}a(x,e_1+e_2)}\right) }$, $\mathcal{H}(x)= diag(h(x,e_1),h(x,e_2), h(x,e_1+e_2))$, and $\nabla^{\varepsilon}_s$ stands for the *symmetrized gradient* $\nabla^{\varepsilon}_{s}u={\left({\frac{b}{|b|}\cdot \partial_{\varepsilon b} u}\right) }_{b\in {\left\lbrace {e_1,e_2,e_1+e_2} \right\rbrace}}$. We assume that the coefficients are random fields oscillating on a scale $\varepsilon$. In particular, the deterministic coefficients $\mathcal{A}(x)$, $\mathcal{H}(x)$ and $\sigma_y(x,b)$ in the above functionals are replaced by realizations of rescaled stationary random fields $\mathcal{A}(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)$, $\mathcal{H}(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)$ and $\sigma^b_y(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)$. As a consequence of this, the solutions of the corresponding evolutionary equation at each time instance are not deterministic functions but rather random fields on $\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{2}$. Under suitable assumptions (cf. Section \[sectionERIS\]), there exists a unique solution $(u{_{\varepsilon}},z{_{\varepsilon}})\in C^{Lip}([0,T],(L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}})^2) \times (L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}}^{+})^3))$ to the above described microscopic rate-independent system.
Applying the method of stochastic unfolding, we are able to capture the averaged (w.r.t. the probability measure) behavior of the solution $(u{_{\varepsilon}},z{_{\varepsilon}})$ in the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Particularly, we show that, upon assuming suitable strong convergence for the initial data and forces, there exists $(U,Z,\chi)\in C^{Lip}([0,T],H^1_0(O)^2 \times L^2(\Omega\times O)^3\times (\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O))^2)$ which solves an effective rate-independent system on a continuum physical space (see Section \[sectionERIS\]), and for every $t\in [0,T]$ $$(u{_{\varepsilon}}(t), z{_{\varepsilon}}(t))\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}(U(t),Z(t),\chi(t)),$$ where $\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}$ denotes “cross" two-scale convergence, which is explained in Section \[sectionERIS\].
In the continuum case, similar results have been obtained, for deterministic periodic materials in [@mielke2007two; @hanke2011homogenization] (via periodic unfolding), and recently for random materials in [@heida2017stochastic1] (using quenched stochastic two-scale convergence) and [@heida2016non; @heida2017stochastic3]. We discuss the literature on problems involving discrete-to-continuum transition in more detail in Section \[section:4\].
If we consider the constraint $z{_{\varepsilon}}=0$ and time-independent force $l{_{\varepsilon}}(t)=l{_{\varepsilon}}$, the above problem boils down to the homogenization of the functional $u\mapsto\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(0,u,0)$, which corresponds to the discrete-to-continuum limit of the static equilibrium of a spring network with (only) elastic interactions.
We remark that the methods in this paper apply as well to systems with different constitutive laws; e.g., one might consider an energy functional with an additional term depending on the gradient of the internal variable $z{_{\varepsilon}}$, as is the case in gradient plasticity (see Section \[S:gradient\]). In the ergodic case, we even obtain a deterministic elasto-plastic limiting model. Another interesting extension of our method (which we do not discuss in this paper) is the discrete-to-continuum analysis of random spring networks featuring damage or fracture. The convergence result that we establish can be seen as a justification of continuum models for microstructural spring networks that feature uncertainty in the constitutive relations on the microscopic scale. In this context, the method could also be applied to prove the consistency of computational schemes based on the lattice method as discussed in the mechanical engineering community (e.g. see [@hahn2010discrete]).
**Structure of the paper.** In Section \[generalFramework\], we introduce a convenient setting for problems involving homogenization and the passage from discrete to continuum systems. Section \[section:3\] is devoted to the introduction of the stochastic unfolding operator and its most important properties. In Section \[section:4\], we apply the stochastic unfolding method to an example of a multidimensional network of elastic/elasto-plastic springs with random coefficients.
General framework {#generalFramework}
=================
In this section, we introduce the setting for functions on a discrete/continuum physical space suited for problems involving discrete-to-continuum transitions. In addition, we present the standard setting for stochastic homogenization problems.
Functions and differential calculus on $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ and $\mathbb{R}^d$ {#Physical_space}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the paper we consider $p,q\in (1,\infty)$ exponents of integrability that are dual, i.e., $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1$. ${\left\lbrace {e_i} \right\rbrace}_{i=1,...,d}$ denotes the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^d$. For $\varepsilon>0$, we denote the Banach space of $p$-summable functions by $L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}):={\left\lbrace { u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}: {\left({\varepsilon^d \sum_{x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} u^p(x)}\right) }^{\frac{1}{p}}<\infty } \right\rbrace}$. For our purposes it is convenient to view $L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ as the $L^p$-space of $p$-integrable functions on the measure space ${\left({\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}, 2^{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}},m{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ with $m{_{\varepsilon}}=\varepsilon^d \sum_{x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} \delta_x$. In particular, we use the notation $\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }u(x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x):=\varepsilon^d \sum_{x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}u(x)$. For $u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $g=(g_1,...,g_d):\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{\varepsilon}_iu(x)&=\frac{u(x+\varepsilon e_i)-u(x)}{\varepsilon}, & \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*}u(x)&=\frac{u(x-\varepsilon e_i)-u(x)}{\varepsilon}, \\
\nabla^{\varepsilon}u(x) &=(\nabla^{\varepsilon}_1 u(x),...,\nabla^{\varepsilon}_d u(x) ), & \nabla^{\varepsilon,*}g(x)& =\sum_{i=1}^{d} \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*}g_i(x),\end{aligned}$$ and we call $\nabla^{\varepsilon}$ *discrete gradient* and $\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}$ *(negative) discrete divergence* (in analogy with the usual differential operators $\nabla$ and $-div$). For $u\in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$, $g\in L^{q}(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d$, we have the discrete integration by parts formula $$\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u(x) \cdot g(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)=\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} u(x) \nabla^{\varepsilon,*}g(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x).$$
Consider $U\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and a sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$. We say that
- $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ weakly converges to $U$ (denoted by $u{_{\varepsilon}}\rightharpoonup U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$) if $$\begin{aligned}
& \limsup_{\varepsilon \to 0}\|u{_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}< \infty \text{ and}\\
& \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}u{_{\varepsilon}}(x) \eta(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} U(x) \eta(x) dx \qquad \text{for all }\eta \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d).\end{aligned}$$
- $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ strongly converges to $U$ (denoted by $u{_{\varepsilon}}\to U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$) if $$\begin{aligned}
u{_{\varepsilon}}\rightharpoonup U \text{ in }L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{ and } \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\|u{_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})} = \|U\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}.\end{aligned}$$
It is convenient to consider piecewise-constant and piecewise-affine interpolations of functions in $L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$.
(i) For $u: \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, its piecewise-constant interpolation $\overline{u}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ (subordinate to $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$) is given by $\overline{u}(x)=\sum_{y\in\mathbb{Z}^d} \mathbf{1}_{y+\Box}{\left({\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\right) }u(\lfloor x \rfloor{_{\varepsilon}})$, where $\Box=[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d$ is the unit box and $\lfloor x \rfloor{_{\varepsilon}}\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ is defined by $x-\lfloor x\rfloor{_{\varepsilon}}\in \varepsilon\Box$.
(ii) Consider a triangulation of $\mathbb{R}^d$ into $d$-simplices with nodes in $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ (e.g. Freudenthal’s triangulation). For $u: \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we denote its piecewise-affine interpolation (w.r.t. the triangulation) by $\widehat{u}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
(iii) The $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$-discretization $\pi_{\varepsilon}: L^1_{\mathsf{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}$ is defined as $$(\pi_{\varepsilon}U)(x)=\dashint_{x+\varepsilon \Box}U(y) dy.$$
Note that $\overline{(\cdot)}:L^{p}(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\rightarrow L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $u \mapsto \overline{u}$ defines a linear isometry. Also, $\pi_{\varepsilon}:L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ is linear and bounded with $\|\pi_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow L^{p}(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\leq 1$. Furthermore, $\pi{_{\varepsilon}}\circ\overline{(\cdot)}=Id$ on $L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$, and we define $\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}:=\overline{(\cdot)}\circ \pi{_{\varepsilon}}$, which is a contractive projection, mapping to the subspace of piecewise-constant functions (subordinate to $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$) in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
The proof of the following lemma is an uncomplicated exercise, and therefore we omit it.
\[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\] Let $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ and $U \in L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. The following claims are equivalent:
(i) $u{_{\varepsilon}}\rightharpoonup (\to) U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
(ii) $\overline{u}{_{\varepsilon}}\to U $ weakly (strongly) in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
(iii) $\widehat{u}{_{\varepsilon}}\to U $ weakly (strongly) in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
The applications involve problems with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, and therefore the following space is convenient: For $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ we set $$L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} )={\left\lbrace {u \in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}): u=0 \text{ in }\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} \setminus {\left({O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\right) }} \right\rbrace}.$$
Description of random media and a differential calculus for random variables {#section:297}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is standard in stochastic homogenization, we describe *random configurations* (e.g. coefficients of a PDE or energy densities that describe properties of some medium with quenched disorder) using a probability space ${\left({\Omega,\mathcal{F},P}\right) }$ together with a measure preserving dynamical system $T_x:\Omega\rightarrow \Omega$ ($x\in \mathbb{Z}^d$) such that:
(i) $T_x:\Omega\rightarrow\Omega$ is measurable for all $x \in \mathbb{Z}^d$,
(ii) $T_0=Id$ and $T_{x+y}=T_x \circ T_y$ for all $x,y\in \mathbb{Z}^d$,
(iii) $P(T_x A)=P(A)$ for all $A\in \mathcal{F}$ and $x\in \mathbb{Z}^d$.
We write ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ for the expectation and $L^p(\Omega)$ for the usual Banach space of $p$-integrable random variables. Throughout the paper we assume that $(\Omega, \mathcal F, P,T)$ satisfies the properties above, and that ${\left({\Omega,\mathcal{F},P}\right) }$ is a separable measure space; the latter implies the separability of $L^p(\Omega)$.
The dynamical system $T$ is called *ergodic* (we also say ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic), if for any $A\in\mathcal F$ the following implication holds: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{$A$ is shift invariant, i.e., }T_xA=A\text{ for all }x\in\mathbb Z^d\\
&\Rightarrow\qquad P(A)\in\{0,1\}.\end{aligned}$$
A multiparameter version of Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem (see [@akcoglu1981ergodic Theorem 2.4]) states that if ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic and $\varphi \in L^p(\Omega)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R\to \infty}\frac{1}{|B_R|}\sum_{x\in B_R\cap \mathbb{Z}^d}\varphi(T_x \omega)\to {\left\langle {\varphi} \right\rangle} \quad \text{for P-a.e. }\omega\in \Omega.\end{aligned}$$
Let $(\Omega_0,\mathcal F_0,P_0)$ denote a separable probability space. We define $(\Omega,\mathcal F,P)$ as the $\mathbb Z^d$-fold product of $(\Omega_0,\mathcal F_0,P_0)$, i.e., $\Omega:=\Omega_0^{\mathbb Z^d}$, $\mathcal F=\otimes_{\mathbb Z^d}\mathcal F_0$, $P=\otimes_{\mathbb Z^d}P_0$. Note that a configuration $\omega\in\Omega$ can be seen as a function $\omega:\mathbb Z^d\to\Omega_0$. We define the shift $T_x$ ($x\in\mathbb Z^d$) as $$T_x\omega(\cdot):=\omega(\cdot+x).$$ It follows that $(\Omega,\mathcal F,P,T)$ satisfies the assumptions above and defines an ergodic dynamical system. With regard to the example in the introduction, , we might consider random potentials of the form $$V(\omega,F):=a_0(\omega(0))|F|^2,$$ where $a_0:\Omega_0\to(\lambda,1)$ is a random variable, with $\lambda>0$ denoting a positive constant of ellipticity. We remark that the coefficients appearing in the corresponding energy ${\left\lbrace {a_0(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega(0))} \right\rbrace}_{x\in \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}$ are independent and identically distributed random variables.
For $\varphi: \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{\psi}=(\psi_1,...,\psi_d):\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ measurable, we introduce the *horizontal derivative* $D$ and *(negative) horizontal divergence* $D^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
D_i\varphi(\omega)&=\varphi(T_{e_i}\omega)-\varphi(\omega), & D_i^*\varphi(\omega)&=\varphi(T_{-e_i}\omega)-\varphi(\omega),\\
D\varphi(\omega)&=(D_1\varphi(\omega),...,D_d\varphi(\omega)), & D^*\mathbf{\psi}(\omega)&=\sum_{i=1}^{d}D^*_i\psi_i(\omega).\end{aligned}$$
$D:L^p(\Omega)\rightarrow L^p(\Omega)^d$ and $D^*: L^p(\Omega)^d \rightarrow L^p(\Omega)$ are linear and bounded operators. Furthermore, for any $\varphi \in L^p(\Omega)$ and $\psi \in L^q(\Omega)^d$ the integration by parts formula $${\left\langle {D\varphi \cdot \psi} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\phi D^*\psi} \right\rangle}$$ holds. Hence, $D$ (defined on $L^p(\Omega)$) and $D^*$ (defined on $L^q(\Omega)^d$) are adjoint operators.
We denote the set of *shift-invariant functions* in $L^p(\Omega)$ by $$L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega):=\left\lbrace \varphi \in L^p(\Omega): \varphi(T_x\omega)=\varphi(\omega) \text{ for all } x\in \mathbb{Z}^d \text{ and a.e. }\omega\in \Omega \right\rbrace,$$ and we note that $L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\simeq \mathbb{R}$ if and only if ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle} \text{ is ergodic}$. We denote by $P_{\mathsf{inv}}:L^p(\Omega)\rightarrow L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)$ the conditional expectation w.r.t. the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the family of shift invariant sets ${\left\lbrace {A\in \mathcal{F}: T_xA=A \; \text{for every }x\in \mathbb{Z}^d} \right\rbrace}$. It is a contractive projection and in the ergodic case we simply have $P_{\mathsf{inv}}f={\left\langle {f} \right\rangle}$. The adjoint of $P_{\mathsf{inv}}$ is denoted by $P_{\mathsf{inv}}^*:L^q(\Omega)\to L^q(\Omega)$.
It is easily verified that $L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)=\mathsf{ker}D$ and by standard arguments (see [@brezis2010functional Section 2.6]) we have the orthogonality relations $$\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega):=\overline{\mathsf{ran}D}^{L^p(\Omega)^d}=(\mathsf{ker}D^*)^{\bot},\quad \quad \quad \quad
\mathsf{ker}D= (\mathsf{ran}D^*)^{\bot}.$$ The above relations hold in the sense of $L^p$-$L^q$ duality (we identify $L^q(\Omega)'$ with $L^p(\Omega)$). Namely, $D:L^p(\Omega)\rightarrow L^p(\Omega)^d$ and $D^*:L^q(\Omega)^d\rightarrow L^q(\Omega)$ and the orthogonal of a set $A\subset L^q(\Omega)$ is given by $$A^{\bot}={\left\lbrace {\varphi \in L^q(\Omega)': \langle \varphi,\psi \rangle_{(L^q)',L^q}=0 \text{ for all } \psi \in A} \right\rbrace}.$$
In this paper measurable functions defined on $\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} $ or on $\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d $ are called random fields. We mainly consider the space of $p$-integrable random fields $L^p(\Omega \times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$, and frequently use the following notation: If $X\subset L^p(\Omega)$ and $Y\subset L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ (resp. $Y\subset L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$) are linear subspaces, then we denote by $X\otimes Y$ the closure of $$X\stackrel{a}{\otimes} Y:=\operatorname{span}{\left\lbrace {\sum_j \varphi_j \eta_j: \varphi_j\in X,\eta_j\in Y} \right\rbrace}$$ in $L^p(\Omega\times\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ (resp. $L^p(\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^d)$). In particular, since $L^p(\Omega)$ is separable (thanks to our assumption on the underlying measure space), we have $L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})=L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ (resp. $L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)=L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$). Similarly, if above we instead have $Y\subset W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is a linear subspace, then $X\otimes Y$ is defined as the closure of $X\overset{a}{\otimes}Y$ in $L^p(\Omega, W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d))$. In this respect, we tacitly identify linear and bounded operators on $X$ (or $Y$) by their obvious extension to $X\otimes Y$.
Stochastic unfolding {#section:3}
====================
Definition and properties {#section31}
-------------------------
For $u: \Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ we define the *unfolding* of $u$ via $$(\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u)(\omega,x)=u(T_{ - \frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,x).$$ The above expression defines an isometric isomorphism $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}}: L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\rightarrow L^p(\Omega\times\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$. For our purposes, it is convenient to consider $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}:=\overline{(\cdot)}\circ \widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}:L^p{\left({\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\right) }\rightarrow L^p{\left({\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d}\right) }$, which is a linear (nonsurjective) isometry. We call both operators $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$ *stochastic unfolding operators*. Note that $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}{_{\varepsilon}}$ (defined on $L^p$) and $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}{_{\varepsilon}}^{-1}$ (given by $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}{_{\varepsilon}}^{-1}v(\omega,x)=v(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,x)$ for $v\in L^q(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$) are adjoint operators.
\[definitionUnf\] We say that a sequence $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ strongly (weakly) stochastically two-scale converges in the mean to $U\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ if $$\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow U \quad \text{strongly (weakly) in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d),$$ and we use the notation $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} u$ ($u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} u$) in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$. For vector-valued functions, the convergence is defined componentwise.
\[remark1\] Note that the adaptation of the two-scale convergence in the mean from [@bourgeat1994stochastic; @andrews1998stochastic] to the discrete setting reads as $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ stochastically two-scale converges in the mean to $U\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ if $\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0} {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}(u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))^pdm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}<\infty$ and $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)\varphi(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)\eta(x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}U(\omega,x)\varphi(\omega)\eta(x)dx} \right\rangle}$$ for all $\varphi\in L^q(\Omega)$ and all $\eta \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. This notion is equivalent to our notion of weak stochastic two-scale convergence in the mean.
The following lemma is obtained easily by exploiting the fact that the unfolding is a linear isometry and by the usual properties of weak convergence, and therefore we omit its proof.
\[basicfacts\] We consider sequences $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ and $v{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^q(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$.
(i) If $u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$, then $$\sup_{\varepsilon\in (0,1)}\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}<\infty \quad \text{and} \quad \|U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}\leq \liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\|u{_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}.$$
(ii) If $\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}<\infty$, then there exist $U\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and a subsequence $\varepsilon'$ such that $u_{\varepsilon'}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(iii) $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ if and only if $\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)} = \|u \|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$ and $u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(iv) If $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $v_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V$ in $L^{q}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$, then $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}U(\omega,x)V(\omega,x)dx} \right\rangle}.$$
As in the periodic setting, a suitable “inverse” of the unfolding operator $\mathcal T{_{\varepsilon}}$ is given by the linear operator $$\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}:L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d) \rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d), \quad \mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}=\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}^{-1}_{\varepsilon}\circ\pi_{\varepsilon}.$$ In analogy to the periodic case, we refer to $\mathcal F{_{\varepsilon}}$ as the *stochastic folding operator*. Note that $\mathcal F{_{\varepsilon}}: L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d) \rightarrow L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ is precisely the adjoint of $\mathcal T{_{\varepsilon}}:L^{q}(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^d) \rightarrow L^{q}(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)$ (where $\frac1p+\frac1q=1$).
\[Propfold\] $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}$ is linear and it satisfies:
(i) $\| \mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}U \|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}\leq \|U \|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$ for every $U\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(ii) $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon} \circ \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}=Id$ on $L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ and $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \circ \mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}=\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}$ on $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(iii) $\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}U\overset{2}{\rightarrow} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ for every $U \in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
The proof of this lemma is omitted since it mostly relies on the definition of the folding operator.
Two-scale limits of gradients {#gradients}
-----------------------------
In this section, we treat two-scale limits of gradients. First we present some compactness results and later we show that weak two-scale limits can be recovered in the strong two-scale sense by convenient linear constructions.
\[comp3\] Let $\gamma\geq 0$. Let $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ satisfy $$\label{comp3:bound}
\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\left\langle \int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} |u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p+\varepsilon^{\gamma p}|\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p dm_{\varepsilon}(x)\right\rangle<\infty.$$
(i) If $\gamma=0$, there exist $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$\label{er12}
u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U+\chi \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
(ii) If $\gamma\in (0,1)$, there exist $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$\label{er121}
u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \chi \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
(iii) If $\gamma=1$, there exists $U \in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$\label{er122}
u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} DU \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
(iv) If $\gamma>1$, there exists $U \in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$\label{er123}
u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} 0 \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
See Section \[proofs3.4\] for the proof.
The above statement can be adapted to sequences supported in a domain: Let $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be open. We denote by $W^{1,p}_0(O)$ the closure of $C^\infty_c(O)$ in $W^{1,p}(O)$. Since the unfolding operator is naturally defined for functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$, we tacitly identify functions in $L^p(O)$ and $W^{1,p}_0(O)$ with their trivial extension by $0$ to $\mathbb{R}^d$. As a corollary of Proposition \[comp3\] we obtain the following.
\[cor111\] Let $O\subset{\mathbb{R}^d}$ be a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary, and set $O^{+\varepsilon}:={\left\lbrace {x \in \mathbb{R}^d: dist(x,O)\leq C \varepsilon} \right\rbrace}$ where $C>0$ denotes an arbitrary constant independent of $\varepsilon>0$. Consider a sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ satisfying . Then in addition to the convergence statements in Proposition \[comp3\], the two-scale limits (from Proposition \[comp3\]) satisfy
- if $\gamma=0$, $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O)$ and $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O)$;
- if $\gamma \in (0,1)$, $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^{p}(O)$ and $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O)$;
- if $\gamma\geq 1$, $U\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O)$.
The proof of the above corollary is left to the reader. We remark that in Proposition \[comp3\] (i) and (ii) the two-scale limit $U$ is shift-invariant and therefore in the ergodic setting it is deterministic, i.e., $U=P_{\mathsf{inv}}U={\left\langle {U} \right\rangle}$.
\[ergodic\] Let $\gamma \in [0,1)$ and ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ be ergodic. Let $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ satisfy the assumptions in Proposition \[comp3\]. Then the claims in Proposition \[comp3\] (i) and (ii) hold and we have the following:
(i) If $\gamma=0$, then ${\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$, ${\left\langle {\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup\nabla U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d$ and $u_{\varepsilon}-{\left\langle {u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} 0$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(ii) If $\gamma \in (0,1)$, then ${\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$, ${\left\langle {\varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup 0$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d$ and $u_{\varepsilon}-{\left\langle {u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} 0$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$.
(iii) If $\gamma=0$ and $Q\subset{\mathbb{R}^d}$ is open and bounded with Lipschitz boundary, then $\overline{{\left\langle {u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}}\rightarrow U$ strongly in $L^p(Q)$.
(iv) If $\gamma \in [0,1)$ and if, additionally, $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to}U$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$, then for any $\varphi\in L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ we have ${\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}\varphi} \right\rangle}\to {\left\langle {\varphi} \right\rangle} U $ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
For the proof of this corollary, see Section \[proofs3.4\].
In the following, we show that weak two-scale accumulation points can be recovered in the strong two-scale sense.
\[prop1\]
(i) Let $\gamma \in [0,1)$. For $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a linear and bounded operator $\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma}: \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d) \rightarrow L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ such that $$\mathcal{G}^{\gamma}_{\varepsilon} \chi \overset{2}{\rightarrow} 0 \text{ in } L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)\quad\text{ and }\quad
\varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma} \chi \overset{2}{\to} \chi \text{ in } L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$$ for all $\chi\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Moreover, the operator norm of $\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}$ can be bounded independently of $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$.
(ii) Let $U\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$: We have $$\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U\overset{2}{\rightarrow}\nabla U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
(iii) Let $\gamma\in (0,1)$. For $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a linear and bounded operator $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}: L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)\to L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ such that $$\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma} U \overset{2}{\rightarrow}U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad
\varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma} U\overset{2}{\rightarrow}0 \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$$ for all $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Moreover, the operator norm of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}$ can be bounded independently of $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$.
(iv) Let $\gamma\geq 1$. For any $U \in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$, it holds that $$\varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U \overset{2}{\to}a_{\gamma}DU \text{ in } L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d,$$ where $a_{\gamma}=\twopartdef{1}{\gamma=1,}{0}{\gamma>1.}$
\[rem5\]
(i) The mapping $$\begin{aligned}
&(L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d))\times (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d))\to L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\\
&\qquad\qquad (U,\chi)\mapsto \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U+\mathcal{G}^0{_{\varepsilon}}\chi=:u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi)
\end{aligned}$$ is linear and bounded, and it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to}\nabla U +\chi \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, its operator norm is bounded uniformly in $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$.
(ii) Let $\gamma\in (0,1)$. The mapping $$\begin{aligned}
&(L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d))\times
(\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d))
\to
L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\\
&\qquad\qquad (U,\chi)\mapsto \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma} U+\mathcal{G}^{\gamma}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi=:u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi)
\end{aligned}$$ is linear and bounded and it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
& u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to} \chi \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, its operator norm is bounded uniformly in $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$.
Let $O\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be open and bounded with Lipschitz boundary.
(iii) For any $(U,\chi)\in ( L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))\times (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))$, we can find a sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ such that $$u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to}\nabla U +\chi \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
(iv) Let $\gamma \in (0,1)$. There exists a mapping $$\begin{aligned}
&( L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O)) \times (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))
\to
L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})\\
&\qquad\qquad (U,\chi)\mapsto u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi),
\end{aligned}$$ which is linear and bounded, and it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
& u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi) \overset{2}{\to} \chi \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, its operator norm is bounded uniformly in $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$.
For the proof of the above two results, see Section \[proofs3.4\]. We remark that in the case $\gamma\geq 1$, the recovery sequence for $U \in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ is simply given by $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U$. Moreover, in the case of prescribed boundary data for the recovery sequence, we might consider a cut-off procedure as in (iv) above.
Note that the construction of the recovery sequence in the whole-space cases (i) and (ii) (and if $\gamma\in (0,1)$ for a domain (iv)) is linear in the sense that the mapping $(U,\chi)\mapsto u{_{\varepsilon}}$ is linear. In contrast, the construction for a domain (iii) is nonlinear, since it relies on a cut-off procedure applied to the whole-space construction. We remark that the cut-off procedure can be avoided in certain cases: For $p=2$, we can construct the recovery sequence, similarly as in the proof of Proposition \[prop1\] (i), by defining $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ as the unique solution of $\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}=\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}(\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U+\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi)$ in the interior of $O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ and with prescribed homogeneous Dirichlet boundary data. For $p\neq 2$ the same strategy applies as long as the above discrete elliptic equation satisfies maximal $L^p$-regularity. The latter depends on the regularity of the domain $O$.
Unfolding and (lower semi-)continuity of convex energies {#section32}
--------------------------------------------------------
Our $\Gamma$-convergence results for convex energies exploit the following result.
\[pro67\]Let $V:\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be jointly measurable (i.e., w.r.t. $\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^k)$) and for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$, $V(\omega,\cdot)$ be convex. Moreover, we assume that there exists $C>0$ such that $$\frac{1}{C}|F|^p-C\leq V(\omega,F) \leq C(|F|^p+1),$$ for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$ and all $F\in \mathbb{R}^k$. Let $O,O^{+\varepsilon} \subset{\mathbb{R}^d}$ be bounded domains with Lipschitz boundaries satisfying $ O\subset O^{+\varepsilon}\subset {\left\lbrace {x \in \mathbb{R}^d: dist(x,O)\leq C \varepsilon} \right\rbrace}$ for some $C>0$.
(i) If $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^k$ and $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k$, then $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}\geq {\left\langle {\int_{O} V(\omega,U(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}.$$
(ii) If $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^k$ and $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k$, then $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}= {\left\langle {\int_{O}V(\omega,U(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}.$$
The proof of this result is in Section \[proofs3.4\]. We have applications in mind, where such integral functionals are treated and the role of $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ is played by a discrete (symmetrized) gradient (see Section \[section:4\]).
Proofs {#proofs3.4}
------
Before proving Proposition \[comp3\], we present a couple of auxiliary lemmas. The following commutator identity for $u_{\varepsilon}: \Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\to \mathbb{R}$, obtained by direct computation, is practical: $$\label{commutator}
\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}-\nabla^{\varepsilon}\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}D\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}+(D_1\nabla^{\varepsilon}_1,...,D_d\nabla^{\varepsilon}_d)\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}.$$
\[compactness\] Consider a sequence $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$. Suppose that $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} 0$ in $L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$. Then $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$.
Since $L^{p}_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)={\left({\mathsf{ran} D^*}\right) }^{\bot}$, it suffices to show that $$\label{claim1}
{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}U(\omega,x)D^*_i\varphi(\omega)\eta(x)dx} \right\rangle}=0$$ for any $\varphi\in L^q(\Omega)$, $\eta\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $i\in {\left\lbrace {1,...,d} \right\rbrace}$.
We consider the sequence $v_{\varepsilon}=\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(\varphi \eta)\in L^{q}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ and by Lemma \[Propfold\] (iii), we have $v_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} \varphi \eta$ in $L^{q}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$. Therefore, using Lemma \[basicfacts\] (iv), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{firstconv}
& & \varepsilon {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\nonumber \\ &=& {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} (\varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)) v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\rightarrow 0 \quad \text{as } \varepsilon\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, using the definition of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{secondpart}
\begin{split}
\varepsilon \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) & =\varphi(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}-e_i}\omega)\pi_{\varepsilon}\eta(x-\varepsilon e_i)-\varphi(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)\pi_{\varepsilon}\eta(x) \\
& =\varepsilon \varphi(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}-e_i}\omega) \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} \pi_{\varepsilon}\eta(x)+D^*_i\varphi(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega) \pi_{\varepsilon}\eta(x) ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $\varepsilon \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} v_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightarrow} D^*_i\varphi \eta$ in $L^{q}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$. Indeed, the first term on the right-hand side of (\[secondpart\]) vanishes in the strong two-scale limit since $\eta$ is compactly supported and smooth. The second term strongly two-scale converges to $ D^*_i\varphi \eta$. This and Lemma \[basicfacts\] (iv) imply $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\varepsilon {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} U(\omega,x) D^*_i\varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dx} \right\rangle},$$ which, together with (\[firstconv\]), yields (\[claim1\]).
\[lemma4\] Let $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ satisfy $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}|u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^{p}+|\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^pdm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}<\infty.$$ Then there exists $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U,\quad P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon} P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$
Step 1. We claim that $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\mathsf{inv}}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}\circ \widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}$. By shift invariance, we have $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}\circ P_{\mathsf{inv}}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}$. Hence, it suffices to prove $P_{\mathsf{inv}}\circ \widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}$. Let $\eta \in L^q(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$, $\varphi \in L^q(\Omega)$ and $v_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} P_{\mathsf{inv}}\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} & ={\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} v_{\varepsilon}(T_{-\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,x) P^*_{\mathsf{inv}}\varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x) } \right\rangle} \\ &={\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) P^*_{\mathsf{inv}}\varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x) } \right\rangle}\\ &={\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} P_{\mathsf{inv}}v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Above, in the second equality we use the fact that $P_{\mathsf{inv}}^* \simeq P_{\mathsf{inv}}$ on $L^q(\Omega)$ and therefore $\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}{_{\varepsilon}}^{-1} P_{\mathsf{inv}}^*\varphi=P_{\mathsf{inv}}^*\varphi$. Consequently, by a density argument it follows that $P_{\mathsf{inv}}\circ \widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}$.
Step 2. Convergence of $P_{\mathsf{inv}} u{_{\varepsilon}}$. Using boundedness of $P_{\mathsf{inv}}$ and the fact that $\nabla^{\varepsilon}$ and $P_{\mathsf{inv}}$ commute, we obtain $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}|P_{\mathsf{inv}}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p+|\nabla^{\varepsilon}P_{\mathsf{inv}}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}<\infty.$$ Applying Lemma \[basicfacts\] (ii) and Lemma \[compactness\], there exist $V\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\widetilde{V}\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$ such that $$\label{equation:652}
P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V \quad \text{in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad
\nabla^{\varepsilon}P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \widetilde{V} \quad \text{in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d,$$ for a (not relabeled) subsequence. Note that, additionally, we have $\widetilde{V}\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d$.
Let $\varphi\in L^q(\Omega)$ and $\eta \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and denote $v_{\varepsilon}=\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(\varphi \eta)$. Since $v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} \eta \varphi$ (Lemma \[Propfold\] (iii)), for $i=1,...,d$, we have $$\label{equation:6521}
{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon }(\omega,x) v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\rightarrow {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widetilde{V}_i(\omega,x) \varphi(\omega) \eta(x) dx} \right\rangle} \quad \text{as }\varepsilon\to 0.$$ On the other hand, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation:6522}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon }(\omega,x) v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}=&{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon }(\omega,x)\varphi(\omega) \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}\eta(x) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\\ & \overset{(\varepsilon\rightarrow 0)}{\rightarrow} -{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}V(\omega,x) \varphi(\omega) \partial_i \eta(x) dx} \right\rangle}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The above convergence is obtained using that $\overline{P_{\mathsf{inv}}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \rightharpoonup V$ weakly in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ (follows from (\[equation:652\])) and $\overline{\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}_i \pi_{\varepsilon} \eta} \to -\partial_i \eta$ strongly in $L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)$. The latter may be shown as follows. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \| \overline{\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}_i \pi_{\varepsilon} \eta} + \partial_i \eta \|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} \\ & \leq &{\left\lVert \overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}{\left({\frac{\eta(\cdot -\varepsilon e_i)-\eta(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}}\right) }+ \overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon} \partial_i \eta \right\rVert}_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} + {\left\lVert\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}\partial_i \eta-\partial_i \eta\right\rVert}_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} \\
& \leq & {\left\lVert \frac{\eta(\cdot -\varepsilon e_i)-\eta(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}+ \partial_i \eta \right\rVert}_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} + {\left\lVert\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}\partial_i \eta-\partial_i \eta\right\rVert}_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)},\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}$ is a contraction. Since $\eta \in C^{\infty}_{c}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, it follows (by a Taylor expansion argument) that both terms on the right-hand side of the above inequality vanish in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Combining (\[equation:6521\]) and (\[equation:6522\]), we conclude that $V\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\nabla V= \widetilde{V}$.
Step 3. We show that $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ (up to another subsequence). Using Lemmas \[basicfacts\] (ii) and \[compactness\], we conclude that there exist another subsequence (not relabeled) and $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$. Since $P_{\mathsf{inv}} $ is a linear and bounded operator, it follows that $P_{\mathsf{inv}} (\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon})\rightharpoonup P_{\mathsf{inv}} U \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$, and $P_{\mathsf{inv}} U=U$ by shift invariance of $U$. Furthermore, by Steps 1 and 2 we have that $P_{\mathsf{inv}} \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}=\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}P_{\mathsf{inv}} u_{\varepsilon}\rightharpoonup V$ and therefore $U=V$. This completes the proof.
\(i) By Lemma \[lemma4\] we deduce that there exists $U\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ and by boundedness of $\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}$ (Lemma \[basicfacts\] (ii)) there exists $V\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$ such that $\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V$ (up to a subsequence). In order to prove the claim, it suffices to show that $$\label{ortho}
{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} V(\omega,x)\cdot \eta(x)\varphi(\omega)dx} \right\rangle}={\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \nabla U(\omega,x)\cdot \eta(x)\varphi(\omega)dx} \right\rangle}$$ for any $\varphi \in L^q(\Omega)^d$ with $D^*\varphi=0$ and $\eta\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Indeed, this implies that $\chi:=V-\nabla U\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and thus the claim of the proposition.
For the argument consider $v_{\varepsilon}=\mathcal{F}_{\varepsilon}(\eta \varphi)$, the folding acting componentwise. Since $v_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightarrow} \eta \varphi$ (Lemma \[Propfold\] (iii)), $${\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \cdot v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\rightarrow {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} V(\omega,x) \cdot \eta(x) \varphi(\omega) dx} \right\rangle} \quad \text{as $\varepsilon\to 0$}.$$ On the other hand, the commutator identity (\[commutator\]) and the definition of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$ yield $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) \cdot v_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle} \\
= \bigg\langle \int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} {\left({ \nabla^{\varepsilon}\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}D\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)+(D_1\nabla^{\varepsilon}_{1},...,D_d\nabla^{\varepsilon}_{d})\widetilde{\mathcal{T_{\varepsilon}}}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)}\right) }\\ \cdot \pi_{\varepsilon} \eta(x) \varphi(\omega) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)\bigg\rangle.\end{gathered}$$ Since $D^*\varphi=0$, the contribution from the second term on the right-hand side above vanishes. After a discrete integration by parts, the right-hand side reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{i=1}^{d}{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} {\left({\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)+D_i\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)}\right) } \nabla_i^{\varepsilon,*} \pi_{\varepsilon}\eta(x) \varphi_i(\omega) dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\\ & {\rightarrow} -\sum_{i=1}^{d}{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} {\left({ U(\omega,x)+D_iU(\omega,x)}\right) } \partial_i\eta(x) \varphi_i(\omega) dx} \right\rangle} \quad \text{as }\varepsilon\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is concluded by using that $u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ and that $\eta$ is smooth and compactly supported. Since $U$ is shift-invariant, the second term on the right-hand side vanishes. After an integration by parts, we are able to infer (\[ortho\]) and conclude the proof of part (i).
\(ii) By Lemma \[basicfacts\] (ii), there exists $U\in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ (up to a subsequence). Since $\gamma \in (0,1)$, $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ satisfies the assumptions in Lemma \[compactness\] and therefore $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. With the help of (i), we obtain that for the sequence $v{_{\varepsilon}}:=\varepsilon^{\gamma} u{_{\varepsilon}}$, there exist $V \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that (up to another subsequence) $$v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla V+ \chi \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$ However, using that $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$, we conclude that $V=0$ and the claim is proved.
\(iii) Lemma \[basicfacts\] (ii) implies that there exist $U \in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ and $V\in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$ such that (up to a subsequence) $$u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d),\quad \varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d.$$ Following the same strategy as in Lemma \[compactness\] it can be obtained that $V=DU$.
\(iv) Lemma \[basicfacts\] (ii) implies that there exists $U \in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ (up to a subsequence). Also, using part (iii), for the sequence $v{_{\varepsilon}}:=\varepsilon^{\gamma-1}u{_{\varepsilon}}$, there exists $V\in L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)$ such that (up to another subsequence) $$v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} V, \quad \varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} DV.$$ The fact that $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ implies that $V=0$ and the proof is complete.
\(i) The claim follows directly from Lemmas \[lemma4\] and \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\].
\(ii) Exploiting linearity and boundedness of $P_{\mathsf{inv}}$ and Step 1 in the proof of Lemma \[lemma4\], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}\rightharpoonup P_{\mathsf{inv}}U=U,\quad \overline{{\left\langle {\varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}=P_{\mathsf{inv}}\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\rightharpoonup P_{\mathsf{inv}}\chi={\left\langle {\chi} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ The above, Lemma \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\], and the fact that ${\left\langle {\chi} \right\rangle}=0$ allow us to conclude the proof.
\(iii) Lemma \[lemma4\] implies that $\overline{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}\rightharpoonup u$ and $\overline{\nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}\rightharpoonup \nabla u$ weakly in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Lemma \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\] implies that $\widehat{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}\rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Furthermore, for any $\eta \in L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)$ it holds that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}{\left({\nabla \widehat{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}(x)-\overline{\nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}(x)}\right) }\eta(x)dx \rightarrow 0 \text{ as }\varepsilon\to 0.$$ As a result of this, $\widehat{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}\rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Rellich’s embedding theorem implies that $\widehat{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}} \to U$ strongly in $L^p(Q)$ and using Lemma \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\] we conclude that $\overline{{\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}} \rightarrow U$ strongly in $L^p(Q)$.
\(iv) We have by Jensen’s inequality and boundedness of $\varphi$ $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|{\left\langle {\overline{u}{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x) \varphi(\omega)} \right\rangle}-{\left\langle {\varphi(\omega)} \right\rangle}U(x)|^pdx\leq C {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\overline{u}{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-U(x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}.$$ The right-hand side of the above inequality equals ${\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-U(x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}$ and therefore it vanishes as $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Before presenting the proof of Proposition \[prop1\], we provide an auxiliary lemma providing a nonlinear approximation for $\chi$ in the case $\gamma=0$.
\[lemmaaa\] For $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes
L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\delta>0$, there exists a sequence $g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ such that $$\|g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}\leq \varepsilon C(\delta), \quad
\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0}\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}
\nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}-\chi\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}\leq
\delta.$$
Let $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\delta>0$ be fixed. By density, there exists $V=\sum_{j=1}^{n} \varphi_j \eta_j$ with $\varphi_j \in L^p(\Omega)$, $\eta_j \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $$\|DV-\chi\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}\leq \delta.$$ We define $g_{\varepsilon}:=\varepsilon \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}V$ and remark that $\|g_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}\leq \varepsilon \|V\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$, which follows from the boundedness of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$. This proves the first part.
Note that $\nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)=D\pi{_{\varepsilon}}V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,x)+\varepsilon \nabla^{\varepsilon}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,x)$ and therefore we obtain $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)=\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon}DV(\omega,x)+\varepsilon \overline{\nabla^{\varepsilon}\pi_{\varepsilon}V}(\omega,x)$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&& \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\varepsilon}-\chi\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}\\ & \leq & \|\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}DV-DV \|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}+\|DV-\chi\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} +\varepsilon\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}V\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}. \end{aligned}$$ The first and last terms on the right-hand side above vanish as $\varepsilon\to 0$ and therefore the claim follows (since we can choose $\delta$ arbitrarily small). Indeed, for the first term it is sufficient to note that $DV$ is smooth and has compact support w.r.t. its $x$-variable. Also, the last term vanishes thanks to the boundedness of $\pi{_{\varepsilon}}$ and the boundedness of difference quotients by gradients; specifically (for $i=1,...,d$) $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon^{p}\|\nabla_i^{\varepsilon}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}V\|^p_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d} & \leq C \varepsilon^p {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\Big| \frac{V(\omega,x+\varepsilon e_i)-V(\omega,x)}{\varepsilon}\Big|^p dx} \right\rangle}\\ & \leq C\varepsilon^p \|\nabla V\|^p_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}.\end{aligned}$$
In the following proof we appeal to discrete maximal $L^p$-regularity for the equation $$\lambda u+\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon} u=\nabla^*F+g \quad \text{in }\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}, \quad (\text{for some }F\in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d, g\in L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}))$$ in the form of $${\lambda}^\frac{1}{2}\|u\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}+\|\nabla^{\varepsilon} u\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}\leq C(d,p)\Big(\|F\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}+{\lambda}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|g\|_{L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\Big)$$ which is uniform in $\varepsilon$. For $p=2$ this is a standard a priori estimate. For $1<p<\infty$, in the continuum setting this is a classical result (see e.g. [@krylov2008lectures Chapter 4, Sec. 4, Theorem 2]), and follows from the Calderón-Zygmund estimate $\|\partial_{ij}u\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq C(d,p)\|\triangle u\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}$. The estimate above follows by the same argument from the Calderón-Zygmund estimate for the discrete Laplacian on $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$, for the latter see e.g. [@gloria2015quantification; @ben2017moment].
\(i) Let $2 \gamma <\alpha < 2$. For a given $\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ we define $\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma}\chi:=u{_{\varepsilon}}$ as the unique solution to the following equation in $L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$) $$\varepsilon^{-\alpha} u{_{\varepsilon}}+\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}=\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\varepsilon^{-\gamma} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi \quad \text{in }\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}.$$ The discrete maximal $L^p$-regularity theory implies that $$\varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\| u_{\varepsilon} \|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}+\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d} \leq \varepsilon^{-\gamma} C \|\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}.$$ As a result of this, we have $\| u_{\varepsilon} \|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}\leq \varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\gamma}C\|\chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}$ and therefore $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} 0$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.
We consider the sequence $g_{\delta,\varepsilon}$ from Lemma \[lemmaaa\] corresponding to $\chi$. Note that $w_{\delta,\varepsilon}:=u{_{\varepsilon}}-\varepsilon^{-\gamma}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}$ is the unique solution in $L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)$ to (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$) $$\varepsilon^{-\alpha} w_{\delta,\varepsilon}+\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon} w_{\delta,\varepsilon}=\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\varepsilon^{-\gamma}(\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi-\nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon})-\varepsilon^{-\alpha-\gamma}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\text{ in } \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}.$$ We employ again the discrete maximal $L^p$-regularity theory to obtain $$\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}w_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}\leq C {\left({\varepsilon^{-\gamma} \|\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi- \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}+\varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}-\gamma}\|g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}}\right) }.$$ Multiplication of the above inequality by $\varepsilon^{\gamma}$ yields $$\|\varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}- \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}\leq C {\left({\|\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi- \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}+\varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}}\right) }.$$ As a result of this and with help of the isometry property of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}-\chi\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \\
& \leq & C {\left({\|\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}\chi- \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d}+\varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|g_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)}+\| \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}g_{\delta,\varepsilon}-\chi \|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ Letting first $\varepsilon\to 0$ and then $\delta \to 0$, the right-hand side of the above inequality vanishes using Lemma \[lemmaaa\]. This completes the proof of (i).
\(ii) We consider a sequence $U_{\delta}=\sum_{i=1}^{n(\delta)} \varphi_i^{\delta}\eta_i^{\delta}$ such that $\varphi_{i}^{\delta} \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)$, $\eta_i^{\delta}\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and $$\|U_{\delta}-U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\|\nabla U_{\delta}-\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}\rightarrow 0 \quad \text{as }\delta \to 0.$$ Using the triangle inequality, it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{expression}
\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U-\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \leq \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \\ +\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}-\nabla U_{\delta}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} +\|\nabla U_{\delta}-\nabla U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}.\end{gathered}$$ First, we treat the first term on the right-hand side. For $i=1,...,d$, by the isometry property of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$ and contraction property of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequa1111}
&& \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}^p \nonumber \\ & \leq & {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \Big|\frac{U(\omega,x+\varepsilon e_i)-U_{\delta}(\omega,x+\varepsilon e_i)-U(\omega,x)+U_{\delta}(\omega,x)}{\varepsilon}\Big|^p dx} \right\rangle} \nonumber \\ & \leq & C {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\partial_i U(\omega,x)-\partial_i U_{\delta}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality follows using the fact that for any function $\eta \in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, we have $\eta(x+\varepsilon e_i)-\eta(x)=\varepsilon \int_{0}^1 \partial_i \eta(x+\varepsilon t e_i)dt$ and therefore $\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\frac{\eta(x+\varepsilon e_i)-\eta(x)}{\varepsilon}|^pdx \leq \int_0^1 \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\partial_i \eta(x+\varepsilon t e_i)|^p dx dt = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\partial_i \eta(x)|^p dx$. Second, we compute ($i=1,...,d$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation:841}
&& \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\omega,x) \\ &=&\frac{1}{\varepsilon}{\left({\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon} U_{\delta}(T_{e_i} \omega , x+\varepsilon e_i)- \overline{\pi} {_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(T_{e_i}\omega,x)}\right) }+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}{\left({\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(T_{e_i}\omega,x)-\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\omega,x)}\right) }.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The second part of the right-hand side of the above equality vanishes (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$) by shift invariance of $U_{\delta}$. Further, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}-\partial_i U_{\delta}\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} \\ &\leq & {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\frac{\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon} U_{\delta}(\omega , x+\varepsilon e_i)- \overline{\pi} {_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\omega,x)}{\varepsilon}-\partial_i U_{\delta}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}^{\frac{1}{p}}. \end{aligned}$$ For any $\delta>0$ the last expression converges to 0 as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ since $U_{\delta}$ is smooth in its $x$-variable. Finally, in (\[expression\]) we first let $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ and then $\delta \rightarrow 0$ to conclude the proof.
\(iii) Let $0<\alpha<2\gamma$. For a given $U \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)$ we define $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U:=u{_{\varepsilon}}$ as the unique solution to the following equation in $L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$) $$\varepsilon^{-\alpha}u{_{\varepsilon}}+ \nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}=\varepsilon^{-\alpha}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U \quad \text{in }\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}.$$ The maximal $L^p$-regularity theory and boundedness of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$ imply that $$\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}\leq \varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} C \|U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}.$$ As a result of this and the isometry property of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$, we obtain that $\varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} 0$.
We consider a sequence $U_{\delta}=\sum_{i=1}^{n(\delta)} \varphi_i^{\delta}\eta_i^{\delta}$ such that $\varphi_{i}^{\delta} \in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)$, $\eta_i^{\delta}\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and $$\|U_{\delta}-U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} \rightarrow 0 \text{ as }\delta \to 0.$$ Note that $w_{\delta,\varepsilon}:=u{_{\varepsilon}}-\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}$ is the unique solution in $L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ to (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$) $$\varepsilon^{-\alpha}w_{\delta,\varepsilon}+\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon} w_{\delta,\varepsilon}=\varepsilon^{-\alpha}{\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U-\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}}\right) }-\nabla^{\varepsilon,*}\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta} \quad \text{in }\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}.$$ The maximal $L^p$-regularity theory implies that $$\varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|w_{\delta,\varepsilon}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\leq C {\left({ \varepsilon^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \|\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U- \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta} \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}+\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}}\right) }.$$ We multiply the above inequality by $\varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ and use boundedness of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$, to obtain $$\|u{_{\varepsilon}}- \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\leq C {\left({\|U-U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}}\right) }.$$ Using the above inequality and the isometry property of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \| \mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}- U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} \\ & \leq & C {\left({\|U-U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}+\|\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}-U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)}}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\varepsilon\to 0$, the last two terms on the right-hand side of the above inequality vanish. Indeed, the middle term is bounded by $C \varepsilon^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|\nabla U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}$ (cf. part (ii) (\[inequa1111\])) and the last term vanishes using Lemma \[Propfold\] (iii). Finally, letting $\delta \to 0$ we conclude that $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} U$.
\(iv) We consider a sequence $U_{\delta}=\sum_{i=1}^{n(\delta)} \varphi_i^{\delta} \eta_i^{\delta}$ such that $\varphi_{i}^{\delta} \in L^p(\Omega)$, $\eta_i^{\delta}\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and $$\|U_{\delta}-U\|_{L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} \rightarrow 0 \text{ as }\delta \to 0.$$ We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation:889}
\| \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U - a_{\gamma} DU \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \leq
\| \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}(U-U_{\delta}) \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \\ +\|a_{\gamma} D {\left({U_{\delta} - U}\right) } \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} +\| \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}- a_{\gamma}DU_{\delta} \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}.\end{gathered}$$ The first term on the right-hand side above is bounded by $\varepsilon^{\gamma-1} C \|U-U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$ (using boundedness of all of the appearing operators). We compute, as in (\[equation:841\]) (part (ii)), for $i=1,...,d$ $$\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\omega,x)=\varepsilon^{\gamma-1}{\left({\overline{\pi}_{\varepsilon} U_{\delta}(T_{e_i} \omega , x+\varepsilon e_i)- \overline{\pi} {_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(T_{e_i}\omega,x)}\right) }+ \varepsilon^{\gamma-1} \overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}D_i U_{\delta}(\omega,x).$$ As a result of this, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& & \| \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}- a_{\gamma}D_i U_{\delta} \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} \\ & \leq & \varepsilon^{\gamma} \| \frac{\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\cdot, \cdot+\varepsilon e_i)-\overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}(\cdot, \cdot)}{\varepsilon}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\|\varepsilon^{\gamma-1} \overline{\pi}{_{\varepsilon}}D_i U_{\delta}-a_{\gamma}D_i U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right-hand side above is bounded by $\varepsilon^{\gamma} C \|\nabla U_{\delta}\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}$ and therefore it vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$. The second term vanishes as well in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Collecting the above claims and letting first $\varepsilon\to 0$ and then $\delta\to 0$ in (\[equation:889\]), we conclude the proof.
\(i) and (ii) are obtained directly from Proposition \[prop1\] and Lemma \[Propfold\] (iii).
\(iii) For $\delta>0$ we consider a cut-off function $\eta_{\delta} \in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that $0\leq \eta_{\delta} \leq 1$, $\eta_{\delta}=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^d \setminus O$, $\eta_{\delta}=1$ in $O^{-\delta}:={\left\lbrace {x\in O: dist(x,\partial O)\geq \delta} \right\rbrace}$ and $|\nabla \eta_{\delta}|\leq \frac{C}{\delta}$.
Also, by density we can choose a sequence $U_{\delta}(\omega,x)=\sum_{i=1}^{n(\delta)}\varphi_i^{\delta}(\omega) \xi_i^{\delta}(x)$ such that $\varphi_i^{\delta}\in L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)$ and $\xi_i^{\delta} \in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$, $dist(supp( U_{\delta}),\partial O)\geq \mu(\delta)$ (with $\mu(\delta)\to 0$ as $\delta\to 0$) and $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\delta}\to U \quad \text{strongly in } L^p(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d) \quad \text{as }\delta \to 0.\end{aligned}$$
Let $u_{\varepsilon,\delta}=\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta} +\eta_{\delta} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi$, where $\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}$ denotes the operator given in Proposition \[prop1\]. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{estimate_cor3.3}
\|u_{\varepsilon,\delta} -(\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi)\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}+\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon,\delta}-(\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi))\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d} \\
\leq \| \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}-\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}+ \| {\left({\eta_{\delta}-1}\right) }\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})} + \|\nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U_{\delta}-\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}U}\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d} \\
+ \|\nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left({\eta_{\delta}\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi-\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi}\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d}. \end{gathered}$$ Above on the right-hand side, the first term can be bounded by $\| U_{\delta}- U \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$ (by boundedness of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}$), the second term is bounded by $\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d\setminus O^{-\delta})}$ (using the properties of $\eta_{\delta}$) and the third term is bounded by $C\|\nabla U_{\delta}- \nabla U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}$ (similarly as in (\[inequa1111\])). The last term is treated as follows. We take advantage of the following product rule: For $f,g: \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} \to \mathbb{R}$ it holds that $\nabla^{\varepsilon}_i f(x)g(x)=f(x+\varepsilon e_i)\nabla^{\varepsilon}_ig(x)+g(x)\nabla^{\varepsilon}_i f(x)$. Consequently, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqnarray1.1}
\|\nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left({\eta_{\delta} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi - \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi }\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d} \leq \|{\left({\eta_{\delta}-1}\right) }\nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d} \\ + C \sum_{i=1}^d {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }|\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi(\omega,x+\varepsilon e_i)\nabla^{\varepsilon}_i \eta_{\delta}(x)|^pdm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}^{\frac{1}{p}}.\end{gathered}$$ The first term on the right-hand side of (\[eqnarray1.1\]) is bounded by $\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0}\chi \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d\setminus O^{-\delta})^d}$ and for small enough $\varepsilon$, the second term is bounded by $\frac{C}{\delta}\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$. Note that $$\limsup_{\delta\to 0} \limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0} {\left({\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d\setminus O^{-\delta})^d}+\frac{C}{\delta}\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{0} \chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}}\right) }=0$$ since $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^0 \to 0$ and $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^0 \to \chi$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$ (Proposition \[prop1\] (i)).
Collecting all the above bounds for the inequality (\[estimate\_cor3.3\]), using the isometry property of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}$ and with the help of part (i), we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \limsup_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{\varepsilon \to 0} {\left({ \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon,\delta} - U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon,\delta}- \nabla U-\chi\|_{L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}+g(\varepsilon, \delta)}\right) }\\&=&0,\end{aligned}$$ where $g(\varepsilon, \delta)=\twopartdef{0}{\varepsilon\leq \frac{\mu(\delta)}{C(d)}}{1}{\varepsilon>\frac{\mu(\delta)}{C(d)}}$ and $C(d)$ is the diameter of $\Box$. Hence, there exists a diagonal sequence $u{_{\varepsilon}}:=u_{\varepsilon,\delta(\varepsilon)}$ which satisfies the claim of the corollary.
\(iv) For a given $(U,\chi)\in ( L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))\times (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))$ we set $u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi)=\eta_{\delta(\varepsilon)}{\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }$, where $\eta_{\delta(\varepsilon)}$ is the cut-off function from part (iii) with $\delta(\varepsilon)=\varepsilon^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}$. For notational convenience, we write $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ instead of $u{_{\varepsilon}}(U,\chi)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}- U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}+\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}-\chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \nonumber \\ &\leq & \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}- \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} {\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) } \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)} + \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} {\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) } - U\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}\\ & & +\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d} \\ && +\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon} {\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U +\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }-\chi\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The second and last terms on the right-hand side above vanish as $\varepsilon\to 0$ using the claim of part (ii). The first term is bounded by $ \|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} {\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d\setminus O^{-\delta(\varepsilon)})} $ (cf. part (iii)) and therefore it vanishes as $\varepsilon\to 0$ using the fact that $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} {\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }$ converges strongly (and therefore it is uniformly integrable). For small enough $\varepsilon$, the third term is bounded (up to a constant) by $\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}{\left({\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma} U + \mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) } \|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d\setminus O^{-\delta(\varepsilon)})^d}+\varepsilon^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}\|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} {\left({ \mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}\chi}\right) }\|_{L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)}$ (cf. (\[eqnarray1.1\]) in part (iii)). The last expression vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ using the properties of $\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}U+\mathcal{G}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}\chi$. The proof is complete.
Let $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u{_{\varepsilon}}):={\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega, u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x) } \right\rangle}$.
\(i) Consider a sequence of open sets $A_k\subset \subset O$ which satisfy $A_k \subset A_{k+1}$ and $|O\setminus A_k|\to 0$ as $k \to \infty$. For small enough $\varepsilon$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u{_{\varepsilon}})=& {\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}V(\omega, \widetilde{\mathcal{T}}{_{\varepsilon}}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}\\ = & \sum_{x\in O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} {\left\langle {\int_{x+\varepsilon \Box} V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle} \\ = & {\left\langle {\int_{A_k} V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}+{\left\langle {\int_{L_{\varepsilon,k}} V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ for a suitable small boundary layer set $L_{\varepsilon,k} \subset {\left\lbrace {x: dist(x, O^{+\varepsilon}\setminus A_k)<C_1 \varepsilon} \right\rbrace} $, where $C_1$ is a fixed constant depending only on the dimension $d$. The growth conditions of $V$ yield $$\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\geq {\left\langle {\int_{A_k}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}-C|L_{\varepsilon,k}|.$$ Letting $\varepsilon \to 0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u{_{\varepsilon}}) & \geq \liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}{\left\langle {\int_{A_k} V(\omega, \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}- C |O\setminus A_k| \\ & \geq {\left\langle {\int_{A_k} V(\omega,U(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}-C |O\setminus A_k|.\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality is obtained using the fact that the functional $U\mapsto {\left\langle {\int_{A_k} V(\omega, U)} \right\rangle}$ is weakly lower-semicontinuous (since it is convex and continuous w.r.t. the strong $L^p$-topology). Finally, letting $k\to \infty$ we obtain the claimed result.
\(ii) Similarly as in part (i), we find suitable boundary layer sets $L{_{\varepsilon}}^+$ and $L{_{\varepsilon}}^-$ (with $|L{_{\varepsilon}}^{\pm}|\to 0$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$), such that $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\\ & = &{\left\langle {\int_{O}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}+ {\left\langle {\int_{L{_{\varepsilon}}^+}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dx-\int_{L{_{\varepsilon}}^-}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle} \\ & \leq & {\left\langle {\int_{O}V(\omega,\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))} \right\rangle}+C(|L_{\varepsilon}^+|+|L_{\varepsilon}^-|)+ C{\left\langle {\int_{L_{\varepsilon}^+}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p} \right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where we use the growth conditions of the integrand $V$. The terms in the middle on the right-hand side vanish as $\varepsilon\to 0$, as well as the last term (using strong convergence of $\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}$). As a result of this and using strong continuity of $U \mapsto {\left\langle {\int_{O}V(\omega,U)} \right\rangle}$, we obtain that $\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u{_{\varepsilon}})\leq {\left\langle {\int_O V(\omega,U(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}$. Using part (i), we conclude the proof.
Stochastic homogenization of spring networks {#section:4}
============================================
In this section, we illustrate the capabilities of the stochastic unfolding operator in homogenization of energy driven problems that invoke convex functionals. We treat a multidimensional analogon of the problem presented in the introduction - a network of springs which exhibit either elastic or elasto-plastic response. The material coefficients are assumed to be rapidly oscillating random fields and we derive effective models in the sense of a discrete-to-continuum transition.
In Section \[lattice\_graphs\], we briefly present the setting of periodic lattice graphs and the corresponding differential calculus. If the springs display only elastic behavior and the forces acting on the system do not depend on time, the static equilibrium of the spring network is determined by a convex minimization problem. Accordingly, in Section \[section\_870\] we present homogenization results for convex functionals. On the other hand, in the case of elasto-plastic springs, the evolution of the system is embedded in the framework of evolutionary rate-independent systems (ERIS). A short description of that framework can be found in Appendix \[appendix2\], and for a detailed study we refer to [@mielke2005evolution; @mielke2015rate]. In the limit, as the characteristic size of the springs vanishes, we obtain a homogenized model, which is also described by an ERIS on a continuum physical space (Section \[sectionERIS\] and \[S:gradient\]).
We remark that homogenization results concerning minimization problems in the discrete-to-continuum setting are already well established. Earlier works (e.g. [@alicandro2011integral]) treat more general problems than we do in this paper. Namely, the considered potentials might be nonconvex and if the media are ergodic, previous works feature quenched homogenization results. This means that for almost every configuration, the energy functional $\Gamma$-converges to a homogenized energy functional (cf. Remark \[remark2000\]). In our results for convex minimization problems, we obtain weaker, averaged homogenization results (see Section \[section\_870\]). Despite our results being weaker in a general situation, we would like to point out that our strategy relies only on the simple idea of the unfolding operator; namely the compactness properties of the unfolding (which are closely related to compactness statements in usual $L^p$-spaces) and lower-semicontinuity of convex functionals play a central role in our analysis. On the other hand, previous works are based on more involved techniques, such as the subadditive ergodic theorem [@akcoglu1981ergodic] ([@alicandro2011integral; @neukamm2016stochastic]), or the notion of quenched stochastic two-scale convergence [@heida2017stochastic].
Functions on lattice graphs {#lattice_graphs}
---------------------------
Let $\mathsf{E}_0={\left\lbrace {b_1,...,b_k} \right\rbrace}\in \mathbb{Z}^d\setminus {\left\lbrace {0} \right\rbrace}$ be the *edge generating set* and we assume that $\mathsf{E}_0$ includes ${\left\lbrace {e_i} \right\rbrace}_{i=1,...,d}$. We consider the rescaled periodic lattice graph $(\varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d ,\varepsilon\mathsf{E} )$, where the set of edges is given by $\mathsf{E}={\left\lbrace {[x,x+b_i]:x\in \mathbb{Z}^d, i=1,...,k} \right\rbrace}$. For $u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ the difference quotient along the edge generated by $b_i$ is $$\partial_i^{\varepsilon} u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d, \quad
\partial_i^{\varepsilon} u(x)=\frac{u(x+\varepsilon b_i)-u(x)}{\varepsilon|b_i|}.$$ Note that for each $b_i$ there exists $B_i:\mathbb{Z}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^d$ such that[^4] $$\partial_i^{\varepsilon} u(x)=\sum_{y\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u(x-\varepsilon y)B_i(y),$$ where the discrete gradient $\nabla^{\varepsilon}u$ is defined as in Section \[Physical\_space\]. We define the *discrete symmetrized gradient* as $\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u:\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ $$\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u(x)={\left({\frac{b_1}{|b_1|}\cdot \partial_1^{\varepsilon} u(x),...,\frac{b_k}{|b_k|}\cdot \partial_k^{\varepsilon} u(x)}\right) }.$$ Furthermore, we introduce a suitable symmetrization operator for random fields as follows. For a matrix $F \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, we denote by $F_s\in \mathbb{R}^k$ the vector with entries $(F_s)_i=\frac{b_i}{|b_i|}\cdot F \frac{b_i}{|b_i|}$ ($i=1,...,k$). Analogously, for $F:\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ measurable, we set $ F_s:\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$, $$(F_s)_i(\omega)=\frac{b_i}{|b_i|}\cdot \sum_{y\in\mathbb{Z}^d}F(T_{-y}\omega)B_i(y), \quad (i=1,...,k).$$ If $F=\nabla U$ or $F=DU$, instead of $F_s$ we write $\nabla_s U$ or $D_s U$.
Throughout the paper, we assume that $(\mathbb{Z}^d ,\mathsf{E})$ satisfies a discrete version of Korn’s inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{There exists } & C(d,p)>0 \text{ such that} \text{ for all compactly supported } u:\mathbb{Z}^{d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d \nonumber \\ & \int_{\mathbb{Z}^{d}} |\nabla u(x)|^p dm(x) \leq C(d,p) \int_{\mathbb{Z}^{d}} |\nabla_{s}u(x)|^p dm(x). \tag{Korn}\label{Korn_assumpt} \end{aligned}$$
An example of a lattice satisfying the above Korn’s inequality is ${\left({\mathbb{Z}^d,\mathsf{E}}\right) }$ with $\mathsf{E}_0={\left\lbrace {\sum_{i=1}^d \delta_i e_i: \delta \in {\left\lbrace {0,1} \right\rbrace}^d\setminus 0} \right\rbrace}$.
The assumption (\[Korn\_assumpt\]) implies a continuum version of Korn’s inequality. Namely, let $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be open and bounded, there exists $C(p)>0$ such that $$\label{continuum_korn}
\int_O |\nabla U|^p dx \leq C(p) \int_O|\nabla_s U|^p dx \quad \text{for any } U \in W^{1,p}_0(O).$$ This inequality is obtained applying (\[Korn\_assumpt\]) to $\pi{_{\varepsilon}}u_{\delta}$, where $u_{\delta}$ is a smooth approximation of $u$, and passing to the limits $\varepsilon\to 0$ and $\delta\to 0$ (cf. Lemma \[symmet\] in Section \[section\_1111\]). Note that (\[Korn\_assumpt\]) implies another, stochastic version of Korn’s inequality - see Lemma \[kornstoch\] in Section \[section\_1111\].
Static problem {#section_870}
--------------
As a preparation for the rate-independent evolutionary problem, we first discuss a homogenization procedure for a static convex minimization problem, and then discuss different notions of convergence in the homogenization result. We consider a set of particles with reference positions at $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. It is assumed that the edges $\varepsilon \mathsf{E}$ represent springs with elastic response (cf. the introduction with internal variable $z=0$ and loading $l(t)=l$). The equilibrium state of the system is determined by a minimization problem which (in a slightly more general setting) reads as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{minimum}
\min_{u\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d}\bigg\langle \int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x) \\ -\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}l{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)\cdot u(\omega,x)dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)\bigg\rangle.\end{gathered}$$ We assume the following:
- $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary.
We set $O^{+\varepsilon}=O\cup {\left\lbrace {x \in \mathbb{R}^d: (x,x+\varepsilon b_i)\cap O\neq \emptyset \text{ for some }b_i \in \mathsf{E}_0} \right\rbrace}$.
- $V:\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is jointly measurable (i.e., w.r.t. the product $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^k)$).
- For $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$, $V(\omega,\cdot)$ is convex.
- There exists $C>0$ such that $$\frac{1}{C}|F|^p-C\leq V(\omega,F) \leq C(|F|^p+1),$$ for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$ and all $F\in \mathbb{R}^k$.
In the case that the loading $l{_{\varepsilon}}$ converges in a sufficiently strong sense (see Remark \[remark\_930\]), in order to describe the asymptotic behavior of minimizers in (\[minimum\]), it is sufficient to consider the energy functional $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}:{\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R},$ $$\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u)={\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.$$ As shown below for $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, we derive the effective two-scale functional $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_0:(L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))^d \times(\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R},\\
& \mathcal{E}_0(U,\chi)={\left\langle {\int_{O} V(\omega,\nabla_s U(\omega,x) + \chi_s(\omega,x)) dx} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if we assume that ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic, the effective energy reduces to a single-scale functional $$\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}:W^{1,p}_0(O)^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, \quad \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)=\int_{O} V_{\mathsf{hom}}(\nabla U(x)) dx,$$ where the homogenized energy density $V_{\mathsf{hom}}:\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined by the corrector problem $$\label{problem}
V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F)=\inf_{\chi\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d}{\left\langle { V(\omega, F_s + \chi_s(\omega))} \right\rangle}.$$
\[gammatheorem\] Assume $(A0)$-$(A3)$.
(i) (Compactness) For $u_{\varepsilon}\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d$ with $\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})<\infty$, there exist a subsequence (not relabeled), $U\in (L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))^d$ and $\chi \in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ such that $$\label{c5}
u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d, \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U+\chi \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}.$$
(ii) (Lower bound) Assume that the convergence (\[c5\]) holds for the whole sequence $u_{\varepsilon}$. Then $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\geq \mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi).$$
(iii) (Upper bound) For any $U\in (L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))^d$ and $\chi\in(\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$, there exists a sequence $ u_{\varepsilon}\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightarrow} U \text{ in } L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d, \quad
\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} \nabla U+\chi \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}, \\
& \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})=\mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi).\end{aligned}$$
\[remark\_930\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[gammatheorem\] and if the loadings $l{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^{q}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d$ satisfy $l{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to}l$, where $l\in L^q(\Omega\times O)^d$, the above theorem implies (by a standard argument from $\Gamma$-convergence) that minimizers $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ in (\[minimum\]) satisfy (up to a subsequence) $$u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d \quad \text{and} \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U + \chi \text{ in }L^p(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d},$$ where $(U,\chi)\in (L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))^d \times(\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ is a minimizer of the two-scale functional $\mathcal{I}_{0}: (L^p_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes W^{1,p}_0(O))^d \times(\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R},$ $$\mathcal{I}_{0}(U,\chi)=\mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi)-{\left\langle {\int_O l \cdot U dx} \right\rangle}.$$
In the ergodic case, the limit is deterministic:
\[gamma2\] Assume $(A0)-(A3)$ and that ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic.
(i) (Compactness and lower bound) Let $u_{\varepsilon}\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d$ satisfy $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})<\infty.$$ There exists $U\in W^{1,p}_0(O)^d$ such that, up to a subsequence, $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\langle {u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}\rightarrow U \text{ in } L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d,\quad
{\left\langle {\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup{\nabla U} \text{ in }L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d \times d},\\
& \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)\leq \liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon}). \end{aligned}$$
(ii) (Upper bound) For any $U\in W^{1,p}_0(O)^d$, there exists $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^d)^d$ such that $${\left\langle {u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}\rightarrow U \text{ in } L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d,\quad
{\left\langle {\nabla^{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}\rightharpoonup \nabla U \text{ in }L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d \times d},\quad
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})=\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U).$$
\[remark2000\] In the ergodic case, $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}$ $\Gamma$-converges to the deterministic functional $\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}$. In fact, it is known that for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$ the functional $$\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega, \cdot):u\in L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} )^d\mapsto \int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }V(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega, \nabla^{\varepsilon}_s u{_{\varepsilon}}(x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x) \in \mathbb{R}$$ $\Gamma$-converges to $\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}$. This quenched convergence result can be found, e.g., in [@alicandro2011integral], where even nonconvex integrands are treated. Based on stochastic unfolding, we obtain the weaker “averaged” result of Theorem \[gamma2\] as a corollary of Theorem \[gammatheorem\] and Corollary \[ergodic\]. While our argument is relatively easy, the analysis of the stronger quenched convergence result is based on the subadditive ergodic theorem [@akcoglu1981ergodic] and is more involved. We remark that minimizers $\omega \mapsto u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega)$ of the functionals $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,\cdot)$ present a random field (under the above assumptions), which minimizes the averaged energy $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}$ (and vice versa).
If we, additionally, assume the following assumption, we obtain strong convergence for minimizers.
- For $P$-a.e. $\omega \in \Omega$, $V(\omega,\cdot)$ is uniformly convex with modulus $(\cdot)^p$, i.e., there exists $C>0$ such that for all $F, G\in \mathbb{R}^{k}$ and $t\in [0,1]$ $$\begin{aligned}
V(\omega,tF+(1-t)G)\leq t V(\omega,F)+(1-t) V(\omega,G)-(1-t)tC|F-G|^p.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop41\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[gamma2\] and $(A4)$ hold. Let $l{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^{q}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d$ satisfy $l{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to}l$ in $L^q(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$, where $l\in L^q(O)^d$. The problem (\[minimum\]) admits a unique minimizer $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d$, which satisfies $$\label{eq:additional}
\quad u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} U \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^d)^d,$$ where $U\in W^{1,p}_0(O)^d$ is the unique minimizer of $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathsf{hom}}: W^{1,p}_0(O)^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, \quad
\mathcal{I}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)=\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)-\int_O l \cdot U dx.\end{aligned}$$
\[remark3000\] As mentioned earlier, one knows that $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega, \cdot) \overset{\Gamma}{\to} \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}$ in the quenched sense, whereas we obtain convergence for minimizers in an averaged sense (as above in (\[eq:additional\])). Yet if we consider the setting for periodic homogenization, using the above convergence in the mean, we recover a standard (pointwise) periodic homogenization result. In particular, for $N\in \mathbb{N}$ we set $\Omega=N\Box\cap \mathbb{Z}^d_{/N\mathbb{Z}^d}$ the discrete $N$-torus with a corresponding (rescaled) counting measure. The dynamical system $(T_x)$ is defined as $T_x\omega= \omega+x \mod N$. The above example of the probability space with the dynamical system $(T_x)$ satisfies the assumptions given in Section \[section:297\] and is ergodic. We remark that in this case $\Omega$ is a finite set and therefore (\[eq:additional\]) implies that $u_{\varepsilon}(\omega)\to U$ in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)^d$ for all $\omega\in \Omega$.
Rate-independent evolutionary problem {#sectionERIS}
-------------------------------------
Let us first describe the system we have in mind. A system of particles connected with springs is represented using $(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}, \varepsilon \mathsf{E})$. Namely, $\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}\cap O$ serves as the reference configuration of particles. The edges $\varepsilon \mathsf{E}$ represent springs with elasto-plastic response (cf. the introduction). Upon an external loading $l$, the system evolves according to an ERIS (see Appendix \[appendix2\]). Let $O,O^{+\varepsilon}\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ be open (see below for specific assumptions). The following model is a random and discrete counterpart of the model considered in [@mielke2007two], where the periodic continuum case is treated.
- The state space is $Y{_{\varepsilon}}={\left({L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d \times {\left({L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^k$, and the displacement $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ and the internal variable $z{_{\varepsilon}}$ are merged into a joint variable $y{_{\varepsilon}}={\left({u{_{\varepsilon}}, z{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$. We equip $Y{_{\varepsilon}}$ with the scalar product $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\left\langle {y_1, y_2} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}}\\ &=& {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}u_1(\omega,x)\cdot u_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} +{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_1(\omega,x) : \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} \\ && +{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} z_1(\omega,x)\cdot z_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$
- The total energy functional is $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}:[0,T]\times Y_{\varepsilon} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y_{\varepsilon})=\frac{1}{2} {\left\langle { \mathbb{A}_{\varepsilon}y_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon} } \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}} -{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)(x)\cdot u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle},\\
& {\left\langle { \mathbb{A}_{\varepsilon}y_1,y_2} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}}={\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }A(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)\binom{\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u_1(\omega,x)}{z_1(\omega,x)}\cdot \binom{\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon} u_2(\omega,x)}{z_2(\omega,x)} dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$
- The dissipation potential is $\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}:Y_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow [0,\infty)$, $$\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(y_{\varepsilon})={\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\rho(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega,z_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.$$
We assume the following:
- $O\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary.
We set $O^{+\varepsilon}=O\cup {\left\lbrace {x \in \mathbb{R}^d: (x,x+\varepsilon b_i)\cap O\neq \emptyset \text{ for some }b_i \in \mathsf{E}_0} \right\rbrace}$.
- $A\in L^{\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2k\times 2k}_{sym})$ and it satisfies: there exists $C>0$ such that $A(\omega)F\cdot F\geq C|F|^2$ for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$ and every $F\in \mathbb{R}^{2k}$.
- $\rho:\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^k\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ is jointly measurable (i.e., w.r.t. $\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^k)$) and for $P$-a.e. $\omega$, $\rho(\omega,\cdot)$ is convex and positively homogeneous of order 1, i.e., $\rho(\omega,\alpha F)=\alpha \rho(\omega, F)$ for all $\alpha\geq 0$ and $F\in \mathbb{R}^k$ (we also say *positively 1-homogeneous*).
We consider the ERIS (see Appendix) associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}, \Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ and we denote by $
S_{\varepsilon}(t) := {\left\lbrace {y \in Y{_{\varepsilon}}:\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y)\leq \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}-y) \text{ for all }\widetilde{y}\in Y{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rbrace}
$ the set of stable states corresponding to $(\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}})$ at time $t\in [0,T]$.
\[remark10\] If we assume $(B0)$-$(B2)$, $l\in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$ and $y_{\varepsilon}^0\in S_{\varepsilon}(0)$, using Theorem \[abstract\] we obtain that there exists a unique energetic solution $y_{\varepsilon}\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y_{\varepsilon})$ to the ERIS associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ with $y{_{\varepsilon}}(0)=y{_{\varepsilon}}^0$, i.e., for all $t\in [0,T]$ we have $y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)\in S{_{\varepsilon}}(t)$ and $$\label{enbal1}
\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}(t))+\int_0^t \Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds=\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(0,y{_{\varepsilon}}(0))-\int_0^t {\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}\dot{l}(s)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(s)dm_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}ds,$$ and, moreover, $\|y_{\varepsilon}(t)-y_{\varepsilon}(s)\|_{Y_{\varepsilon}}\leq C|t-s|$ for all $t,s \in [0,T]$.
The passage to the limit model (as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$) is conducted in the setting of evolutionary $\Gamma$-convergence [@mielke2008gamma] and involves a discrete-to-continuum transition. The homogenized model as well is described by an ERIS:
- The state space is given by $Y=H^1_0(O)^d\times L^2(\Omega\times O)^k\times (\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O))^d$ and we denote the state variable by $y={\left({U,Z,\chi}\right) }$.
- The energy functional is $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_{0}:[0,T]\times Y\rightarrow \mathbb{R}, \quad
\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y)=\frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}y,y} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}-\int_{O} l(t)\cdot U dx, \\
& {\left\langle {\mathbb{A}y,y} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}=\int_O{\left\langle {A(\omega)\binom{\nabla_s U(x)+\chi_s(\omega,x)}{Z(\omega,x)}\cdot \binom{\nabla_s U(x)+\chi_s(\omega,x)}{Z(\omega,x)}} \right\rangle}dx.\end{aligned}$$
- The limit dissipation functional is given by $$\Psi_0:Y\rightarrow [0,\infty], \quad
\Psi_0(y)=\int_O {\left\langle {\rho(\omega, Z(\omega,x))} \right\rangle}dx.$$
We consider the set of stable states corresponding to ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{0},\Psi_0}\right) }$ at time $t\in [0,T]$ $
S(t):= {\left\lbrace {y \in Y:\mathcal{E}_0(t,y)\leq \mathcal{E}_0(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi_0(\widetilde{y}-y) \text{ for all }\widetilde{y}\in Y } \right\rbrace}.
$
\[remark\_1030\] If we assume (B0)-(B2), $l\in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$ and $y^0\in S(0)$, then the assumptions of Theorem \[abstract\] are satisfied (see Lemma \[lemm12\]) and therefore there exists a unique energetic solution $y \in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y)$ to the ERIS associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{0},\Psi_0}\right) }$ with $y(0)=y^0$, i.e., for all $t\in [0,T]$ we have $y(t)\in S(t)$ and $$\label{enbal2}
\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y(t))+\int_0^t \Psi_0(\dot{y}(s))ds = \mathcal{E}_{0}(0,y(0))-\int_0^t \int_O \dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s)dx ds,$$ and, moreover, $\|y(t)-y(s)\|_{Y}\leq C|t-s|$ for all $t,s \in [0,T]$.
For notational convenience, we introduce the following abbreviation: For $y_{\varepsilon}\in Y_{\varepsilon}$ and $y\in Y$, $$y_{\varepsilon}\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup} y \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U , \; \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U+\chi \;\text{and } z_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} Z \quad \text{(in the corresp. } L^2 \text{-spaces}\text{)}.$$ Also, we use $\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}$ if the above quantities strongly two-scale converge. The “c" in this shorthand refers to “cross" convergence as in the periodic case. The proof of the following homogenization theorem closely follows the strategy developed in [@mielke2007two] (see also [@attouch1984variational; @mielke2016evolutionary] for general strategies for evolutionary $\Gamma$-convergence for abstract gradient systems). In that paper, the periodic unfolding method is applied to a similar (continuum) problem with periodic coefficients.
\[evgamma\] Assume $(B0)$-$(B2)$, ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic, $l \in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$ and $y_{\varepsilon}^0\in S_{\varepsilon}(0)$ with $$y_{\varepsilon}^0\overset{c2}{\rightarrow} y_0\in Y.$$ Let $y{_{\varepsilon}}\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y{_{\varepsilon}})$ be the unique energetic solution associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ and $y{_{\varepsilon}}(0)=y{_{\varepsilon}}^0$. Then $$y_0\in S(0) \text{ and }
\text{for every }t\in [0,T]: \quad y_{\varepsilon}(t)\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}y(t),$$ where $y\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y)$ is the unique energetic solution associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{0},\Psi_0}\right) }$ and $y(0)=y^0$.
We remark that the above result holds true in the case that ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is not ergodic (with minor changes in the proof) with a modified state space for the continuum model, specifically $Y=(L^2_{\mathsf{inv}}(\Omega)\otimes H^1_0(O))^d \times L^2(\Omega\times O)^k\times (\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O))^d$.
Gradient plasticity {#S:gradient}
-------------------
The limit rate-independent system from the previous section cannot be equivalently recast as a rate-independent system with deterministic properties as in the case of convex minimization (Theorem \[gamma2\]). The reason for this is that the limiting internal variable $Z$ is in general not deterministic. The microscopic problem might be regularized by adding a gradient term of the internal variable $z{_{\varepsilon}}$ and in that way homogenization yields a deterministic limit problem. This strategy was demonstrated in [@hanke2011homogenization], where periodic homogenization of gradient plasticity in the continuum setting is discussed. In the following, we show that the same applies in our stochastic, discrete-to-continuum setting.
Let $\gamma \in (0,1)$. The new microscopic system involves the same dissipation potential $\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}$ as before, as well as the same state space $Y{_{\varepsilon}}$, yet now equipped with the scalar product $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\left\langle {y_1, y_2} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}} \\ & = & {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}u_1(\omega,x)\cdot u_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}+{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_1(\omega,x) : \nabla^{\varepsilon}u_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}\\ & &+ {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} z_1(\omega,x)\cdot z_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}+{\left\langle { \int_{\varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} z_1(\omega,x) :\varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} z_2(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x) } \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ We consider a modified energy functional $\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\varepsilon}:[0,T]\times Y{_{\varepsilon}}\to \mathbb{R} $ $$\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\varepsilon}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}})=\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}})+{\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} G(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}} \omega) \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon} z{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x) : \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon} z{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x) } \right\rangle},$$ where $G: \Omega \to \mathbb{R}^{k\times d}$. We assume the following:
- $G \in L^{\infty}(\Omega,Lin(\mathbb{R}^{k \times d},\mathbb{R}^{k \times d}))$ and it satisfies the following: There exists $C>0$ such that $G(\omega)F_1: F_1\geq C|F_1|^2$ and $G(\omega)F_1:F_2=F_1:G(\omega)F_2$ for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$ and all $F_1,F_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{k\times d}$.
The set of stable states at time $t\in [0,T]$ corresponding to ${\left({\mathcal{E}^{\gamma}_{\varepsilon},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ is denoted by $
S{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t):={\left\lbrace {y \in Y{_{\varepsilon}}:\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t,y)\leq \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}-y) \text{ for all }\widetilde{y}\in Y{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rbrace}.
$
\[remark:1292\] If we assume $(B0)$-$(B3)$, $l\in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$ and $y_{\varepsilon}^0\in S_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma}(0)$, then, using Theorem \[abstract\], there exists a unique energetic solution $y_{\varepsilon}\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y_{\varepsilon})$ to the ERIS associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ with $y{_{\varepsilon}}(0)=y{_{\varepsilon}}^0$, i.e., for all $t\in [0,T]$ we have $y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)\in S{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t)$ and $$\label{enbal3}
\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}(t))+\int_0^t \Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds = \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(0,y{_{\varepsilon}}(0))-\int_0^t {\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}\dot{l}(s)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(s)dm_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}ds,$$ and, moreover, $\|y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)-y{_{\varepsilon}}(s)\|_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}} \leq C|t-s|$ for all $t,s \in [0,T]$.
In the limit $\varepsilon \to 0$, we obtain a deterministic rate-independent system described as follows:
- The state space is $Q=H^1(O)^d \times L^2(O)^k$ and the state variable is denoted by $q=(U,Z)$.
- The energy functional is $\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}:[0,T]\times Q\to \mathbb{R}$ $$\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q)=\int_{O} V_{\mathsf{hom}}(\nabla_s U,Z) dx- \int_{O}l(t)\cdot U dx,$$ where $V_{\mathsf{hom}}$ is given by the corrector problem: For $F_1, F_2\in \mathbb{R}^k$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F_1,F_2)= & \inf_{\chi\in \mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d } {\left\langle {A(\omega)\binom{F_1+\chi_s(\omega)}{F_2}\cdot \binom{ F_1+\chi_s(\omega)}{F_2}} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, it can be shown that $V_{\mathsf{hom}}$ is quadratic: There exists $A_{\mathsf{hom}}\in \mathbb{R}^{2k \times 2k}_{sym}$ positive-definite such that $V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F_1, F_2)=A_{\mathsf{hom}}\binom{F_1}{F_2}\cdot \binom{F_1}{F_2}$ for all $F_1,F_2 \in \mathbb{R}^k$.
- The dissipation potential is given by $\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}: Q \to [0,\infty)$ $$\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}(q)=\int_{O}{\left\langle {\rho(\omega,Z(x))} \right\rangle}dx.$$
The set of stable states at time $t\in [0,T]$ corresponding to the functionals ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}},\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}}\right) }$ is denoted by $
{S}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t)={\left\lbrace {q \in Q:\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q)\leq \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,\widetilde{q})+\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}(\widetilde{q}-q) \text{ for all }\widetilde{q}\in Q} \right\rbrace}.
$
If we assume (B0)-(B3), $l\in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$ and $q^0\in {S}_{\mathsf{hom}}(0)$, then, using Theorem \[abstract\], there exists a unique energetic solution $q \in C^{Lip}([0,T],Q)$ to the ERIS associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}},\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}}\right) }$ with $q(0)=q^0$, i.e., for all $t\in [0,T]$ we have $q(t)\in S_{\mathsf{hom}}(t)$ and $$\label{enbal4}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q(t))+\int_0^t \Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}(\dot{q}(s))ds = \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(0,q(0))-\int_0^t \int_O \dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s)dx ds.$$
\[evgamma4\] Assume $(B0)$-$(B3)$, ${\left\langle {\cdot} \right\rangle}$ is ergodic. Let $l \in C^1([0,T],L^2(O)^d)$, $y_{\varepsilon}^0\in S_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma}(0)$, $q_0\in Q$, $\chi \in (\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O))^d$ satisfy $$y_{\varepsilon}^0\overset{c2}{\rightarrow} (q_0, \chi), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}z{_{\varepsilon}}^0 \overset{2}{\to}0 \text{ in }L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{k\times d},\quad \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(0,q_0)=\mathcal{E}_0(0,(q_0,\chi)).$$ Let $y{_{\varepsilon}}\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y{_{\varepsilon}})$ be the unique energetic solution associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma},\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }$ and $y{_{\varepsilon}}(0)=y{_{\varepsilon}}^0$. Then $q_0\in S_{\mathsf{hom}}(0)$ and for every $t\in [0,T]$, $$u{_{\varepsilon}}(t) \overset{2}{\to}U(t) \text{ in }L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d, \quad z{_{\varepsilon}}(t) \overset{2}{\to} Z(t) \text{ in }L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^{d})^k,$$ where $q=(U,Z)\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Q)$ is the unique energetic solution associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}},\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}}\right) }$ and $q(0)=q_0$.
A close look at the proof of Theorem \[evgamma4\] shows that in addition we have for all $t\in [0,T]$ $$\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(t) \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \nabla U(t)+ \chi(t) \text{ in }L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}, \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}z{_{\varepsilon}}(t) \overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} 0 \text{ in }L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{k\times d},$$ where $\chi(t)\in (\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O))^d$ is uniquely determined by the identity $$\begin{aligned}
&& V_{\mathsf{hom}}(\nabla_s U(t)(x),Z(t)(x))\\ &=& {\left\langle {A(\omega)\binom{\nabla_s U(t)(x)+\chi_s(t)(\omega,x)}{Z(t)(x)}\cdot \binom{\nabla_s U(t)(x)+\chi_s(t)(\omega,x)}{Z(t)(x)}} \right\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ for a.e. $x\in O$.
Proofs {#section_1111}
------
Before presenting the proofs, we consider a couple of auxiliary lemmas.
\[symmet\] We consider $u_{\varepsilon}\in L^{p}(\Omega \times \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d)^d$ and $F\in L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}$ such that $\nabla^{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} F$ in $ L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d \times d} $. Then $$\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} F_s \quad \text{in }L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k.$$ If we have strong two-scale convergence for $\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}$, strong two-scale convergence for $\nabla^{\varepsilon}_s u{_{\varepsilon}}$ follows.
For any $i\in {\left\lbrace {1,...,k} \right\rbrace}$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} (\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}})_i(\omega,x)&=\frac{b_i}{|b_i|}\cdot \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \sum_{y\in \mathbb{Z}^d} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x-\varepsilon y)B_i(y)\\&=\frac{b_i}{|b_i|}\cdot \sum_{y\in \mathbb{Z}^d} \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(T_{-y}\omega,x-\varepsilon y)B_i(y).\end{aligned}$$ For any fixed $y\in \mathbb{Z}^d$, the function $(\omega,x)\mapsto\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}(T_{-y}\omega,x-\varepsilon y)B_i(y)$ weakly converges to $(\omega,x)\mapsto F(T_{-y}\omega,x)B_i(y)$. If we assume strong two-scale convergence for the gradient, the previous quantities converge in the strong sense. Using this and the fact that $B_i(y)=0$ for all but finitely many $y\in \mathbb{Z}^d$, the claim follows.
\[kornstoch\] Recall that it is assumed that $(\mathbb{Z}^d, \mathsf{E})$ satisfies (\[Korn\_assumpt\]) (see Section \[lattice\_graphs\]). There exists $C>0$ such that $${\left\langle {|\chi|^p} \right\rangle}\leq C {\left\langle {|\chi_s|^p} \right\rangle} \quad \text{for all }\chi \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d.$$
We show the inequality in the case $\chi=D\varphi$ for $\varphi\in L^p(\Omega)^d$. For general $\chi\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d$, it is obtained by an approximation argument. We denote by $\widetilde{\varphi}: \Omega\times \mathbb{Z}^d\to \mathbb{R}^{d}$ the stationary extension of $\varphi$, i.e., $\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)=\varphi(T_x \omega)$. In this proof we consider the operators $\nabla^{\varepsilon}$ and $\nabla^{\varepsilon}_s$ with $\varepsilon=1$ and for notational convenience we drop the index $\varepsilon$ and simply write $\nabla$ and $\nabla_s$.
Let $R>0$ and $K>0$ such that $K>\sup{\left\lbrace {|b_i|:b_i \in \mathsf{E}_0} \right\rbrace}$. Let $\eta_{R}$ be a cut-off function given by $\eta_{R}: \mathbb{Z}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with $\eta_R=1$ in $B_{R+K}\cap\mathbb{Z}^d$ and with $\eta_{R}=0$ otherwise ($B_R\subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a ball of radius $R$ with center in 0). Using the properties of $\eta_{R}$ and the discrete Korn’s inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\left\langle {\dashint_{B_R \cap \mathbb{Z}^d}|{D\varphi}(T_x \omega)|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle} \\ &\leq & {\left\langle {\frac{1}{|B_R|}\int_{\mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)\eta_R(x))|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle} \\ & \leq & {\left\langle {\frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{\mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla_{s}(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)\eta_{R}(x))|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle}\\ & =& {\left\langle {C\dashint_{B_R\cap \mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla_{s}(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x))|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle}\\ && +{\left\langle {\frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{(B_{R+2K}\setminus B_R)\cap \mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla_{s}(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)\eta_{R}(x))|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ By invariance of $P$ the left-hand side of the above inequality equals ${\left\langle {|D\varphi|^p} \right\rangle}$ for any $R$. Moreover, the first term on the right-hand side equals $C{\left\langle {| D_s \varphi|^p} \right\rangle}$. Therefore, it is sufficient to show that the second term vanishes in the limit $R\rightarrow \infty$. To obtain that, we estimate (for $P$-a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation_1092}
&& \frac{1}{|B_R|}\int_{(B_{R+2K}\setminus B_R)\cap \mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla_{s}(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)\eta_R(x))|^p dm(x) \\ & \leq & \frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{(B_{R+2K}\setminus B_{R-K})\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p|\eta_R(x)|^p dm(x) \nonumber \\ & \leq & \frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{(B_{R+2K}\setminus B_{R-K})\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p dm(x) \nonumber \\ & = & \frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{B_{R+2K}\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p dm(x) -\frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{B_{R-K}\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p dm(x)\nonumber \\ & = &
\frac{C|B_{R+2K}|}{|B_R|}\dashint_{B_{R+2K}\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p dm(x) -\frac{C|B_{R-K}|}{|B_R|}\dashint_{B_{R-K}\cap \mathbb{Z}^d} |\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)|^p dm(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In the first inequality above, we used the fact that $\nabla_s: L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d\to L^p(\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^k$ is a bounded operator. An integration of (\[equation\_1092\]) over $\Omega$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\left\langle {\frac{C}{|B_R|}\int_{(B_{R+2K}\setminus B_R)\cap \mathbb{Z}^d}|\nabla_{s}(\widetilde{\varphi}(\omega,x)\eta_{R}(x))|^p dm(x)} \right\rangle}\\ &\leq & {\left\langle {|\varphi|^p} \right\rangle} {\left({\frac{C|B_{R+2K}|}{|B_R|}- \frac{C|B_{R-K}|}{|B_R|}}\right) } {\to} 0 \quad \text{as }R\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof.
The above result and the direct method of calculus of variations imply the following.
\[corector\] For any $F\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$, there exists $\chi\in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d$ which attains the infimum in (\[problem\]) in Section \[section\_870\].
\(i) The growth conditions of $V$, the Korn property of the lattice and a discrete Poincaré inequality imply $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\left\langle \int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} |u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p+|\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}(\omega,x)|^p dm_{\varepsilon}(x) \right\rangle<\infty.$$ Therefore, the claim follows by Proposition \[comp3\] (i) and Corollary \[cor111\].
\(ii) The claim directly follows from Lemma \[symmet\] and Proposition \[pro67\] (i).
\(iii) The claim follows from Corollary \[rem5\] (iii), Lemma \[symmet\] and Proposition \[pro67\] (ii).
\(i) By Theorem \[gammatheorem\] there exist $U\in W^{1,p}_0(O)^d$, $\chi\in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$, and a two-scale convergent subsequence such that $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})\geq \mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi)\geq \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U).$$ The corresponding convergence for $u{_{\varepsilon}}$ follows from Corollary \[ergodic\] and Lemma \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\].
\(ii) It is sufficient to show that for $U\in W^{1,p}_0(O)$, there exists $\chi\in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ such that $$\mathcal{E}_0(U,\chi)=\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U).$$ Indeed, if this holds, Theorem \[gammatheorem\] (iii) implies that there is a $u{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& u_{\varepsilon} \overset{2}{\rightarrow} U \text{ in } L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d, \quad
\nabla^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow} \nabla U+\chi \text{ in } L^{p}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d},\\
& \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u_{\varepsilon})=\mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi)=\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding convergence for ${\left\langle {u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}$ and ${\left\langle {\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}$ follows from Corollary \[ergodic\] and Lemma \[lemma\_equivalent\_conv\].
To show the above claim, we note that $\nabla U \in L^p(O)^{d\times d}$ and consider a sequence of piecewise constant functions $F_n(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{k(n)} \mathbf{1}_{O_i^n}(x) F_i^{n}$ where $F_i^n \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ and such that $$F_n \to \nabla U \text{ strongly in } L^p(O)^{d\times d}.$$ For any $F_i^n$, there is $\chi_i^n \in \mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)^d$ such that $V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F_i^n)={\left\langle {V(\omega,(F_i^n)_s+(\chi_i^n)_s(\omega))} \right\rangle}$. We define $\chi_n(x,\omega)=\sum_{i=1}^{k(n)}\mathbf{1}_{O_i^n}(x)\chi_i^n(\omega)$. Noting that $\chi_n\in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ and with the help of the growth assumptions (A3) and the stochastic Korn’s inequality (Lemma \[kornstoch\]), we obtain $$\limsup_{n\to \infty} {\left\langle {\int_O |\chi_n(x,\omega)|^p dx} \right\rangle}< \infty.$$ As a result of this, there exist a subsequence $n'$ and $\chi \in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ such that $$\chi_{n'} \rightharpoonup \chi \text{ weakly in } (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d.$$ Furthermore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle { \int_O V(\omega, \nabla_s U(x)+ \chi_s(\omega,x)) dx} \right\rangle} & \leq \liminf_{n'\to \infty } \int_O {\left\langle { V(\omega, (F_{n'})_s(x)+(\chi_{n'})_s(\omega,x))} \right\rangle}dx \\
& = \liminf_{n'\to \infty} \int_O V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F_{n'}(x))dx= \int_O V_{\mathsf{hom}}(\nabla U(x))dx.\end{aligned}$$ Above, in the first inequality we use weak lower-semicontinuity of the functional $G\in L^p(\Omega \times O)^{d\times d}\mapsto {\left\langle {\int_O V(\omega, G(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}$ and the facts that $F_{n'}\to \nabla U$, $\chi_{n'}\rightharpoonup \chi$ and that $(\cdot)_s$ is a linear and bounded operator. In order to justify the last equality, we remark that $V_{\mathsf{hom}}$ is convex (and therefore continuous) and satisfies the growth assumptions $-C-C|F|^p \leq V_{\mathsf{hom}}(F)\leq C|F|^p+C$ which implies that the functional $G\in L^p(O)^{d\times d}\mapsto \int_O V_{\mathsf{hom}}(G(x))dx$ is strongly continuous.
On the other hand, it is easy to see that $$\int_O V_{\mathsf{hom}}(\nabla U(x))dx\leq {\left\langle {\int_O V(\omega, \nabla_s U(x)+ \chi_s(\omega,x))dx} \right\rangle}.$$ This concludes the proof.
The uniqueness of the minimizer in (\[minimum\]) follows by uniform convexity assumption on the integrand $V$. Theorem \[gamma2\] implies that (up to a subsequence) $u{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} U$ in $L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d$, where $U$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{I}_{\mathsf{hom}}$. As in the proof of Theorem \[gamma2\], we find $\chi \in (\mathbf{L}^p_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^p(O))^d$ with $\mathcal{I}_{\mathsf{hom}}(U)=\mathcal{E}_{0}(U,\chi)-\int_O l\cdot U dx$. By Theorem \[gammatheorem\], there exists a strong two-scale recovery sequence $v{_{\varepsilon}}\in {\left({L^p(\Omega)\otimes L^p_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^d$ for $(U,\chi)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x) -U(x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}\\ & \leq & C {\left({{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle} +{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-U(x)|^p dx} \right\rangle}}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ The second term on the right-hand side vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ by the properties of $v{_{\varepsilon}}$. The first term also vanishes as $\varepsilon\to 0$ and this follows by a standard argument using strong convexity: By the isometry property of $\mathcal T{_{\varepsilon}}$, a discrete Poincar[é]{}-Korn inequality following from (\[Korn\_assumpt\]), the strong convexity $(A4)$, and since $\nabla_s^{\varepsilon}u_{\varepsilon}$ and $\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}v_{\varepsilon}$ are supported in $O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d$, $$\label{equation:1111}
\begin{aligned}
&{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle} \leq C {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}|\nabla^{\varepsilon}_s u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)- \nabla^{\varepsilon}_s v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)|^p dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}\\
& \leq C {\left({ \frac{1}{2}\big(\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon}) + \mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(v{_{\varepsilon}})\big) - \mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}{\left({\frac{1}{2}u{_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{2}v_{\varepsilon}}\right) } }\right) }.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $u_{\varepsilon}$ solves (\[minimum\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}{\left({\frac{1}{2}u_{\varepsilon}+\frac{1}{2}v{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) } \leq -\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})+ {\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^d}l_{\varepsilon}\cdot u_{\varepsilon}} \right\rangle}- {\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d}l_{\varepsilon}\cdot {\left({\frac{1}{2}u{_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{2}v{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }} \right\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ and thus with (\[equation:1111\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle} \leq C {\left({ \frac{1}{2}\big(\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(v{_{\varepsilon}}) -\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(u{_{\varepsilon}})\big) +\frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d}l{_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\left({u{_{\varepsilon}}- v{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }} \right\rangle} }\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ The last term on the right-hand side vanishes as $\varepsilon\to 0$ (using strong two-scale convergence of $l{_{\varepsilon}}$). Similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[gamma2\], it follows that $\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0}(\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(v{_{\varepsilon}})-\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(u{_{\varepsilon}}))\leq 0$ and therefore $\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0}{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)-\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} v{_{\varepsilon}}(\omega,x)|^p dx} \right\rangle} \leq 0$. This yields the claim for a subsequence. Convergence for the whole sequence follows by a contradiction argument and using the uniqueness of the minimizer $U$.
\[lemm12\] Let $\mathbb{A}$ and $Y$ be defined as in Section \[sectionERIS\] (with the same assumptions as in Remark \[remark\_1030\]). There exists $C>0$ such that ${\left\langle {\mathbb{A}y,y} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}\geq C \|y\|^2_{Y}$ for all $y\in Y$.
First, we have ${\left\langle {\mathbb{A}y,y} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}\geq C {\left\langle {\int_O |\nabla_s U(\omega,x)+\chi_s(\omega,x)|^2+|Z(\omega,x)|^2} \right\rangle}$. Note that, $\nabla U $ does not depend on $\omega$ and therefore $\int_O{\left\langle {\nabla_s U(x)\cdot \chi_s(\omega,x)} \right\rangle}dx=0$. This implies $${\left\langle {\int_O |\nabla_s U(x)+\chi_s(\omega,x)|^2 dx} \right\rangle}=\int_O|\nabla_s U(x)|^2dx+\int_O{\left\langle {|\chi_s(\omega,x)|^2 } \right\rangle}dx.$$ Using the continuum Korn’s inequality (\[continuum\_korn\]) (Section \[lattice\_graphs\]) and the stochastic Korn’s inequality (Lemma \[kornstoch\]), we conclude the proof.
Before proving Theorem \[evgamma\], we prove as an auxiliary result, the existence of joint recovery sequences, which implies the stability of two-scale limits of solutions.
\[stab111\] Let $t\in [0,T]$ and $y_{\varepsilon}\in S_{\varepsilon}(t)$ such that $y_{\varepsilon}\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup}y\in Y$. For any $\widetilde{y}\in Y$ there exists $\widetilde{y}_{\varepsilon}\in Y_{\varepsilon}$ such that $\widetilde{y_{\varepsilon}}\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup}{\widetilde{y}}$ and $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\lbrace {\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,\widetilde{y}_{\varepsilon})+\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}_{\varepsilon}-y_{\varepsilon})-\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y_{\varepsilon})} \right\rbrace}= \mathcal{E}_{0}(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi_0(\widetilde{y}-y)-\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y).$$ This implies $y\in S(t)$.
Corollary \[rem5\] (i) implies that there exists a sequence $v_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d$ with $$v_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow}\widetilde U-U \text{ in } L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d,\quad
\nabla^{\varepsilon}v_{\varepsilon}\overset{2}{\rightarrow}\nabla\widetilde{U}-\nabla U+ \widetilde{\chi}-\chi
\text{ in }L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}.$$ The sequence $g{_{\varepsilon}}\in {\left({L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})}\right) }^k$, given by $g{_{\varepsilon}}=\mathbf{1}_{O^{+\varepsilon}}\mathcal{F}{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{Z}-Z)$, satisfies $$g{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} \widetilde{Z}-Z \quad \text{in }L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k.$$ We define $\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}$ componentwise: $\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}=u{_{\varepsilon}}+v{_{\varepsilon}}$ and $ \widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}=z{_{\varepsilon}}+ g{_{\varepsilon}}.$ By weak two-scale convergence of $y{_{\varepsilon}}$, we have that $\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup} \widetilde{y}$, and furthermore $\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}-y{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}\widetilde{y}-y$.
The energy functional is quadratic and thus it satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quadr}
&& \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t, \widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}})-\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}) \\ & = & \frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\int_{O^{+\varepsilon}\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} A(T_{\frac{x}{\varepsilon}}\omega)\binom{\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}-u{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}{(\widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}-z{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}\cdot \binom{\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}+u{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}{(\widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}+z{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} \nonumber\\ & & -{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)(x) \cdot (\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}-u{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x) dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We rewrite the first term on the right-hand side as $$\frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A(\omega)\binom{\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}-u{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}{\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}-z{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}\cdot \binom{\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\nabla_{s}^{\varepsilon}(\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}+u{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}{\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}+z{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)}dx} \right\rangle}.$$ This expression is a scalar product of strongly and weakly convergent sequences (see Lemma \[symmet\]), and therefore it converges to (as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} A(\omega) \binom{\nabla_s \widetilde{U}_s-\nabla_s U+\widetilde{\chi}_s-\chi_s}{\widetilde{Z}-Z}\cdot \binom{\nabla_s \widetilde{U}+\nabla_s U+\widetilde{\chi}_s+\chi_s}{\widetilde{Z}+Z}dx} \right\rangle}\\ & = & \frac{1}{2}{\left({{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}\widetilde{y},\widetilde{y}} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}-{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}y,y} \right\rangle}_{Y^*,Y}}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ The second term on the right-hand side of (\[quadr\]) converges to $-{\left\langle {\int_{O}l(t)\cdot (\widetilde{U}-U)} \right\rangle}$. Furthermore, by Jensen’s inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}-y{_{\varepsilon}}) & \leq {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }\rho(\omega,\pi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{Z}-Z)(\omega,x))dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} \\ & \leq {\left\langle {\int_{\varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }\dashint_{x+\varepsilon \Box}\rho(\omega,\widetilde{Z}(\omega,y)-Z(\omega,y))dy dm{_{\varepsilon}}(x)} \right\rangle}\\ & =\Psi_0(\widetilde{y}-y).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, using Fatou’s lemma and the fact that $\rho(\omega,\cdot)$ is continuous, we obtain $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}-y{_{\varepsilon}})\geq \Psi_0(\widetilde{y}-y).$$ This concludes the proof.
Step 1. Compactness and stability. We consider the sequence $v_{\varepsilon}:=(\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\nabla^{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}z{_{\varepsilon}}):[0,T]\rightarrow L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^d\times L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}\times L^{2}(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k =:H$. By Remark \[remark10\], $v_{\varepsilon}$ is uniformly bounded in $C^{Lip}([0,T],H)$. Therefore, the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem implies that there exist $v\in C^{Lip}([0,T],H)$ and a subsequence (not relabeled), such that for every $t\in[0,T]$ $$v_{\varepsilon}(t)\rightharpoonup v(t) \text{ weakly in }H.$$ Moreover, by boundedness of $y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)$ and the above, we conclude that for every $t\in [0,T]$, $v(t)=(U(t), \nabla U(t)+\chi(t),Z(t))$, for some $y(t)=(U(t),Z(t),\chi(t))\in Y$. Here we use the fact that if $z{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^2(\Omega)\otimes L^2_0(O{_{\varepsilon}}^+\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^k$ converges in the weak two-scale sense, then, similarly as in Corollary \[cor111\], the limit may be identified with an $L^2(\Omega\times O)^k$ function. In other words, we have $y_{\varepsilon}(t)\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup}y(t)$. Lemma \[stab111\] implies that $y(t)\in S(t)$ for every $t\in [0,T]$.
Step 2. Energy balance. We pass to the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ in (\[enbal1\]) and show that $y(t)$ satisfies $$\label{ebcont}
\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y(t))+\int_0^t \Psi_0(\dot{y}(s))ds\leq \mathcal{E}_{0}(0,y(0))-\int_0^t \int_O \dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s) dx ds.$$ The (EB) equality of the discrete system (\[enbal1\]) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disc}
& \frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}{_{\varepsilon}}y{_{\varepsilon}}(t),y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}}-{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)(x)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(t)(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}+\int_{0}^t \Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds \\ = & \frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}{_{\varepsilon}}y{_{\varepsilon}}(0),y{_{\varepsilon}}(0)} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}}-{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d} }\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(0)(x)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(0)(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle} \nonumber \\ & -\int_0^t {\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}\dot{l}(s)(x)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(s)(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}ds.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The strong convergence of the initial data implies that the first two terms on the right-hand side converge to $\mathcal{E}(0,y(0))$. The remaining term on the right-hand side converges to $-\int_0^t \int_O \dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s) dx ds$ by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem. Moreover, using Proposition \[pro67\] and the strong convergence of $\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}{\left({\frac{1}{2}{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}{_{\varepsilon}}y{_{\varepsilon}}(t),y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}}-{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}}\pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)(x)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(t)(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}}\right) } \\&\geq & \mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y(t)).\end{aligned}$$ To treat the last term on the left-hand side of (\[disc\]), we consider a partition ${\left\lbrace {t_i} \right\rbrace}$ of $[0,t]$. We have $$\sum_i \Psi_0(y(t_{i})-y(t_{{i-1}}))\leq \liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \sum_i \Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(y{_{\varepsilon}}(t_{i})-y{_{\varepsilon}}(t_{{i-1}})).$$ Taking the supremum over all partitions ${\left\lbrace {t_i} \right\rbrace}$ of $[0,t]$ and exploiting the homogeneity of $\Psi_0$, we obtain $$\label{dissipation10}
\int_{0}^t \Psi_0(\dot{y}(s))dt\leq \liminf_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}\int_{0}^t\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds.$$ This proves (\[ebcont\]). The other inequality in the (EB) equality of the limit system can be shown using the stability of $y$ (see [@mielke2005evolution Section 2.3.1]) and therefore we conclude that $y$ satisfies (\[enbal2\]). Moreover, using this equality and the fact that the right-hand side of (\[disc\]) converges to $\mathcal{E}_0(0,y(0))-\int_{0}^t\int_{O}\dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s) dx ds$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{useful:equation}
&& \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} {\left({\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}(t))+\int_{0}^{T}\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds}\right) }\\ &=& \lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}{\left({\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}(0,y{_{\varepsilon}}(0))-\int_{0}^t{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^d} \pi{_{\varepsilon}}\dot{l}(s)\cdot u{_{\varepsilon}}(s)dm{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}}\right) }ds \nonumber\\ & = & \mathcal{E}_0(0,y(0))-\int_{0}^t\int_{O}\dot{l}(s)\cdot U(s) dx ds = \mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y(t))+\int_0^t \Psi_0(\dot{y}(s))ds. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Step 3. Strong convergence. To obtain strong two-scale convergence, we construct a strong recovery sequence $\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(t)\in Y{_{\varepsilon}}$ for $y(t)\in Y$ (for every $t\in [0,T]$) in the sense that $$\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(t)\overset{c2}{\rightarrow}y(t),$$ (cf. the proof of Lemma \[stab111\]). For notational convenience, we drop the “t" from the sequences and we denote $v{_{\varepsilon}}{}:=(\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}u{_{\varepsilon}}{},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}{},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}z{_{\varepsilon}}{})$, $\widetilde{v}{_{\varepsilon}}{}:=(\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}{},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\nabla^{\varepsilon}\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}{},\mathcal{T}{_{\varepsilon}}\widetilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}{})$ and $V{}:=(U{},\nabla U{}+\chi{},Z{})$. By the triangle inequality, $$\label{inequality123}
\|v{_{\varepsilon}}{} - V{}\|_H \leq \|v{_{\varepsilon}}{} - \widetilde{v}{_{\varepsilon}}{} \|_H+\|\widetilde{v}{_{\varepsilon}}{} - V{}\|_H.$$ The second term on the right-hand side vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Also, since the energy is quadratic, $$\begin{gathered}
\|v{_{\varepsilon}}{} - \widetilde{v}{_{\varepsilon}}{}\|^2_H \leq C \bigg( \mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}{})-\mathcal{E}(t,\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}{})+{\left\langle {\mathbb{A}{_{\varepsilon}}\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}},\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}-y{_{\varepsilon}}} \right\rangle}_{Y{_{\varepsilon}}^*,Y{_{\varepsilon}}}\\+{\left\langle {\int_{O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d}} \pi{_{\varepsilon}}l(t)(x) \cdot (u{_{\varepsilon}}-\widetilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}})(\omega,x)dm_{\varepsilon}(x)} \right\rangle}\bigg).\end{gathered}$$ The last two terms on the right-hand side vanish as $\varepsilon\to 0$ (cf. the proof of Lemma \[stab111\]). The first two terms are treated as follows. As a result of (\[useful:equation\]), we obtain that $\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}})+\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{0}^{T}\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\dot{y}{_{\varepsilon}}(s))ds=\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y)+\int_{0}^t \Psi_0(\dot{y}(s))ds$ and using (\[dissipation10\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}(\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}})-\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,\widetilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}))\leq \limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}})-\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,y)\leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the first two terms on the right-hand side of (\[inequality123\]) vanish in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ and therefore the claim about strong convergence follows.
To show that the convergence holds for the whole sequence, for a fixed $t\in [0,T]$, we consider $e{_{\varepsilon}}(t):=\|v{_{\varepsilon}}(t)-V(t)\|_H$. For any subsequence $\varepsilon'$ of $\varepsilon$, we can find a further subsequence $\varepsilon''$ such that $e_{\varepsilon''}(t)\rightarrow 0$ by the uniqueness of the solution $y$. From this follows that the whole sequence converges in the sense given in the statement of the theorem.
The proof of Theorem \[evgamma4\] follows the same strategy and it is very similar to the proof of Theorem \[evgamma\]. Therefore, we only sketch the proof, emphasizing the differences from the prior setting.
Step 1. Compactness. We consider the following sequence $v{_{\varepsilon}}:={\left({\mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} u{_{\varepsilon}}, \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \nabla^{\varepsilon}u{_{\varepsilon}}, \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} z{_{\varepsilon}}, \mathcal{T}_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon^{\gamma} \nabla^{\varepsilon}z{_{\varepsilon}}}\right) }:[0,T]\to L^2(\Omega \times \mathbb{R}^d)^d \times L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{d\times d}\times L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^k\times L^2(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^d)^{k\times d}=:H$. With help of Remark \[remark:1292\] and Corollary \[cor111\], analogously as in the proof of Theorem \[evgamma\], we obtain that (up to a subsequence) for every $t\in [0,T]$ $$y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)\overset{c2}{\rightharpoonup} (q(t),\chi_1(t)), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}z{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\rightharpoonup} \chi_2(t) \text{ in }L^p(\Omega\times \mathbb{R}^{k\times d}),$$ where $q(t)\in Q$, $\chi_1(t) \in {\left({\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O)}\right) }^d$ and $\chi_2(t) \in {\left({\mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\otimes L^2(O)}\right) }^k$.
Step 2. Stability. We fix $t\in [0,T]$. For an arbitrary $\tilde{q}\in Q$, similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[gamma2\] (ii), we can find $\tilde{\chi} \in{\left({ \mathbf{L}^2_{\mathsf{pot}}(\Omega)\times L^2(O)}\right) }^d$ such that $$\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,\tilde{q})=\mathcal{E}_0(t,(\tilde{q},\tilde{\chi})).$$ Corollary \[rem5\] (iii) implies that for ${\left({\tilde{U}-U(t),\tilde{\chi}-\chi_1(t)}\right) }$ there exists a sequence $v{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^2(\Omega)\times L^2_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^d $ such that $$v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} \tilde{U}-U(t), \quad \nabla^{\varepsilon}v{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} \nabla \tilde{U}-\nabla U(t)+\tilde{\chi}-\chi_1(t).$$ Furthermore, Corollary \[rem5\] (iv) implies that for $(\tilde{Z}-Z(t), -\chi_2(t))$, there exists a sequence $g{_{\varepsilon}}\in L^2(\Omega)\times L^2_0(O\cap \varepsilon\mathbb{Z}^{d})^k $ such that $$g{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} \tilde{Z}-Z(t), \quad \varepsilon^{\gamma}\nabla^{\varepsilon}g{_{\varepsilon}}\overset{2}{\to} -\chi_2(t).$$ We define $\tilde{y}{_{\varepsilon}}$ componentwise: $\tilde{u}{_{\varepsilon}}=u{_{\varepsilon}}+v{_{\varepsilon}}$ and $\tilde{z}{_{\varepsilon}}=z{_{\varepsilon}}+g{_{\varepsilon}}$. Following the steps in the proof of Lemma \[stab111\] (with the new energy $\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\left\lbrace {\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t,\widetilde{y}_{\varepsilon})+\Psi{_{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{y}_{\varepsilon}-y_{\varepsilon})-\mathcal{E}{_{\varepsilon}}^{\gamma}(t,y_{\varepsilon})} \right\rbrace} \\ & = & \mathcal{E}_{0}(t,(\tilde{q},\tilde{\chi}))+\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}(\widetilde{q}-q(t))-\mathcal{E}_{0}(t,(q(t),\chi_1(t)))\\ && -\int_{O}{\left\langle {G(\omega)\chi_2(t)(\omega,x)\cdot \chi_2(t)(\omega,x)} \right\rangle}dx\\
& \leq & \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,\tilde{q})+\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}(\tilde{q}-q(t))-\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q(t)).\end{aligned}$$ As a result of this, we obtain $q(t)\in S_{\mathsf{hom}}(t)$. Another important fact following from this inequality is obtained by setting $\tilde{q}=q(t)$ and using positive 1-homogeneity of $\Psi_{\mathsf{hom}}$, $$\mathcal{E}_0(t,(q(t),\chi_1(t)))+\int_{O}{\left\langle {G(\omega)\chi_2(t)(\omega,x)\cdot \chi_2(t)(\omega,x)} \right\rangle}dx \leq \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q(t)).$$ As a result of this, we conclude that $\chi_1(t)$ is the corrector corresponding to $q(t)$, i.e., $$\label{equation:1653}
\mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q(t))=\mathcal{E}_0(t,(q(t),\chi_1(t)))$$ and, moreover, we obtain that $\chi_2=0$.
Step 3. Energy balance. The energy balance equality is obtained in the same manner as in the proof of Theorem \[evgamma\] by using the assumptions on the initial data and using that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{\varepsilon\to 0}\mathcal{E}_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma}(t,y{_{\varepsilon}}(t)) & \geq \mathcal{E}_0(t,(q(t),\chi_1(t)))+\int_{O}{\left\langle {G(\omega)\chi_2(\omega,x):\chi_2(\omega,x)} \right\rangle}dx\\ & = \mathcal{E}_{\mathsf{hom}}(t,q(t)),\end{aligned}$$ which is obtained with the help of Proposition \[pro67\] (i).
Step 4. Strong convergence. This part of the proof is obtained in the same way as strong convergence in the proof of Theorem \[evgamma\]. We remark that the recovery sequence to be used relies on the construction from Proposition \[rem5\] for $(U(t),\chi_1(t))$ (for the “$u{_{\varepsilon}}$”-variable) and for $(Z(t),0)$ (for the “$z{_{\varepsilon}}$”-variable). Also, the observation (\[equation:1653\]) is useful in this part. Convergence for the whole sequence is obtained as before by a contradiction argument.
Abstract evolutionary rate-independent systems {#appendix2}
==============================================
We consider evolutionary rate-independent systems in the global energetic setting. For a detailed study, we refer the reader to [@mielke2005evolution; @mielke2015rate]. We consider the Hilbert space case and equations involving quadratic energy functionals. The main ingredients of the theory are:
- state space: $Y$ Hilbert space (dual $Y^*$);
- external force: $l\in C^1([0,T],Y^*)$;
- energy functional: $\mathcal{E}(t,y)=\frac{1}{2}\langle Ay,y \rangle_{Y^*,Y}-\langle l(t),y \rangle_{Y^*,Y}$, $A\in Lin(Y,Y^*)$ is self-adjoint and coercive, i.e., there exists $\alpha>0$ such that ${\left\langle {Ay,y} \right\rangle}\geq \alpha \|y\|^2$ for all $y\in Y$;
- dissipation potential: $\Psi: Y\rightarrow [0,+\infty]$, which is convex, proper, lower-semicontinuous and positively homogeneous of order 1, i.e., $\Psi(\alpha y)=\alpha \Psi(y)$ for all $\alpha>0$ and $y\in Y$ and $\Psi(0)=0$.
After a prescribed initial state $y_0 \in Y$, the system’s current configuration is described by $y:(0,T]\rightarrow Y$. We say that $y\in AC([0,T],Y)$ is an energetic solution associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E},\Psi}\right) }$ if for all $t\in [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}(t,y(t))\leq \mathcal{E}(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi(\widetilde{y}-y(t)) \text{ for all }\widetilde{y}\in Y\quad \textit{(stability)}, \tag{S}\label{stab}\\
& \mathcal{E}(t,y(t))+\int_0^t \Psi(\dot{y}(s))ds=\mathcal{E}(0,y(0))-\int_0^t {\left\langle {\dot{l}(s),y(s)} \right\rangle}ds \quad \textit{(energy balance)}. \tag{EB}\label{enbal}\end{aligned}$$ The stability condition is usually stated equivalently using the set of stable states: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}(t):={\left\lbrace {y:\mathcal{E}(t,y)\leq \mathcal{E}(t,\widetilde{y})+\Psi(\widetilde{y}-y) \text{ for all }\widetilde{y}\in Y } \right\rbrace}.\end{aligned}$$ (S) is equivalent to $y(t)\in\mathcal{S}(t)$.
For the proof of the following existence result, see [@mielke2005evolution].
\[abstract\] Let $l\in C^1([0,T],Y^*)$ and $y_0\in S(0)$. There exists a unique energetic solution $y\in C^{Lip}([0,T],Y)$ associated with ${\left({\mathcal{E},\Psi}\right) }$ with $y(0)=y_0$. Moreover, $$\|y(t)-y(s)\|_{Y}\leq \frac{Lip(l)}{C}|t-s| \quad \text{for any }t,s\in [0,T].$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Alexander Mielke for useful discussions and valuable comments. SN and MV were supported by the DFG in the context of TU Dresden’s Institutional Strategy “The Synergetic University”.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: This is a pre-print of an article published in Multiscale Modeling & Simulation in 2018. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1137/17M1141230
[^4]: $B_i$ are not uniquely determined, however we consider one such choice corresponding to a path between $0$ and $b_i$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The hole spectral function of the $t$-$J$ model on a two-dimensional semi-infinite lattice is calculated using the spin-wave and noncrossing approximations. In the case of small hole concentration and strong correlations, $t\gg J$, several near-boundary site rows appear to be depleted of holes. The reason for this depletion is a deformation of the magnon cloud, which surrounds the hole, near the boundary. The hole depletion in the boundary region leads to a more complicated spectral function in the boundary row in comparison with its bulk shape.'
author:
- 'A. Sherman'
- 'N. Voropajeva'
title: 'The $t$-$J$ model on a semi-infinite lattice'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, an active interest is taken in the electronic properties of heterostructures and surfaces of strongly correlated materials. [@dagotto] Looking for new effects and their possible applications a wide variety of systems has been investigated both experimentally and theoretically. Theoretical studies of charge excitations near the crystal boundary have been carried out mainly in the framework of the two- (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Hubbard model. For this purpose different approximate methods have been used, including the slave boson method, [@hasegawa] the perturbation theory [@potthoff97] and the dynamical mean-field theory. [@potthoff99; @ishida] In these works, the case of half-filling was considered, when strong electron correlations cause the antiferromagnetic ordering of the crystal. [@hirsch85] However, approximations used in the mentioned works did not take into account the ordering and the interaction of electrons with respective magnetic excitations. One of the results obtained in Refs. for uniform model parameters is that on the surface layer the quasiparticle weight is smaller than the bulk value. The reason is a reduced surface coordination number which implies a lower kinetic energy and consequently effectively stronger correlation effects at the surface.
It is known [@dagotto94] that in the case of strong electron correlations the interaction with magnetic excitations plays an important role in the formation of the low-frequency dispersion of charge carriers. Therefore, peculiarities of these excitations in the near-boundary region may have a significant impact upon the properties of electrons here. The magnetic excitations are described by the quantum Heisenberg model. [@dagotto94] The influence of boundaries on its spectrum and observables has been studied in two [@hoglund; @metlitski; @pardini; @voropajeva] and three [@sherman09] dimensions. In particular it was shown that absolute values of the nearest-neighbor spin correlations near the boundary exceed the bulk value. In Refs. this result was related to the peculiar spectrum of the semi-infinite $d$-dimensional antiferromagnet. The spectrum involves $d$-dimensional bulk modes – standing spin waves – and a $(d-1)$-dimensional mode of boundary spin waves. These latter excitations eject the bulk excitations from the near-boundary region. Thus the antiferromagnet appears to be divided into two regions with different dominant spin excitations. Charge carriers in the near-boundary region and deep within the crystal appear to be in different spin-excitation environments, that inevitably leads to a dissimilarity in properties of these carriers. Another effect which can contribute to this difference is a smaller number of spin bonds destroyed by charge carriers near the boundary in comparison with the bulk. As will be seen below, this leads to an attraction of the quasiparticles to the boundary.
To answer the question on how the above-mentioned factors influence the distribution of charge carriers near the boundary we consider the 2D $t$-$J$ model, having in mind a Cu-O plane of hole-doped cuprate perovskites. To calculate the hole Green’s function in the case of strong correlation, $t\gg J$ ($t$ and $J$ are the nearest neighbor hopping and exchange constants) we apply the spin-wave and noncrossing approximations which were successfully used for unbounded crystals. [@marsiglio; @martinez] An obtained self-energy equation for the hole Green’s function is solved by iterations. Since the translation invariance is violated in the $x$ direction perpendicular to the boundary, the spectral function, apart from the frequency and the $y$ component of the wave vector, depends on the $x$ coordinates of site rows for which the function is considered. With a change of the $x$ coordinates from 0 (the boundary) deep into the crystal the intensity is redistributed in the function and the main maximum is enhanced and shifted to lower frequencies. Such behavior of the maximum indicates that the near-boundary region is depleted of holes at low hole concentrations. The appearance of this depletion is connected with the character of hole excitations. They are spin polarons in which a hole is surrounded by a cloud of magnons. Near the boundary, this cloud is deformed, which leads to an energy loss and to the observed shift of the main maximum to higher energies. Another consequence of the frequency-separated maxima in neighboring rows is a more complicated structure of the boundary spectral function in comparison with its bulk counterpart. The reason is a replica of a stronger maximum from the second row which is also seen in the boundary spectral function.
Main formulas
=============
Our starting point is the Hubbard Hamiltonian on a square semi-infinite lattice. We consider an idealized boundary which is located along the $y$ crystallographic axis. The variation of the lattice spacing and model parameters near the boundary is neglected. The Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
H_H&=&t\sum_{l_y\delta\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}a^\dagger_{l_y+\delta,l_x \sigma}a_{l_yl_x\sigma}\nonumber\\
&&+t\sum_{l_y\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}\left( a^\dagger_{l_y,l_x+1,\sigma}a_{l_yl_x\sigma}+a^\dagger_{l_yl_x\sigma} a_{l_y,l_x+1,\sigma}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+U\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq 0}n_{l_yl_x,+1}n_{l_yl_x,-1}- \mu\sum_{l_y\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}n_{l_yl_x\sigma},
\label{hubbard}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{l_yl_x\sigma}$ is the electron annihilation operator, $l_y$ and $l_x$ are the vector components labeling sites of the crystal, which is located at $l_x\geq 0$, $\sigma=\pm 1$ is the spin projection, $\delta=\pm 1$, the lattice spacing is set as the unit of length, $U$ is the Hubbard on-site repulsion, $n_{l_yl_x\sigma}=a^\dagger_{l_yl_x\sigma} a_{l_yl_x\sigma}$, and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. Only the hopping between nearest neighbor sites $t$ is taken into account in Eq. (\[hubbard\]).
In the case of strong electron correlations, $U\gg t$, and an electron filling less than half-filling Hamiltonian (\[hubbard\]) can be reduced to the Hamiltonian of the $t$-$J$ model using the known unitary transformation [@hirsch] $H_{tJ}=e^SH_He^{-S}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&\frac{t}{U}\sum_{l_y\delta\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}\sigma\left( X^{2,-\sigma}_{l_y+ \delta,l_x}X^{0\sigma}_{l_yl_x}-X^{\sigma 0}_{l_y+\delta,l_x}X^{-\sigma,2}_{l_yl_x}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{t}{U}\sum_{l_y\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}\sigma\left( X^{2,-\sigma}_{l_y,l_x+1} X^{0\sigma}_{l_yl_x}-X^{\sigma 0}_{l_y,l_x+1}X^{-\sigma,2}_{l_yl_x}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad+\left. X^{2,-\sigma}_{l_yl_x}X^{0\sigma}_{l_y,l_x+1}-X^{\sigma 0}_{l_yl_x}X^{-\sigma,2}_{l_y,l_x+1}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the Hubbard operators [@izyumov] $$a_{l_yl_x\sigma}=X^{0\sigma}_{l_yl_x}+\sigma X^{-\sigma,2}_{l_yl_x}, \quad a^\dagger_{l_yl_x\sigma}=X^{\sigma 0}_{l_yl_x}+\sigma X^{2,-\sigma}_{l_yl_x}$$ were introduced. Up to the terms of the second order in $\frac{t}{U}$ the transformed Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
H_{tJ}&=&t\sum_{l_y\delta\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}X^{\sigma 0}_{l_y+\delta,l_x}X^{0\sigma}_{l_yl_x}\nonumber\\
&&+t\sum_{l_y\sigma}\sum_{l_x\geq 0}\left(X^{\sigma 0}_{l_y, l_x+1}X^{0\sigma}_{l_yl_x}+X^{\sigma 0}_{l_yl_x} X^{0\sigma}_{l_y,l_x+1}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+J\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq 0}\biggl({\bf S}_{l_y+1,l_x}{\bf S}_{l_yl_x}+ {\bf S}_{l_y,l_x+1}{\bf S}_{l_yl_x}\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad-\frac{1}{4}n_{l_y+1,l_x}n_{l_yl_x}-\frac{1}{4}n_{l_y,l_x+1} n_{l_yl_x}\biggr)\nonumber\\
&&+\mu\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq 0}X^{00}_{l_yl_x},
\label{tJ}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf S}_{l_yl_x}$ is the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ operator, $J=\frac{4t^2}{U}$, and $n_{l_yl_x}=\sum_\sigma n_{l_yl_x\sigma}= 1-X^{00}_{l_yl_x}$ in the considered approximation in which terms containing doubly occupied site states are neglected. In Eq. (\[tJ\]), we neglected also terms proportional to $J$ which describe an assistant hole hopping (three-site terms), as it is frequently done in the consideration of the $t$-$J$ model.
Further simplifications of the model Hamiltonian are connected with the spin-wave approximation which in application to the $t$-$J$ model was shown to give results in good agreement with exact diagonalization. [@marsiglio; @martinez] In the case of low doping and zero temperature the crystal has the long-range antiferromagnetic ordering and the simplest version of the spin-wave approximation can be applied using the following Holstein-Primakoff representation: [@tyablikov] $$\begin{aligned}
S^z_{l_yl_x}&=&e^{i\pi(l_y+l_x)}\left(\frac{1}{2}-b^\dagger_{l_yl_x} b_{l_yl_x}\right),\nonumber\\
S^+_{l_yl_x}&=&P^+_{l_yl_x}\varphi_{l_yl_x}b_{l_yl_x}+P^-_{l_yl_x} b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}\varphi_{l_yl_x},\label{swa}\\
S^-_{l_yl_x}&=&P^-_{l_yl_x}\varphi_{l_yl_x}b_{l_yl_x}+P^+_{l_yl_x} b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}\varphi_{l_yl_x},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the spin-wave operators $b_{l_yl_x}$ and $b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}$ satisfy the Boson commutation relations and $$P^\pm_{l_yl_x}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\pm e^{i\pi(l_y+l_x)}\right), \quad \varphi_{l_yl_x}=\sqrt{1-b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}b_{l_yl_x}}.$$ In the considered antiferromagnetic background the hole creation operator is defined as $$h^\dagger_{l_yl_x}=\sum_\sigma P^\sigma_{l_yl_x} X^{0\sigma}_{l_y l_x}.$$ Using this definition and Eq. (\[swa\]) in Hamiltonian (\[tJ\]) and leaving terms up to the second order in the spin-wave operators we get $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&t\sum_{l_y\delta}\sum_{l_x\geq0}h_{l_y+\delta,l_x}h^\dagger_{l_yl_x} \left(b_{l_yl_x}+b^\dagger_{l_y+\delta,l_x}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+t\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq0}\left[h_{l_y,l_x+1}h^\dagger_{l_yl_x} \left(b_{l_yl_x}+b^\dagger_{l_y,l_x+1}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\left. +h_{l_yl_x}h^\dagger_{l_y,l_x+1} \left(b_{l_y,l_x+1}+ b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+H_{AF}-\frac{J}{4}\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq0}\left(\nu_{l_y+1,lx}\nu_{l_ylx} +\nu_{l_y,lx+1}\nu_{l_ylx}\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{J}{2}\sum_{l_y}\nu_{l_y0}+\mu\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq0}\nu_{lylx},
\label{hsw}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_{l_yl_x}=h^\dagger_{l_yl_x} h_{l_yl_x}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
H_{AF}&=&J\sum_{l_y,l_x\geq0}\left[2\left(1-\frac{1}{4}\delta_{l_x0} \right)b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}b_{l_yl_x}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{l_y+1,l_x}b_{l_yl_x}+ b^\dagger_{l_y+1,l_x}b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\quad+\left.\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{l_y,l_x+1}b_{l_yl_x}+ b^\dagger_{l_y,l_x+1}b^\dagger_{l_yl_x}\right)\right]
\label{haf}\end{aligned}$$ is the Hamiltonian of the 2D semi-infinite Heisenberg antiferromagnet in the spin-wave approximation. In Eq. (\[hsw\]), some constant terms were omitted and the term $\frac{3}{2}J$ was added to the chemical potential.
The next to last term in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[hsw\]) describes an attraction of a hole to the boundary. It originates from terms of Hamiltonian (\[tJ\]) which contain $z$ components of spins and occupation numbers on neighboring sites. In the antiferromagnetic state, these terms give the energy gain equal to $\frac{J}{2}$ for each nearest-neighbor bond. In the 2D case a hole destroys 4 such bonds deep inside the crystal and 3 bonds on the boundary. Thus, for a hole it is energetically more favorable to reside at the boundary.
Refusing the constraint $l_x\geq0$ and carrying out the Fourier transformation over the space coordinates, Eq. (\[hsw\]) is reduced to the spin-wave Hamiltonian on an unbounded lattice, used in Refs. and in a lot of subsequent works.
Considering the case of a low hole doping, in Hamiltonian (\[hsw\]) we shall neglect terms containing two hole occupation operators on neighboring sites. Our aim is to calculate the hole Green’s function $$G(k_y\tau l_xl'_x)=-\left\langle{\cal T}h_{k_yl_x}(\tau) h^\dagger_{k_yl_x}\right\rangle,$$ where the angular brackets denote the statistical averaging, ${\cal T}$ is the time-ordering operator that arranges other operators from right to left in ascending order of times $\tau$, $h_{k_yl_x}$ is the Fourier transform of $h_{l_yl_x}$, and $h_{k_yl_x}(\tau)=e^{\tau H}h_{k_yl_x} e^{-\tau H}$. For this calculation, we use the diagram technique with the expansion in powers of $t$, also in full analogy with what was done for the unbounded crystal. [@marsiglio; @martinez] For this latter case, the self-energy equation was obtained in the noncrossing (Born) approximation in which diagrams with intersecting magnon lines were neglected. It was shown that results obtained in this approximation are in good agreement with data of exact diagonalization. Therefore, we also use this approximation and obtain the following self-energy equation: $$\begin{aligned}
G(k_ynl_xl'_x)&=&G^{(0)}(nl_xl'_x)
+\sum_{l_{x1},l_{x2}\geq0} G^{(0)}(nl_xl_{x1})\nonumber\\
&&\times\Sigma(k_ynl_{x1}l_{x2})G(k_ynl_{x2}l'_x),\label{dyson}\\
\Sigma(k_ynl_xl'_x)&=&-\frac{T}{N}\sum_{k'_y\nu}\sum^1_{s,s'=-1} \theta(l_x+s)\theta(l'_x+s')\nonumber \\
&&\times G(k_y-k'_y,n-\nu,l_x+s,l'_x+s')\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[g_{k_y-k'_y,s}g_{k_ys'}D_{12}(k'_y\nu l_x,l'_x+s') \right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad+g_{k_y-k'_y,s}g_{k_y-k'_y,s'}D_{11}(k'_y\nu l_xl'_x) \nonumber\\
&&\quad+g_{k_ys}g_{k_ys'}D_{22}(k'_y\nu,l_x+s,l'_x+s') \nonumber\\
&&\quad\left.+g_{k_ys}g_{k_y-k'_y,s'}D_{21}(k'_y\nu,l_x+s,l'_x)\right], \nonumber\\
&&\label{sei}\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ and $\nu$ are shorthand symbols for the Matsubara frequencies $\omega_n=(2n+1)\pi T$ and $\omega_\nu=2\nu\pi T$, respectively, $T$ is the temperature, $$G^{(0)}(nl_xl'_x)=\delta_{l_xl'_x}\left(i\omega_n-\varepsilon_{l_x} \right)^{-1},$$ $\varepsilon_{l_x}=\mu-\frac{J}{2}\delta_{l_x0}$ with the last term taking into account the attraction of a hole to the boundary, $N$ is the number of sites in the $y$ direction, $$g_{k_ys}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2t\cos(k_y), & s=0, \\
t, & s=\pm 1, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $D_{ij}(k_y\nu l_xl'_x)$ is the Fourier transforms of the components of the matrix magnon Green’s function $$\begin{aligned}
\hat D(k_y\tau l_xl'_x)&=&-\left\langle{\cal T}\hat B_{k_yl_x}(\tau)\hat B^\dagger_{k_yl_x}\right\rangle,\nonumber\\[-1.5ex]
&&\label{md}\\[-1.5ex]
\hat B_{k_y l_x}&=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
b_{k_y l_x} \\
b^\dag_{-k_y,l_x} \\
\end{array}
\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[sei\]) describes the contribution of the sunrise diagram. In the case of the semi-infinite crystal there is also a nonzero contribution of the bubble diagram, which vanishes in an unbounded crystal. One can show, however, that in the semi-infinite crystal in the case of small hole concentrations the contribution of the bubble diagram is also negligibly small. Indeed, this term contains the multiplier $$\sum_{k_y}g_{k_ys}\langle h_{k_y,l_x+s}h^\dagger_{k_yl_x}\rangle,
\label{mult}$$ where the mean value can be expressed through the retarded hole Green’s function $G(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)$ as $$\langle h_{k_yl_x}h^\dagger_{k_yl'_x}\rangle=- \int^\infty_{-\infty}\frac{d\omega}{\pi}\frac{{\rm Im}\,G(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)}{1+e^{-\omega/T}}.$$ For $T=0$ the integration is carried out over unoccupied states. For small hole concentrations these are in fact all states and therefore one can rewrite the above integral as $$-\int^\infty_{-\infty}\frac{d\omega}{\pi}{\rm Im}\,G(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)=\delta_{l_xl'_x}.$$ Thus, for $s=\pm 1$ the multiplier (\[mult\]) is small because the mean value is negligible, while for $s=0$ it is small because $g_{k_y0}\propto\cos(k_y)$ and the sum over $k_y$ is negligible.
Let us switch from the Matsubara Green’s functions to the real-frequency retarded Green’s functions. It can be done using the following relation between these functions
$$D_{ij}(k_y\nu l_xl'_x)=\int^\infty_{-\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \frac{{\rm Im}\left[D_{ij}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)+D_{ji}(k_y\omega l'_xl_x)\right]-i{\rm Re}\left[D_{ij}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)- D_{ji}(k_y\omega l'_xl_x)\right]}{\omega-i\omega_\nu}.
\label{matsret}$$
The relation can be verified using the spectral representations. An analogous relation can be written for the hole Green’s functions. From Eqs. (\[dyson\]), (\[sei\]) and equations given below one can see that $$D_{ij}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)=D_{ji}(k_y\omega l'_xl_x), \quad
G(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)=G(k_y\omega l'_xl_x).$$ Thus, only imaginary parts of the retarded Green’s functions appear in Eq. (\[matsret\]). Substituting these representations into self-energy (\[sei\]) and carrying out the summation over $\nu$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Im}\Sigma(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)&=&-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k'_y} \sum^1_{s,s'=-1}\theta(l_x+s)\theta(l'_x+s')\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\omega'}{\pi}{\rm Im}G(k_y-k'_y,\omega-\omega',l_x+s,l'_x+s') \nonumber\\
&&\times\left[n_F(\omega'-\omega)+n_B(\omega')\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[g_{k_y-k'_y,s}g_{k_ys'}{\rm Im}D_{12}(k'_y\omega' l_x,l'_x+s') +g_{k_y-k'_y,s}g_{k_y-k'_y,s'}{\rm Im}D_{11}(k'_y\omega' l_xl'_x)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\quad\left.+g_{k_ys}g_{k_ys'}{\rm Im}D_{22}(k'_y\omega',l_x+s,l'_x+s')
+g_{k_ys}g_{k_y-k'_y,s'}{\rm Im}D_{21}(k'_y\omega',l_x+s,l'_x)\right],
\label{se}\end{aligned}$$
with $n_F(\omega)=\left(e^{\omega/T}+1\right)^{-1}$ and $n_B(\omega)=\left(e^{\omega/T}-1\right)^{-1}$. The real part of self-energy (\[se\]) can be calculated from the Kramers-Kronig relation. Self-energy equation (\[dyson\]) is transformed to real frequencies by the substitution $i\omega_n \rightarrow\omega+i\eta$, $\eta\rightarrow+0$.
In the considered case of small hole concentrations we can neglect the influence of holes on magnon Green’s function (\[md\]) and use its value for the undoped case described by Hamiltonian (\[haf\]). In this case Green’s function reads [@voropajeva; @sherman09] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat D(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)&=&\hat D^{(0)}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x) -\frac{J}{2}\hat D^{(0)}(k_y\omega l_x0)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[\hat I+\frac{J}{2} \hat D^{(0)}(k_y\omega 00)\right]^{-1}\hat D^{(0)}(k_y\omega 0l'_x),\nonumber\\
&&\label{gfd}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat I$ is a $2\times 2$ identity matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat{D}^{(0)}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)=\int_0^\pi dk_x\sin[k_x(l_x+1)] \sin[k_x(l'_x+1)]\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad\times\left(\frac{\hat{P}_{\bf k }}{\omega-E_{\bf k}+i\eta} -\frac{\hat{Q}_{\bf k}}{\omega+E_{\bf k}+i\eta}\right),
\label{gfd0}\\
&&\hat{P}_{\bf k}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
u^2_{\bf k} & u_{\bf k}v_{\bf k} \\
u_{\bf k}v_{\bf k} & v^2_{\bf k} \\
\end{array}
\right),\quad
\hat{Q}_{\bf k}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
v^2_{\bf k} & u_{\bf k}v_{\bf k} \\
u_{\bf k}v_{\bf k} & u^2_{\bf k} \\
\end{array}
\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y)$, $E_{\bf k}=2J\sqrt{1-\gamma^2_{\bf k}}$ is the bulk magnon energy, $\gamma_{\bf k}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\cos(k_x)+ \cos(k_y)\right]$, and $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\bf k}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt[4]{\frac{1-\gamma_{\bf k}}{1+\gamma_{\bf k}}}+\sqrt[4]{\frac{1+\gamma_{\bf k}}{1-\gamma_{\bf k}}}\right),\\
v_{\bf k}&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt[4]{\frac{1-\gamma_{\bf k}}{1+\gamma_{\bf k}}}-\sqrt[4]{\frac{1+\gamma_{\bf k}}{1-\gamma_{\bf k}}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[gfd\]), the first term in the right-hand side describes the bulk modes – the standing spin waves, while the second term is connected with the boundary spin waves. Their peak dominates in the spectral intensity $-{\rm Im}D(k_y\omega l_xl_x)$ for $l_x=0,1$ and practically disappears in site rows more distant from the boundary. [@voropajeva; @sherman09]
It is instructive to elucidate how the equations obtained above are transformed to the form for an unbounded crystal with distance from the boundary. In Eq. (\[gfd\]), the second term in the right-hand side becomes negligibly small [*if at least one of the coordinates*]{} $l_x$ or $l'_x$ is larger than 2. Green’s function $\hat{D}^{(0)}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)$, to which $\hat{D}(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)$ is reduced for such $x$ coordinates, contains the multiplier $\sin[k_x(l_x+1)] \sin[k_x(l'_x+1)]$ in its integrand \[see Eq. (\[gfd0\])\]. If in this multiplier the sines are replaced by their representation through exponential functions, one can realize that terms with the same signs of exponents are small for large $l_x$ or $l'_x$, since the respective exponential functions rapidly oscillate. Remaining terms depend only on the difference $l_x-l'_x$ as it must for the unbounded crystal. It can be shown that these terms are identical to Green’s function for this case. Since the magnon Green’s function defines the form of the hole Green’s function, one can expect that the latter also becomes close to its unbounded form when at least one of the $x$ coordinates is large. Taking this into account, from Eqs. (\[dyson\]) and (\[se\])-(\[gfd0\]) after the Fourier transformation we obtain equations for the unbounded crystal of Refs. .
The above discussion allows us to transform Eq. (\[dyson\]) into a more tractable form. Let us rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum^{l_{xm}}_{l''_x=0}\left[\left(\omega-\varepsilon_{l_x}\right) \delta_{l_xl''_x}-\Sigma(k_y\omega l_xl''_x)\right]G(k_y\omega l''_xl'_x)\nonumber\\
&&\quad\quad=\delta_{l_xl'_x}+M(k_y\omega l_xl'_x),\label{dyson2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{mmatrix}
M(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)=\sum_{l''_x>l_{xm}}\Sigma(k_y\omega l_xl''_x)G(k_y\omega l''_xl'_x).$$ In Eq. (\[dyson2\]), we assume that the coordinates $l_x$ and $l'_x$ are restricted within the range $[0,l_{xm}]$. The parameter $l_{xm}$ is expected to be large enough for substituting the self-energy and Green’s function in Eq. (\[mmatrix\]) by their values in an unbounded crystal, in compliance with the above discussion. At the same time $l_{xm}$ can be chosen to be small enough for the inversion of the matrix in the left-hand side of Eq. (\[dyson2\]) would not lead to time-consuming calculations.
Results and discussion
======================
In the below calculations we set $T=0$ and $J/t=0.2$. The latter ratio of parameters corresponds to hole-doped cuprates. [@mcmahan; @gavrichkov] Equations (\[dyson2\]) and (\[mmatrix\]) were solved by iterations for $l_{xm}=4$, using as the starting function for $G(k_y\omega l_xl'_x)$ Green’s function of an unbounded crystal. To ensure the convergence of the iteration procedure an artificial broadening was introduced by substituting $\omega$ with $\omega+i\eta$, $\eta=0.05t$, in Eq. (\[dyson2\]). The chemical potential $\mu$ was chosen so that the frequency $\omega=0$, which separates occupied and unoccupied states, was located in the low-frequency tail of the spectral function $$A(k_y\omega l_x)=-{\rm Im}G(k_y\omega l_xl_x).$$ This ensures a low hole concentration expected in the derivation of the above formulas. [@remark]
The spectral function gives the density of states projected on states of the row $l_x$. A typical example of this quantity obtained in the course of the calculations is shown in Fig. \[Fig1\].
![(Color online) The spectral function $A(k_y\omega l_x)$ for $k_y=0$, $l_x=0$, 1, 4 and in an unbounded crystal.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
Besides the spectral function for near-boundary rows, Fig. \[Fig1\] contains also the spectral function of the unbounded crystal, $$\begin{aligned}
A_b(k_y\omega,l_x-l'_x)&=&-\frac{1}{2\pi}\int^\pi_{-\pi}dk_x \cos\left[k_x\left(l_x-l'_x\right)\right]\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\times{\rm Im}G_b(k_yk_x\omega),\end{aligned}$$ which is given for comparison. Due to the translation symmetry this function depends only on the difference $l_x-l'_x$ and for the considered case $l_x=l'_x$ its last argument is zero. In shape this function resembles spectral functions obtained for a fixed wave vector $k_x$ in an unbounded crystal. [@marsiglio; @martinez] However, the maxima in Fig. \[Fig1\] are somewhat broadened in comparison with these functions due to the integration over $k_x$ in the above formula. As would be expected, the spectrum in the boundary row $l_x=0$ differs most greatly from $A_b(k_y\omega 0)$. From the figure one can see how the spectrum is transformed, gradually approaching to the spectrum of an unbounded crystal, with distance from the boundary. In the scale of Fig. \[Fig1\] already the spectrum in the fifth row ($l_x=4$) is barely distinguishable from $A_b(k_y\omega 0)$.
![(Color online) The spectral function $A(k_y\omega l_x)$ in the vicinity of the main maximum for $k_y=0$ (a), $\pi/4$ (b) and $\pi/2$ (c) in the rows $l_x=0$, 1, 4 and in an unbounded crystal.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="8cm"}
The vicinity of the main maximum of the spectral function is shown in Fig. \[Fig2\] for several wave vectors. From formulas of the previous section it can be shown that $A(k_y\omega l_x)=A(\pi-k_y,\omega l_x)$. Besides, in accord with the symmetry $A(k_y\omega l_x)=A(-k_y,\omega l_x)$. From these figure and equations one can see that the spectral maxima are shifted to higher frequencies on approaching the boundary for all wave vectors $k_y$. In accordance with this the low-frequency tails of the maxima become weaker with decreasing $l_x$. Since the concentration of holes in a row $x(l_x)$ is determined by this tail, $$\begin{aligned}
x(l_x)&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k_y}\left\langle h^\dagger_{k_yl_x}h_{k_yl_x} \right\rangle\\
&=&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k_y}\int^\infty_{-\infty} \frac{d\omega}{\pi}A(k_y\omega l_x)n_F(\omega),\end{aligned}$$ one can conclude that the concentration decreases monotonically on approaching the boundary – [*near-boundary rows are depleted of holes*]{}.
To elucidate a formation mechanism of this hole depletion layer let us first consider the role of two above-mentioned factors, which can influence the population of holes in the near-boundary region – the attraction of a hole to the boundary and the near-boundary magnon mode. For the chosen chemical potential, the energy of an immobile hole is equal to $6t$. As seen in Figs. \[Fig1\] and \[Fig2\], by virtue of the interactions there is the energy gain equal approximately to $2.5t$ in states corresponding to the main maximum. Therefore, the attraction which is of the order of $J\ll t$ plays practically no role in the hole distribution. This conclusion is confirmed by calculations – omitting the attraction term is barely perceptible in the shape and location of maxima of the spectral function.
![(Color online) The spectral function $A(k_y\omega l_x)$ in the vicinity of the main maximum with taking into account the boundary magnon mode (black solid lines) and without it (red dashed lines) for $k_y=\pi/4$, $l_x=0$ (a) and 1 (b). Blue dash-dotted lines corresponds to $A_b(k_y\omega 0)$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="8cm"}
The contribution of the near-boundary magnon mode can be evaluated from Fig. \[Fig3\]. The spectral function without this mode was calculated with the magnon Green’s function (\[gfd0\]) instead of the full function (\[gfd\]). As seen from the figure, the near-boundary mode makes its contribution in the location of the maximum and the intensity redistribution. This contribution is especially detectable for the boundary row. However, with this mode or without it the main maxima in the near-boundary rows have higher frequencies than deep inside the crystal. Consequently, the near-boundary mode does not play the main role in the formation of the hole depletion layer.
To understand the appearance of the depletion layer let us remind that in the considered model holes are spin polarons. [@marsiglio; @martinez] Due to the antiferromagnetic background a hole can move over the lattice only with the emission and absorption of magnons, as it is seen from Hamiltonian (\[hsw\]). As a consequence the hole is surrounded by a cloud of magnons. Without spins the maximum energy gain which a moving hole can achieve in comparison with an immobile quasiparticle is $4t$ – the difference between the lowest energy in the 2D nearest-neighbor band and its center of mass. In the antiferromagnetic lattice this gain is decreased by the energy consumption for the distortion of the magnetic order around the hole. For the ratio $J/t=0.2$ the energy gain is reduced approximately to $2.5t$ (see the above figures). This energy gain is still comparable with the maximal possible value $4t$. Notice that at the same time the spin polaron bandwidth is of the order of $J$ for low doping, which is much smaller in comparison with the energy gain. [@marsiglio; @martinez] This large energy gain complicates the formation of ferrons – ferromagnetically ordered regions around holes – and stripes in the $t$-$J$ model. Only for very small ratios $J/t$ the gain in the hole kinetic energy in the ferromagnetic region becomes large enough to stabilize ferrons. [@nagaev; @hizhnyakov; @sherman90] Away from the boundary the magnon cloud has the symmetry determined by the group of the hole wave vector and this symmetry ensures the lowest energy of the spin polaron. Near the boundary, the cloud is distorted, which lowers the symmetry and inevitably leads to a growth of the energy. It is the mechanism of the depletion layer formation in the considered model. The depth of the row in which the location of the main maximum coincides with that in an unbounded crystal gives an estimate of the magnon cloud size. In our case, its radius is equal to 4 lattice spacings.
Notice that as in Refs. in our case the decrease in the spectral intensity of the main maximum in the boundary row is connected with the reduced boundary coordination number. In the mentioned works this leads to an effective strengthening of the Hubbard repulsion on the boundary, while in our case to the deformation of the magnon cloud around the hole in the spin polaron.
![(Color online) The spectral function $A(k_y\omega l_x)$ in the vicinity of the main maximum for $l_x=0$ and $k_y$ ranging from 0 (the bottom curve) to $\pi/2$ (the upper curve) with the step $\pi/20$. For better visibility curves with larger $k_y$ are shifted upward with respect to curves with smaller wave vectors.[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="8cm"}
![(Color online) The same as Fig. \[Fig4\], but for the spectral function of an unbounded crystal $A_b(k_y\omega 0)$.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="8cm"}
Closer inspection of the obtained spectral functions shows that the main maximum for the boundary row has a more complicated structure than spectra for $l_x=2$ to 4 and for the unbounded crystal. Figures \[Fig4\] and \[Fig5\] demonstrate this difference. The evolution of maxima in rows $l_x=2$ to 4 are similar to that shown in Fig. \[Fig5\], while for $l_x=1$ the spectrum has some features of the boundary row. This result demonstrates how the deeper near-boundary regions approach in their properties to the unbounded crystal, which states are characterized by a 2D wave vector. As known, [@marsiglio; @martinez] the energy of these states has a minimum at the points $\left(\pm\frac{\pi}{2},\pm\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$ and their dispersion is weak on the boundary of the magnetic Brillouin zone, which is composed of segments $(0,\pm\pi)-(\pm\pi,0)$. The states near these segments make the main contribution into the maximum in Fig. \[Fig5\] – for $k_y=0$ wave vectors of these states lie near $(\pm\pi,0)$, while for $k_y=\frac{\pi}{2}$ these wave vectors are from the neighborhood of $\left(\pm\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$. The change in the location of the maximum when $k_y$ grows from 0 to $\frac{\pi}{2}$ in Fig. \[Fig5\] reflects the mentioned weak dispersion of the states along the boundary of the magnetic Brillouin zone. The shoulder, which approaches the maximum from high frequencies, is mainly connected with states from the vicinity of the axes and the boundary of the Brillouin zone – for $k_y=\frac{\pi}{2}$ these states have wave vectors near $(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ and $(\pm\pi,\frac{\pi}{2})$. A similar high-frequency shoulder is observed in Fig. \[Fig4\]. However, in contrast to the deeper rows, the main maximum in the boundary row has also a low-frequency shoulder which is best seen for small $k_y$. As follows from Fig. \[Fig2\](a), the locations of this latter shoulder is close to the position of the maximum in the row $l_x=1$. Indeed, in the considered system two neighboring rows have maxima, which are shifted in the frequency scale relative to each other. Since in accord with the formulas of the previous section the spectral function of a given row is connected with functions in neighboring rows, one can expect that a replica of the more intensive maximum for $l_x=1$ will be seen in the boundary row. In the present case this replica looks like the low-frequency shoulder of the main maximum. Thus, a more complicated character of the boundary spectra is connected with the replica of the maximum of the underlying row. Notice that this replica is an attendant effect of the hole depletion in the near-boundary region.
Conclusion
==========
Our calculations referred to a 2D crystal. From the similarity of the 2D and 3D magnon spectra [@voropajeva; @sherman09] we can expect to obtain analogous results for charge carriers in a 3D crystal with strong electron correlations. From these results, the conclusion can be drawn that the surface electronic structure, which is tested by the photoelectron and tunnel spectroscopies, even in the considered case of the idealized surface may essentially differ from the bulk spectrum. The discrepancies between the photoemission data of a number of transition-metal oxides and calculated bulk spectra were interpreted similarly in Refs. .
Comparing results obtained in the semi-infinite Hubbard [@hasegawa; @potthoff97; @potthoff99; @ishida] and $t$-$J$ models, we find some similar features. In spite of the differences of models and computation methods, in both models for uniform parameters the quasiparticle weight is lowered, while the intensity of the high-energy part of the spectrum grows [@potthoff97] at the boundary. The reason for this intensity redistribution is similar – it is a reduced coordination number at the boundary, which leads to an effective strengthening of the on-site repulsion in the Hubbard model and to the deformation of the magnon cloud around the hole in the spin polaron in the $t$-$J$ model.
In summary, in the present article, we investigated the spectral function of the 2D $t$-$J$ model on a semi-infinite lattice. The limit of strong electron correlations, $t\gg J$, and the case of low hole concentrations were considered. For this investigation, we used the spin-wave approximation and the diagram technique with the non-crossing approximation. The obtained self-energy equations were solved by iterations, and we could trace the variation of the spectral function with distance from the boundary. Already in the fifth row the spectral function nearly coincided with its bulk counterpart. It was shown that the near-boundary region of the crystal is depleted of holes. The reason is the deformation of a magnon cloud around a hole in this region, which is accompanied by energy losses. The hole depletion is reflected in dissimilar locations and intensities of the main spectral maxima for different site rows near the boundary. As a consequence a replica of a maximum in the second row is seen in the boundary spectral function. This results in its more complicated shape in comparison with the bulk spectrum.
This work was supported by the ETF grant No. 6918.
[99]{} E. Dagotto, Science [**318**]{}, 1076 (2007). H. Hasegawa, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**4**]{}, 1047 (1992). M. Potthoff and W. Nolting, Z. Phys. B [**104**]{}, 265 (1997). M. Potthoff and W. Nolting, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 2549 (1999); [**60**]{}, 7834 (1999). H. Ishida and A. Liebsch, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 045130 (2009). J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 4403 (1985). E. Dagotto, Revs. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 763 (1994). K. H. Höglund and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 020405(R) (2009). M. A. Metlitski and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 174410 (2008). T. Pardini and R. R. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{} 094413 (2009). N. Voropajeva and A. Sherman, arXiv:0912.4958 (unpublished). N. Voropajeva and A. Sherman, Phys. Lett. A [**373**]{}, 3473 (2009); A. Sherman and N. Voropajeva, Intern. J. Modern Phys. B [**24**]{}, 979 (2010). F. Marsiglio, A. E. Ruckenstein, S. Schmitt-Rink, and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 10882 (1991). G. Martinez and P. Horsch, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 317 (1991). J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 228 (1987). Yu. A. Izyumov and Yu. N. Skryabin, [*Statistical Mechanics of Magnetically Ordered Systems*]{} (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1988). S. V. Tyablikov, [*Methods of the Quantum Theory of Magnetism*]{} (Plenum Press, New York, 1967). A. K. McMahan, J. F. Annett, and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 6268 (1990). V. A. Gavrichkov, S. G. Ovchinnikov, A. A. Borisov, and E. G. Goryachev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**118**]{}, 422 (2000) \[JETP (Russia) [**91**]{}, 369 (2000)\]. It is worth noting that the shape of the spectral function is markedly changed only when the frequency of the main maximum $\omega_m$ becomes close to $\omega=0$, see, e.g., A. Sherman and M. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 12887 (1994). Thus, nearly the same spectral function as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\] is obtained for any chemical potential for which $\omega_m\agt t$. E. L. Nagaev, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 014401 (2001). V. Hizhnyakov and E. Sigmund, Physica C [**156**]{}, 655 (1988). A. Sherman, Physica C [**171**]{}, 395 (1990); J. Sabczynski, M. Schreiber, and A. Sherman, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 543 (1993). R. Matzdorf, Z. Fang, Ismail, J. Zhang, T. Kimura, Y. Tokura, K. Terakura, and E. W. Plummer, Science [**289**]{}, 746 (2000). K. Maiti, D. D. Sarma, M. J. Rozenberg, I. H. Inoue, H. Makino, O. Goto, M. Pedio, and R. Cimino, Europhys. Lett. [**55**]{}, 246 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Alternation of forward and backward analyses is a standard technique in abstract interpretation of *programs*, which is in particular useful when we wish to prove unreachability of some undesired program states. The current state-of-the-art technique for combining forward (bottom-up, in logic programming terms) and backward (top-down) abstract interpretation of *Horn clauses* is query-answer transformation. It transforms a system of Horn clauses, such that standard forward analysis can propagate constraints both forward, and backward from a goal. Query-answer transformation is effective, but has issues that we wish to address. For that, we introduce a new backward collecting semantics, which is suitable for alternating forward and backward abstract interpretation of Horn clauses. We show how the alternation can be used to prove unreachability of the goal and how every subsequent run of an analysis yields a refined model of the system. Experimentally, we observe that combining forward and backward analyses is important for analysing systems that encode questions about reachability in C programs. In particular, the combination that follows our new semantics improves the precision of our own abstract interpreter, including when compared to a forward analysis of a query-answer-transformed system.'
author:
- Alexey Bakhirkin
- David Monniaux
bibliography:
- 'sas17.bib'
title: 'Combining Forward and Backward Abstract Interpretation of Horn Clauses [^1]'
---
at (current page.north west) [We submit this paper for the presentation-only category. If was originally submitted and accepted to SAS’2017 conference.]{};
Introduction
============
In the past years, there has been much interest in using Horn clauses for program analysis, i.e., to encode the program semantics and the analysis questions as a system of Horn clauses and then use a dedicated Horn clause solver to find a model of the system or show its unsatisfiability (see e.g., [@bgmr15horn-verification]). In particular, collecting semantics of programs and reachability questions can be encoded as *constrained Horn clauses*, or *CHCs*.
With this approach, Horn clauses become a common language that allows different tools to exchange program models, analysis questions and analysis results. For example, as part of this work, we implemented a polyhedra-based abstract interpreter for CHCs. We use an existing tool SeaHorn [@gurfinkel15seahorn] to convert questions about reachability in C programs into systems of CHCs, and this way we can use our abstract interpreter to analyse numeric C programs without having to ourselves implement the semantics of C. Additionally, Horn clauses allow to build complicated abstract models of programs, as opposed to implementing the abstraction mostly as part of the abstract domain. For example, D. Monniaux and L. Gonnord propose [@david16cell-morphing] a way to abstract programs that use arrays into array-free Horn clauses, and we are not aware of a domain that implements their abstraction.
On the other hand, this approach makes it more important to implement different precision-related techniques and heuristics in the analyser, since we have little control over how the problem description is formulated, when it is produced by an external procedure. One technique that is important for disproving reachability using abstract interpretation is the combination of forward and backward analyses. The idea is to alternate forward and backward analyses, and build an over-approximation of the set of states that are both reachable from the program entry and can reach an undesired state (Patrick and Radhia Cousot give a good explanation of the technique [@cousot99refining-mc section 4]).
Patrick and Radhia Cousot also propose to use a combination of forward and backward analyses a for logic programs [@cousot92logic-programs]. Their combination is based on the intersection of forward (bottom-up, in logic programming terms[^2]) and backward (top-down) collecting semantics, which, as we observe in , is too over-approximate for our purposes. The current state-of-the-art technique for combining forward and backward analyses of Horn clauses is query-answer transformation [@gallagher15qa]. The idea is to transform a system of Horn clauses, such that standard forward analysis can propagate constraints both forward from the facts, and backward from a goal. Query-answer transformation is effective, e.g., B. Kafle and J. P. Gallagher report [@gallagher15qa] that it increases the number of benchmark programs that can be proven safe both by their abstract interpreter and by a pre-existing CEGAR-based analyser. Still, query-answer transformation has some issues, which we outline (together with its advantages) in and revisit in .
To address the issues of the existing techniques, we introduce a new backward collecting semantics of CHCs, which offers more precision when combining forward and backward abstract interpretation. We show how the analysis based on the new semantics can be used to prove unreachability of a goal and how every subsequent run of the analysis yields a refined model of the system. In particular, if the goal is proven to be unreachable, our analysis can produce a model of the system that is disjoint from the goal, which allows to check the results of the analysis and to communicate them to other tools. These are the main contributions of this paper. To evaluate our approach, we take programs from the categories “loops”, and “recursive” of the Competition on Software Verification SV-COMP [@url-sv-comp]. We use the existing tool SeaHorn to translate these programs to systems of Horn clauses. We observe that the alternation of forward and backward analyses following our new semantics improves the precision of our own abstract interpreter (i.e., it allows to prove safety of more safe programs) including when compared to forward analysis of a query-answer-transformed system.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
We say that a *term* is a variable, a constant, or an application of an *interpreted* function to a vector of terms. To denote vectors of terms, we use bold letters. Thus, ${\mathbf{t}}$ denotes a vector of terms; $\phi[{\mathbf{x}}]$ (assuming elements of ${\mathbf{x}}$ are distinct) denotes a formula $\phi$, where the set of free variables is the set of elements of ${\mathbf{x}}$; and $\phi[{\mathbf{x}}/{\mathbf{t}}]$ denotes a formula that is obtained from $\phi$ by simultaneously replacing (substituting) every occurrence of $x_i \in {\mathbf{x}}$ with the corresponding element $t_i \in {\mathbf{t}}$.
**CHCs.**
A constrained Horn clause (CHC) is a first order formula of the form $$\forall X.\big(\,p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}) \land p_2({\mathbf{t_2}}) \land \cdots \land p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})
\land \phi \limpl p_{n+1}({\mathbf{t_{n+1}}})\,\big)$$ where $p_i$ are uninterpreted predicate symbols, ${\mathbf{t}}_i$ are vectors of terms; $\phi$ is a quantifier-free formula in some background theory and does not contain uninterpreted predicates or uninterpreted functions; and $X$ includes all free variables of the formula under the quantifier. Following standard notation in the literature, we write a Horn clause as $${p_{n+1}({\mathbf{t_{n+1}}}) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),p_2({\mathbf{t_2}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phip_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),p_2({\mathbf{t_2}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{\phi,p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),p_2({\mathbf{t_2}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}}}$$ that is, with free variables being *implicitly* universally quantified. We use a capital letter to denote an *application* of a predicate to *some* vector of terms (while for predicate symbols, we use lowercase letters). Thus, when the terms in predicate applications are not important, we can write the above clause as $${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{\phi,P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}}}$$
The predicate application $P_{n+1}$ is called the *head* of the clause, and the conjunction ${\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{\phi,P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}}$ is called the *body*. A CHC always has a predicate application as its head. *But*, we assume that there exists a distinguished 0-ary predicate ${\mathfrak{f}}$ that denotes falsity and is only allowed to appear in the head of a clause. A clause that has ${\mathfrak{f}}$ as its head is called an *integrity constraint*. For example, an assertion ${\psi \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP}{\phi,P}}}$ can be written as the integrity constraint: ${{\mathfrak{f}}\leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P}{} \or \equal{(\phi \land \neg \psi)}{}}{(\phi \land \neg \psi)P}{(\phi \land \neg \psi),P}}}$.
A *system* is a set of CHCs that is interpreted as their conjunction.
**Models of CHCs.**
We say that an *atom* is a formula of the form $p(c_1,\cdots,c_n)$, where $p$ is an n-ary predicate symbol and $c_i$ are constants. We denote the set of all atoms by ${\mathbb{A}}$.
An *interpretation* is a set of *atoms* $M \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$. One can say that an interpretation gives *truth assignment* to atoms: an atom is interpreted as *true* if it belongs to the interpretation and as *false* otherwise. This way, an interpretation also provides a truth assignment to every formula, by induction on the formula structure.
For a system of CHCs, a *model* (or *solution*) is an interpretation that that makes every clause in the system $\true$ (note that all variables in a system of Horn clauses are universally quantified, and thus the model does not include variable valuations). We call a model $M \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$ *safe* when ${\mathfrak{f}}\notin M$ (many authors prefer to call an interpretation $M$ a model only when it does not include ${\mathfrak{f}}$, but we prefer to have both notions). A system of CHCs always has the *minimal* model w.r.t. subset ordering (see, e.g., [@jaffar94clp-survey section 4]). If a system has no clauses of the form ${P \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$, its least model is $\emptyset$. We call a system of CHCs safe iff it has a safe model. In particular, for a safe system, its least model is safe, and thus, for a safe system, there exists the smallest safe model. For every system of CHCs, the set of atoms ${\mathbb{A}}$ is the greatest (unsafe) model, but a safe system in general may not have the greatest safe model.
**Fixed Point Characterization of the Least Model.**
A system of CHCs ${\mathbb{H}}$ induces the *direct consequence relation* ${\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq \pset{{\mathbb{A}}}\times{\mathbb{A}}$, which is constructed as follows. A tuple $\big(\{p_1({\mathbf{c_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{c_n}})\}, p_{n+1}({\mathbf{c_{n+1}}})\big)
\in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}$ iff the system ${\mathbb{H}}$ contains a clause ${p_{n+1}({\mathbf{t_{n+1}}}) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phip_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{\phi,p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}}}$, such that $\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^{n+1} {\mathbf{c_i}} = {\mathbf{t_i}}$ is satisfiable.[^3] In particular, every clause of the form ${p({\mathbf{t}}) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$ induces a set of *initial transitions* (or *initial consecutions*) of the form $(\emptyset, p({\mathbf{c}}))$, where $\phi \land ({\mathbf{c}} = {\mathbf{t}})$ is satisfiable. Direct consequence relation can be seen as a variant of a direct consequence function discussed by J. Jaffar and M. J. Maher [@jaffar94clp-survey section 4].
Note that ${\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}$ is unlike an ordinary transition relation and relates a *set* of atoms with a single atom that is their direct consequence. To work with such a relation, we can adapt the standard in program analysis definition of post-condition as follows: $$\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X} = \{ a' \mid \exists A \subseteq X.\,(A,a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\}$$ Then, the least model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ can be characterised as the least fixed point: $$\label{eq:forward-semantics}
\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}$$ As standard in abstract interpretation, we call the fixed point the forward (bottom-up, in logic programming terms) collecting semantics of ${\mathbb{H}}$. In general, every pre-fixpoint of the consequence operator, i.e., every set $M$, s.t. $\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{M} \subseteq M$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$.
**Analysis Questions.**
Given a system of CHCs ${\mathbb{H}}$, the analysis question may be stated in a number of ways. Often we want to know whether the system is safe, i.e., whether the least model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ contains ${\mathfrak{f}}$. More generally, we may be given a set of goal atoms ${A_g}\subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$. Then, the analysis question will be whether the goal is unreachable, i.e. whether the goal and the least model are disjoint. In this case, we start by computing a (reasonably small) model $M$ of ${\mathbb{H}}$. If $M \isect {A_g}= \emptyset$, we conclude that the goal is unreachable. Otherwise, we either report an inconclusive result (since the computed $M$ will in general not be the smallest model), or attempt to compute a refined model $M'
\subset M$.
Alternatively, we may want to produce a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ that gives us some non-trivial information about the object described by ${\mathbb{H}}$. In this case, we usually want to produce some reasonably small model, which is what abstract interpretation tries to do. The goal may or may not be given. For example, we may be only interested in some part of the object (say, a subset of procedures in a program), which is described by a subset of predicates $\Pi$. Then, the goal will be the corresponding set of atoms ${A_g}= \{ p({\mathbf{c}}) \mid p
\in \Pi\}$.
Abstract Interpretation of CHCs {#sec:background/chc-ai}
-------------------------------
Abstract interpretation [@cousot77abst-int] provides us a way to *compute an over-approximation* of the least model, following the fixed point characterization. To do so, we introduce the *abstract domain* $\D$ with the least element $\Dbot$, greatest element $\Dtop$, partial order $\Dleq$ and join $\Djoin$. Every element of the abstract domain $d \in \D$ represents the set of atoms $\concrete{d} \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$. Then, we introduce the abstract consequence operator $\DpostName$ which over-approximates the concrete operator $\postName$, i.e., for every $d \in \D$, $
\concrete{\Dpost{H}{d}} \supseteq \post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{\concrete{d}}
$. If we are able to find such element $d_m \in \D$ that $\Dpost{H}{d_m} \Dleq d_m$ then $\concrete{d_m}$ is a pre-fixpoint of the direct consequence operator and thus a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ (not necessarily the smallest one). At this point, it does not matter how we compute $d_m$. It may be a limit of a Kleene-like iteration sequence (as in our implementation) or it may be produced by policy iteration [@george16policy-iteration; @seidl12policy-iteration], etc.
One can expect that an element $d \in \D$ is partitioned by predicate, in the same way as in program analysis, domain elements are partitioned by program location. In the simple case, every element $d \in \D$ will have a logical representation in some theory and one can think that it maps every predicate $p_i$ to a quantifier-free formula $\delta_i[{\mathbf{x_i}}]$, where ${\mathbf{x_i}}$ correspond to the arguments of $p_i$. For example, when using a polyhedral domain, $d$ will map every predicate to a conjunction of linear constraints. For simplicity of syntactic manipulations, we can assume that ${\mathbf{x_i}}$ are distinct vectors of distinct variables, i.e., a given variable appears only in one vector ${\mathbf{x_i}}$ and only once.
From this, we can derive a recipe for Kleene-like iteration. Let $d \in \D$ be the current fixpoint candidate that maps every predicate $p_i$ to a formula $\delta_i[{\mathbf{x_i}}]$. We try to find a clause ${p_{n+1}({\mathbf{t_{n+1}}}) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phip_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}{\phi,p_1({\mathbf{t_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{t_n}})}}}$ (where $n
\geq 0$), such that the following formula is satisfiable: $$\label{eq:hc-negation}
\phi \land \delta_1[{\mathbf{x_1}}/{\mathbf{t_1}}] \land \cdots \land
\delta_n[{\mathbf{x_n}}/{\mathbf{t_n}}] \land \neg \delta_{n+1}[{\mathbf{x_{n+1}}}/{\mathbf{t_{n+1}}}]$$ If it is, we find a *set* of models of , and if some model assigns the vector of constants ${\mathbf{c_{n+1}}}$ to the variables ${\mathbf{x_{n+1}}}$, we join the atom $p_{n+1}({\mathbf{c_{n+1}}})$ to $d$. In a polyhedral analysis, we usually want to find in every step a *convex* set models of . Assuming the formula is in negation normal form, there is a naïve way to generalize a single model to a convex set of models by recursively traversing the formula and collecting atomic propositions satisfied by the model (descending into all sub-formulas for a conjunction and into one sub-formula for a disjunction). In general though, this corresponds to a problem of finding a model of a Boolean formula that is in some sense optimal (see, e.g., the work of J. Marques-Silva et al. [@silva13minimal-sets]). When the set of CHCs is produced from a program by means of large block encoding [@beyer09lbe] (e.g., SeaHorn does this by default), then $\phi$ is disjunctive and represents some set of paths through the original program. Finding a convex set of models of corresponds to finding a path through the original program, along which we need to propagate the post-condition. In program analysis, a similar technique is called *path focusing* [@david11path-focusing; @david12pagai].
**Checking the Model.**
Given an element $d \in \D$, we can check whether it represents a model by taking its abstract consequence. If $\Dpost{{\mathbb{H}}}{d} \Dleq d$ then $\concrete{d}$ is a pre-fixpoint of the direct consequence operator and thus is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$. When $d$ can be represented in a logical form and maps every predicate $p_i$ to a formula $\delta_i[{\mathbf{x_i}}]$ in some theory, we can check whether it represents a model (i.e., that for every clause, the formula is unsatisfiable) using an SMT solver. Being able to check the obtained models provides a building block for making a *verifiable* static analyser.
Program Analysis and CHCs {#sec:background/program-analysis-chcs}
-------------------------
Different flavours of Horn clauses can be used to encode in logic form different program analysis questions. In particular, CHCs can be used to encode invariant generation and reachability problems. In such an encoding, uninterpreted predicates typically denote sets of reachable memory states at different program locations, clauses of the form ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}{\phi,P_1,P_2,\cdots,P_n}}}$ encode the semantics of transitions between the locations, clauses of the form ${P \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$ encode the initial states, and the integrity constraints (of the form ${{\mathfrak{f}}\leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP}{\phi,P}}}$) encode the assertions. In this paper, we limit ourselves to invariant generation and reachability, but other program analysis questions (including verification of temporal properties [@rybalchenko13existentially-quantified]) can be encoded using other flavours of Horn clauses. For more information, an interested reader can refer to a recent survey [@bgmr15horn-verification].
x = y = 0;
while (*) {
if (x $\geq$ 0) {
x += 1; y += 1;
} else {
x += 1;
}
}
assert(x == y);
$$\begin{split}
& {p(x, y) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{x = 0 \land y = 0}{}}{x = 0 \land y = 0}{x = 0 \land y = 0,}}} \\
& {p(x+1, y+1) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x \geq 0}{}}{x \geq 0p(x, y)}{x \geq 0,p(x, y)}}} \\
& {p(x+1, y) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x < 0}{}}{x < 0p(x, y)}{x < 0,p(x, y)}}} \\
& {{\mathfrak{f}}\leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x \neq y}{}}{x \neq yp(x, y)}{x \neq y,p(x, y)}}}
\end{split}$$
[ex:parallel-increment]{} Consider a program in . It starts by setting two variables, $x$ and $y$, to zero and then increments both of them in a loop a non-deterministic number of times. An analyser is supposed to prove that after the loop finishes, $x$ and $y$ have equal values. This program also has an unreachable condition $x < 0$ upon which only $x$ is incremented, which will be useful in the next example. The program in can be encoded into CHCs as shown in , where the predicate $p$ denotes the set of reachable states at the head of the loop, and its arguments denote the variables $x$ and $y$ respectively. From the point of view of abstract interpretation, such a system of CHCs represents a program’s collecting semantics. For simple programs, as the one in , a model of the system of CHCs directly represents an inductive invariant of the program. For the more complicated programs (e.g., programs with procedures) this may no longer be true, but in any case, if we find a safe (not containing ${\mathfrak{f}}$) model of the system of CHCs, we can usually conclude that the program cannot reach an assertion violation. A model that we find with abstract interpretation will assign to every predicate an element of some abstract domain; for a numeric program this may be a convex polyhedron (or a small number of polyhedra) in a space where every dimension corresponds to a predicate argument. Thus, for us to be able to prove safety of a program, the system of CHCs has to have a safe model of the given form.
Horn clause encoding of programs without procedures is typically straightforward and results in a system, where every clause has at most one predicate application in the body; such clauses are often called *linear*. Encoding of programs with procedures is also possible, but there are multiple ways of doing it. We now give an example of a program with a procedure.
void inc_xy() {
if (x $\geq$ 0) {
x += 1; y += 1;
} else {
x += 1;
}
}
$\ldots$
x = y = 0;
while (*)
inc_xy();
assert(x == y);
$$\begin{split}
& {p(x, y) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{x = 0 \land y = 0}{}}{x = 0 \land y = 0}{x = 0 \land y = 0,}}} \\
& {p(x', y') \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(x, y)}{} \or \equal{f(x, y, x', y')}{}}{f(x, y, x', y')p(x, y)}{f(x, y, x', y'),p(x, y)}}} \\
& {{\mathfrak{f}}\leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x \neq y}{}}{x \neq yp(x, y)}{x \neq y,p(x, y)}}} \\
& {f(x, y, x+1, y+1) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{f_c(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x \geq 0}{}}{x \geq 0f_c(x, y)}{x \geq 0,f_c(x, y)}}} \\
& {f(x, y, x+1, y) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{f_c(x, y)}{} \or \equal{x < 0}{}}{x < 0f_c(x, y)}{x < 0,f_c(x, y)}}} \\
& {f_c(x, y) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\true}{}}{\true}{\true,}}}
\end{split}$$
[ex:parallel-increment-interproc]{} Consider a program in . Similarly to Example \[ex:parallel-increment\], it starts by setting two variables, $x$ and $y$, to zero and then increments both of them in a loop, but this time by calling an auxiliary procedure. Again the procedure has an unreachable condition $x < 0$ upon which it only increments $x$. If we encode this program into CHCs directly (without inlining of `inc_xy`), we may arrive at a system as in . This roughly corresponds to how the tool SeaHorn encodes procedures that do not contain assertions. As before, the predicate $p$ denotes the reachable states at the loop head. A new predicate $f$ denotes the *input-output relation* of the procedure `inc_xy`. If $f(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)$ holds, this means that if at the entry of `inc_xy` $x = x_1$ and $y = y_1$ then at the exit of `inc_xy`, it *may* be the case that $x = x_2$ and $y = y_2$. In general, every predicate that corresponds to a location inside a procedure, will have two sets of arguments: one set will correspond to the state at the entry of the procedure (as the first two arguments of $f$) and the other, to the corresponding state at the given location (as the last two arguments of $f$). Note that another new predicate, $f_c$, is purely auxiliary and does *not* denote the reachable states at the at the initial location of `inc_xy`. To solve the system in , we need to approximate the full transition relation of `inc_xy`, which includes approximating the outputs for the inputs, with which the procedure is never called. If we analyse this program in a polyhedral domain, we will notice that the full input-output relation of `inc_xy` cannot be approximated in a useful way by a single convex polyhedron. But if we restrict the analysis to the reachable states, where $x \geq 0$ always holds, we will be able to infer that `inc_xy` increments both $x$ and $y$, and this will allow to prove safety of the program.
One may argue that we should alter the way we encode procedures and constrain $f_c$ to denote the set of reachable states at the entry of `inc_xy`. But when building an analysis tool, we should cater for different possible encodings.
Combination of Forward and Backward Program Analyses {#sec:background/qa}
----------------------------------------------------
Example \[ex:parallel-increment-interproc\] demonstrates the general problem of communicating analysis results between different program locations. In an inter-procedural analysis, often we do not want to explicitly build the full input-output relation of a procedure. For the inputs, with which a procedure may be called, we *do* want to find the corresponding outputs, but for the other inputs we may want to report that the output is unknown. This is because often, as in Example \[ex:parallel-increment-interproc\], the full input-output relation will not have a useful approximation as a domain element. At the same time, a useful approximation may exist when we consider only reachable inputs. Similar considerations hold for intra-procedural analysis. If we want to prove that an assertion violation is unreachable, we do not need to explicitly represent the full inductive invariant of a program. Instead, we want to approximate the set of states that are both reachable from the initial states and may reach an assertion violation. If this set turns out to be empty, we can conclude that an assertion violation is unreachable. This technique is standard for program analysis, and in , we adapt it to CHCs.
An alternative technique for Horn clauses is query-answer transformation [@gallagher15qa]. Given the original system of CHCs ${\mathbb{H}}$, we build the transformed system ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$. For every uninterpreted predicate $p$ in ${\mathbb{H}}$ (including ${\mathfrak{f}}$), ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$ contains a query predicate $p^q$ and an answer predicate $p^a$. The clauses of ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$ are constructed as follows.
*Answer clauses*. For every clause ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1, \cdots,
P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1, \cdots,
P_n}{\phi,P_1, \cdots,
P_n}}}$ (where $n \geq 0$) in ${\mathbb{H}}$, the system ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm
qa}$ contains the clause ${P_{n+1}^a \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots,
P_n^a}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots,
P_n^a}{\phi,P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots,
P_n^a}}}$.
*Query clauses*. For every clause ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1, \cdots,
P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1, \cdots,
P_n}{\phi,P_1, \cdots,
P_n}}}$ (where $n \geq 0$) in ${\mathbb{H}}$, the system ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm
qa}$ contains the clauses: $$\begin{split}
& {P_1^q \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}^q}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_{n+1}^q}{\phi,P_{n+1}^q}}} \\
& {P_2^q \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_{n+1}^q, P_1^a}{\phi,P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a}}} \\
& \cdots \\
& {P_n^q \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots, P_{n-1}^a}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots, P_{n-1}^a}{\phi,P_{n+1}^q, P_1^a, \cdots, P_{n-1}^a}}}
\end{split}$$
*Goal clause* ${{\mathfrak{f}}^q \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{\true}{} \or \equal{}{}}{\true}{,\true}}}$.
Then, forward (bottom-up) analysis of ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$ corresponds to a combination of forward and backward (top-down) analyses of ${\mathbb{H}}$.
We experienced several issues with the query-answer transformation. For linear systems of CHCs, forward analysis of ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$ corresponds to a single run of backward analysis of ${\mathbb{H}}$ followed by a single run of forward analysis. For non-linear systems, this gets more complicated, though, as there will be recursive dependencies between query and answer predicates, and the propagation of information will depend on the order, in which query clauses are created. We observed that is not enough, and for some systems the analysis needs to propagate the information forward and then backward multiple times. This usually happens when the abstract domain of the analysis cannot capture the relation between the program variables.
x = 0; y = *;
while(*)
x += y;
if (x > 0) {
while(*)
y += x;
assert(y $\geq$ 0);
}
[L]{}[.4]{}
[ex:fwd-backw-alternation]{} In , we show a synthetic example of a program that needs more than one alternation of forward and backward analysis to be proven safe. Notice that this program is safe, as after entering the `if`-branch in line 4 we have that $x > 0 $ and $x = ky$ for some $k \geq 0$, therefore $y$ is also greater than 0, and this is not changed by adding $x$ to $y$ in lines 5-6. If we work in a polyhedral domain, we cannot capture the relation $\exists k
\geq 0.\,x = ky$ and therefore should proceed with the safety proof in a different way, e.g., as follows. First, we run a forward analysis and establish that at lines 5-7, $x > 0$, since these lines are inside the `if`-branch. Then, we run a backward analysis starting with the set of states $y < 0$ at line 7, which corresponds to the assertion violation. Since the loop in lines 5-6 can only increase $y$, we establish that for $y$ to be less than zero in line 7, it also has to be less than zero in lines 1-6. Finally, we run forward analysis again and establish that for the assertion violation to be reachable, $x$ at line 4 has to be both greater than zero (so that we enter the *if*-branch), and less-or-equal to zero (because $x$ starts being zero and in lines 2-3 we repeatedly add a negative number to it), which is not possible. While this particular example is synthetic, in our experiments we observe a small number of SV-COMP programs where a similar situation arises.
A more subtle (but more benign) issue is that when solving the query-answer-transformed system, we are actually not interested in the elements of the interpretation of $p^a$, which are outside of $p^q$, but this is not captured in ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$ itself. Because of this, $p^a$ may be over-approximated too much as a result of widening or join. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why B. Kafle and J. P. Gallagher propose [@gallagher15qa] to perform abstract interpretation in two phases. First, they analyse the transformed system ${\mathbb{H}}^{\rm qa}$. Then, they strengthen the original system with the interpretations of *answer* predicates and run an analysis on the strengthened system.
To address these issues, we decided to adapt the standard (for program analysis) alternation of forward and backward analysis to CHCs. We return to the comparison of our approach to query-answer transformation in .
Combining Forward and Backward analysis of CHCs {#sec:main}
===============================================
Patrick and Radhia Cousot proposed a backward (top-down) semantics for Horn clauses, which collects atoms that can appear in an SLD-resolution proof [@cousot92logic-programs]. We take their definition as a starting point and define a new backward semantics and a new more precise combined forward-backward semantics. Then we show, how we can use our new semantics to disprove reachability of a goal and to refine a model w.r.t. the goal.
**Backward Transformers and Collecting Semantics.**
First, let us introduce the pre-condition operation as follows. For a system ${\mathbb{H}}$, $$\pre{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{A'} = \{ a \mid \exists A \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}.\,\exists a' \in A'. (A,
a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\land a \in A \}$$ Then, for a system ${\mathbb{H}}$ and a set of goal atoms ${A_g}$, the backward (top-down) semantics is characterized by the least fixed point: $$\label{eq:backward-semantics-simple}
\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{A_g}\union \pre{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}$$ which corresponds to the semantics proposed by Patrick and Radhia Cousot. This definition of backward semantics has a drawback though. The intersection of forward semantics and backward semantics *over-approximates* the set of atoms that can be derived from initial clauses (of the form ${P \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$) and can be used to derive the goal.
[ex:overapproximate-intersection]{} Let us consider the following system of CHCs, where $p$ is a unary predicate and $c_1,\cdots,c_5$ are constants $$\label{eq:ex-overapproximate-intersection}
\begin{aligned}
& {p(c_1) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\true}{}}{\true}{\true,}}} & {p(c_5) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(c_3)}{} \or \equal{}{}}{p(c_3)}{,p(c_3)}}} \\
& {p(c_2) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(c_1)}{} \or \equal{}{}}{p(c_1)}{,p(c_1)}}} \qquad & {p(c_5) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(c_2),p(c_4)}{} \or \equal{}{}}{p(c_2),p(c_4)}{,p(c_2),p(c_4)}}} \\
& {p(c_3) \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{p(c_1)}{} \or \equal{}{}}{p(c_1)}{,p(c_1)}}} \\
\end{aligned}$$ The forward semantics for this system is the set $\{ p(c_1), p(c_2), p(c_3), p(c_5) \}$ (note that the atom $p(c_4)$ cannot be derived). Let us assume that the set of goals is ${A_g}= \{p(c_5)\}$. Then, the backward semantics for this system is $\{ p(c_1), p(c_2), p(c_3), p(c_4), p(c_5) \}$. The intersection of forward and backward semantics is $\{ p(c_1), p(c_2),
p(c_3), p(c_5) \}$, even though the atom $p(c_2)$ is not used when deriving the goal $\{p(c_5)\}$ (because we cannot derive $p(c_4)$). If we implement an abstract analysis based on the intersection of semantics and , this will become an additional source of imprecision.
Forward and Backward Analyses Combined {#sec:main/forward-backward-combined}
--------------------------------------
We wish to define a combination of forward and backward semantics that does not introduce the over-approximation observed in Example \[ex:overapproximate-intersection\]. For that, we propose the *restricted pre-condition* operation that we define as follows. For a restricting set $R \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$, $${\preName\!|_{R}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},A')} = \{ a \mid \exists A \subseteq R.\,\exists a' \in A'.\ (A,
a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\land a \in A \}$$ Now, we can define the combined forward-backward collecting semantics as follows: $$\label{eq:fwd-backw-sem}
\begin{split}
& \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{({A_g}\isect M) \union {\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},X)}} \\
& \text{where } M = \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}
\end{split}$$ One can show that this semantics denotes the set of atoms that can be derived from initial clauses (of the form ${P \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$) and can be used to derive the goal (we defer an explanation until ). For example, one can see that for the system discussed in Example \[ex:overapproximate-intersection\], computing this semantics produces the set $\{p(c_1), p(c_3), p(c_5)\}$, as expected.
Introducing a restricted pre-condition operation is common, when a combination of analyses cannot be captured by the meet operation in the domain. For example, assume that we want to analyse the instruction $z := x+y$ in an interval domain. Assume also that the *pre*-condition is restricted by $x \geq 3$ (e.g., obtained by forward analysis) and the *post*-condition is $z \in [0,2]$. In this case, *unrestricted* backwards analysis yields no new results. But if we modify the pre-condition operation to take account of the previously obtained pre-condition ($x \geq 3$ in this case), we can derive the new constraint $y \leq -1$.
It may however be unusual to see a restricted pre-condition in concrete collecting semantics. To explain it, in , we introduce tree semantics of CHCs and show how concrete collecting semantics is itself an abstraction of tree semantics. In particular, the intersection of forward and backward tree semantics abstracts to .
**Abstract Transformers.**
As standard in abstract interpretation, we introduce over-approximate versions of forward and backward transformers, resp. $\DpostName$ and $\DpreName$, s.t. for $d, r \in \D$, $$\concrete{\Dpost{{\mathbb{H}}}{d}} \supseteq \post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{\concrete{d}}
\qquad \concrete{{\DpreName\!|_{r}({\mathbb{H}},d)}} \sqsupseteq
{\preName\!|_{\concrete{r}}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},\concrete{d})}$$
**Abstract Iteration Sequence.**
In concrete world, the combination of forward and backward analyses is characterized by a pair of fixed points in . In particular, we have the following property:
\[lm:concrete-2-steps\] If we let $M = \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}$ and $M' =
\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{({A_g}\isect M) \union {\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},X)}}$ then $\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{(\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X} \isect M')} = M'$.
That is, concrete forward and backward analyses need not be iterated. We give the proof of this a bit later. In the abstract world, this is not the case, as has already been noted for program analysis [@cousot99refining-mc]. In general, given the abstract goal $g \in \D$, the combination of abstract forward and backward analyses produces the sequence: $$\label{eq:fwd-backw-sequence}
\begin{split}
& {b}_0,\,{d}_1,\,{b}_1,\,{d}_2,\,{b}_2,\,\cdots \text{ , where} \\
& {b}_0 = \Dtop, \text{ and for } i\geq 1, \\
& \Dpost{{\mathbb{H}}}{{d}_i} \Dmeet {b}_{i-1} \Dleq {d}_i \\
& {g}\Dmeet {d}_i \Dleq {b}_i \\
& {\DpreName\!|_{{d}_i}({\mathbb{H}},{b}_i)} \Dleq {b}_i \\
\end{split}$$ In principle, this iterations sequence may be infinitely descending, and to ensure termination of an analysis, we have to limit how many elements of the sequence are computed. In our experiments though, the sequence usually stabilizes after the first few elements.
Propositions \[lm:fwd-backw-model\] and \[lm:fwd-backw-disjoint\] respectively show how we can refine the initial model w.r.t. the goal and how we can use the iteration sequence to disprove reachability of the goal.
[proposition]{}[lmFwdBackwModel]{} \[lm:fwd-backw-model\] For every $k \geq 1$, the set $
\concrete{{d}_k} \union \bigunion_{i=1}^{k-1} \big(\concrete{{d}_i} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_i}\big)
$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$.
We present the proof in Appendix \[apx:proofs\].
Observe that for some abstract domains (e.g., common numeric domains: intervals, octagons, polyhedra), the meet operation is usually exact, i.e. for $d_1, d_2 \in
\D$, $\concrete{d_1 \Dmeet
d_2} = \concrete{d_1} \isect \concrete{d_2}$. Also, for such domains we can expect that for $r,d \in D$, ${\DpreName\!|_{r}({\mathbb{H}},d)}
\sqsubseteq r$. In this case, the forward-backward iteration sequence is descending: ${b}_0
\Dgeq {d}_1 \Dgeq {b}_1 \Dgeq {d}_2 \Dgeq \cdots$, and computing every subsequent element ${d}_i$ provides a tighter model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ (assuming ${d}_i$ is distinct from ${d}_{i-1}$). This comes at a cost, though, since the refined model will not in general be expressible in the abstract domain of the analysis. For example, in a polyhedral analysis, when ${d}_i$ and ${b}_i$ are maps from predicates to convex polyhedra, expressing the model given by , requires finite sets of convex polyhedra. If we wish to check if such an object $M$ is indeed a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$, we will need to check that $M$ *geometrically covers* its post-condition. This can be done using a polyhedra library that supports powerset domains and geometric coverage (e.g., Parma Polyhedra Library [@bagnara08ppl]) or with an SMT-solver .
Now, the proof of becomes straightforward.
Let $M'' = \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{(\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X} \isect M')}$, i.e. $M''
\subseteq M'$ by definition. From , $(M \setminus M') \union M'' \subseteq M$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$. Since $M$ is the smallest model, $(M \setminus M') \union M'' = M$ and $M'' =
M'$.
\[lm:fwd-backw-disjoint\] If there exists $k\geq 1$, s.t. ${d}_k = \Dbot$, then there exists a model $M$ of ${\mathbb{H}}$, s.t. $M \isect \concrete{{g}} = \emptyset$ (i.e., the goal is unreachable).
If ${d}_k = \Dbot$ then $\concrete{{d}_k} = \emptyset$, and from , $M = \bigunion_{i=1}^{k-1}
\big(\concrete{{d}_i} \setminus \concrete{{b}_i}\big)$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$. From , it follows that for every $i$, $\concrete{{g}} \isect \concrete{{d}_i} \subseteq \concrete{{b}_i}$, that is $(\concrete{{d}_i} \setminus \concrete{{b}_i}) \isect \concrete{{g}} =
\emptyset$. This means that $M \isect \concrete{{g}} = \emptyset$.
Thus, when there exists $k$ s.t. ${d}_k = \Dbot$, we obtain a *constructive* proof of unreachability of the goal that can later be checked.
**Result of the Analysis.**
Propositions \[lm:fwd-backw-model\] and \[lm:fwd-backw-disjoint\] provide a way to give additional information to the user of the analysis, apart from the verdict (*safe* or *potentially unsafe*). Suppose, we compute the iteration sequence up to the element ${d}_k$ and then stop (whether because ${d}_k = \Dbot$, or the sequence stabilized, or we reached a timeout, etc). The object ${d}_k$ in itself may not be interesting: it is not a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$, it is not a proof or a refutation of reachability of the goal. If the user wishes to check the results of the analysis, we may give them the whole iteration sequence up to ${d}_k$. Then, the user will need to confirm that the sequence indeed satisfies the conditions of . Alternatively, we may give the user the refined model of ${\mathbb{H}}$, i.e. some representation of $M = \concrete{{d}_k} \union \bigunion_{i=1}^{k-1}
\big(\concrete{{d}_i} \setminus \concrete{{b}_i}\big)$. This will allow the user to not only check the model, but also, e.g., produce program invariants that can be used by another verification tool (e.g., Frama-C [@url-frama-c], KeY [@key16book], etc). Representation of $M$ may require an abstract domain that is more expressive than the domain of the analysis, but may be more compact than the whole iteration sequence. Alternatively, if ${d}_i$ and ${b}_i$ can be represented in logical form in some theory, so can $M$.
**Which Analysis Runs First.**
In the iteration sequence , forward and backward analyses alternate, but which analysis runs first is actually not fixed. We may start with forward analysis and compute ${d}_1$ as normal, or we may take ${d}_1 = \Dtop$ and start the computation with backward analysis. A notable option is to do the first run of backward analysis in a more coarse abstract domain and switch to a more precise domain in subsequent runs. For example, the initial run of backward analysis may only identify the predicates that can potentially be used to derive the goal: $$\label{eq:coarse-backw}
\begin{split}
& \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\Pi_g}\union \pre{{T_{\Pi}}}{X}}, \text{ where} \\
& {\Pi_g}= \{ p \mid p({\mathbf{c}}) \in {A_g}\} \\
& {T_{\Pi}}= \big\{ (\Pi, p') \mid \exists (A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}.\,\Pi=\{p \mid
p({\mathbf{c}}) \in A\} \land a'=p'({\mathbf{c'}}) \big\}
\end{split}$$ Then, we can take ${d}_1 = \Dtop$, ${b}_1$ to be some abstraction of , and starting from ${d}_2$, run the analysis with a more precise domain. In program analysis, restricting attention to program locations that have a path to (i.e., are backward-reachable from) some goal location, is a known technique. For example, K. Apinis, H. Seidl, and V. Voidani describe a sophisticated version of it [@seidl12swiss].
Revisiting the Query-Answer Transformation {#sec:main/revisiting-qa}
------------------------------------------
In principle, the iteration sequence can be emulated by an iterated simple query-answer transformation. Let ${\mathbb{H}}$ be the original system of CHCs. Let the element ${b}_k$ of the iteration sequence map every predicate $p_i$ to a formula $\beta_k^i$. In particular, ${b}_0$ will map every $p_i$ to $\true$. Then, ${d}_{k+1}$ can be found as a model of the system ${\mathbb{H}}^{{d}}_{k+1}$. To construct, ${\mathbb{H}}^{{d}}_{k+1}$, for every CHC ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1,\cdots,P_n}{\phi,P_1,\cdots,P_n}}}$ (for $n \geq 0$) in the original system ${\mathbb{H}}$, we add to ${\mathbb{H}}^{{d}}_{k+1}$ the clause ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi
\land \beta_k^{n+1}}{}}{\phi
\land \beta_k^{n+1}P_1,\cdots,P_n}{\phi
\land \beta_k^{n+1},P_1,\cdots,P_n}}}$. Now let the element ${d}_k$ map every $P_i$ to a formula $\delta_k^i$. Then, ${b}_k$ can be found as a model of the system ${\mathbb{H}}^{{b}}_k$ that is constructed as follows. For every CHC in the original system ${\mathbb{H}}$: ${P_{n+1} \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_1,\cdots,P_n}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phiP_1,\cdots,P_n}{\phi,P_1,\cdots,P_n}}}$, we add to ${\mathbb{H}}^{{b}}_{k}$ the clauses ${P_1 \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}}{} \or \equal{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^i}{}}{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^iP_{n+1}}{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^i,P_{n+1}}}}$ through ${P_n \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{P_{n+1}}{} \or \equal{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^i}{}}{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^iP_{n+1}}{\phi \land \bigand_{i=1}^n \delta_k^i,P_{n+1}}}}$. Also, we add to ${\mathbb{H}}^{{b}}_{k}$ the goal clause ${{\mathfrak{f}}\leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{{\mathfrak{f}}_k}{} \or \equal{}{}}{{\mathfrak{f}}_k}{,{\mathfrak{f}}_k}}}$. If we compute the elements of the iteration sequence up to ${d}_k$, then the function that maps every $p_i$ to $\delta_k^i \lor \bigor_{j=1}^{k-1} (
\delta_j^i \land \neg\beta_j^i )$ represents a model of the original system ${\mathbb{H}}$. In particular, when ${d}_1 = \Dtop$, and $k=2$, this produces a model, where every $p_i$ maps to $\beta_1^i \limpl \delta_2^i$.
Thus, one has a choice, whether to take a fixpoint-based approach, as we did, or a transformation-based approach. From the theoretical point of view, one will still have to prove that the iterated transformation allows to prove unreachability of the goal and to build a refined model, i.e., some analog of Propositions \[lm:fwd-backw-model\] and \[lm:fwd-backw-disjoint\]. As one can see in Appendix \[apx:proofs\], this is not trivial for the steps beyond the second. From the practical point of view, we believe that our approach allows to more easily implement some useful minor features. For example, the iteration sequence naturally constrains ${b}_i$ to be below ${d}_i$ and ${d}_i$ to be below ${b}_{i-1}$, which in some cases makes widening and join less aggressive. It should be possible though to achieve a similar effect for the query-answer transformation at the expense of introducing additional predicates and clauses.
On the other hand, an advantage of query-answer transformation is that it can be used as a preprocessing step for the analyses that are not based on abstract interpretation. For example, B. Kafle and J. P. Gallagher report [@gallagher15qa] that it can improve the precision of a CEGAR-based analyser.
Implementation and Experiments {#sec:experiments}
==============================
We implemented our approach in a prototype abstract interpreter. It can analyse numeric C programs that were converted to a system of CHCs with the tool SeaHorn [@gurfinkel15seahorn] (the input format is currently a technical limitation, and we wish to remove it in the future). The implementation is written in OCaml and available online [@url-hcai]. A notable feature of SeaHorn is that it introduces Boolean variables and predicate arguments even for programs without Boolean variables. To represent sets of valuations of numeric and Boolean variables, we use Bddapron [@url-bddapron]. We implement Kleene-like iteration as outlined in , which is similar to path focusing [@david11path-focusing; @david12pagai]. Iteration order and choice of widening points are based on F. Bourdoncle’s [@bourdoncle93iteration; @Bourdoncle_PhD] recursive strategy (except that we implement it using a worklist with priorities). As an SMT solver, we use Z3 [@url-z3]. For comparison, in addition to the forward-backward iteration sequence , we implemented an analysis based on query-answer transformation.
To evaluate our implementation, we took C programs from the categories *loops* and *recursive* of the Competition on Software Verification SV-COMP [@url-sv-comp]. SeaHorn operates on LLVM bytecode produced by Clang [@url-clang], and the resulting system of CHCs depends a lot on Clang optimization settings. For example, constant folding may remove whole computation paths when they do not depend on non-deterministic inputs. Or, Clang may replace recursion with a loop, which will make SeaHorn produce a linear system of CHCs instead of a non-linear one. In our experiments, we compiled the input programs with two optimization levels: `-O3` (SeaHorn’s default) and `-O0`. As a result, we get a total of 310 systems of Horn clauses, out of which 158 are declared safe by SV-COMP. Since we cannot prove unsafety, our evaluation focuses on safe systems. Out of 158 safe systems, our tool can work with 123. Other systems use features that are not yet supported in our tool (division, non-numeric theories, etc). Out of 158 safe systems, 74 are non-linear.
First, we evaluate the effect of combined forward-backward analysis. The results are presented in . We compare three approaches. The first is the one we propose in this paper, i.e., based on the forward-backward iteration sequence . We compute the elements of up to ${d}_5$. If we decrease the limit from ${d}_5$ to ${d}_3$, we can prove safety of 2 less programs; increasing the limit to ${d}_7$ gives no effect. The second one a 2-step analysis based on query-answer transformation [@gallagher15qa]. First, it runs forward analysis on a query-answer transformed system, then injects the interpretations of answer predicates in the original system and runs forward analysis again. We implemented this analysis ourselves, and thus we are *not* directly comparing our implementation to the tool Rahft [@gallagher16rahft], where this analysis was first implemented. Finally, we also run a simple forward analysis. In , we report the number of programs that we *proved safe* with every approach. One can see that our approach has a small advantage over both query-answer transformation and simple forward analysis. Interestingly, B. Kafle and J. P. Gallagher report [@gallagher15qa] a *much* greater difference when moving from simple forward analysis to query-answer transformation. This can be attributed to three factors. First, their set of benchmarks is different, although it includes many programs from the same SV-COMP categories. Second, their benchmarks are, to our knowledge, not pre-processed by Clang. Third, as B. Kafle and J. P. Gallagher themselves report, some issues solved by adding backward analysis can as well be solved by path focusing, which our tool implements.
------ ----------- ------------ ---- ------
Safe Supported This paper QA Fwd.
158 123 87 82 76
------ ----------- ------------ ---- ------
: Comparison to SeaHorn’s builtin solver (with 1 minute timeout).[]{data-label="tab:svcomp-seahorn"}
This paper SeaHorn
------------- ---------------- -----------------
Proven safe 87 / 123 (70%) 133 / 158 (84%)
: Comparison to SeaHorn’s builtin solver (with 1 minute timeout).[]{data-label="tab:svcomp-seahorn"}
For reference, we also compare our tool to the solver that is integrated with SeaHorn (to our knowledge, it is based on the tool SPACER. [@komuravelli13spacer; @komuravelli14spacer]). We present the results in . SeaHorn can prove safety of more programs, which is expected since our tool is in an early stage of development.
Tree Semantics of CHCs {#sec:tree-semantics}
======================
In this section, we briefly introduce tree semantics of CHCs. Trees are not convenient objects to work with, and studying tree semantics is not the main purpose of this paper. Thus, our description will not be fully rigorous. Rather, our goal is to give the reader an intuition of why we construct collecting semantics (especially, backward and combined semantics) in the way we do, which is perhaps best explained when collecting semantics is viewed as an abstraction of tree semantics.
For the purpose of this section, a *tree* is either a leaf node containing an atom, or an interior node that contains an atom and also has a non-zero number of child subtrees. $$\text{Tree } \Coloneqq {\mathit{leaf}(a)} \mid {\mathit{tree}(a \leftarrow t_1, \cdots, t_n)}$$ where $a \in {\mathbb{A}}$ and every $t_i$ is a tree. The *root atom* of a tree is naturally defined as $${\mathit{root}({\mathit{leaf}(a)})} = a \qquad
{\mathit{root}({\mathit{tree}(a \leftarrow t_1, \cdots, t_n)})} = a$$ The set of *leaves* of a tree is defined as $${\mathit{leaves}({\mathit{leaf}(a)})} = \{ a \} \qquad
{\mathit{leaves}({\mathit{tree}(a \leftarrow t_1, \cdots, t_n)})} = \bigunion_{i=1}^n {\mathit{leaves}(t_i)}$$ The tree semantics of a system of CHCs ${\mathbb{H}}$ is a set of trees, where the parent-child relation is defined by the direct consequence relation ${\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}$. To get more formal, let us first define the post-condition operation on trees as follows: $${\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}} = \begin{aligned}[t]
& \big\{ {\mathit{tree}(a' \leftarrow t_1,\cdots,t_n)} \mid t_1,\cdots,t_n \in X\\
& \land \exists
(A,a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}.\,|A|=n\land A=\{{\mathit{root}(t_1)},\cdots,{\mathit{root}(t_n)} \} \big\}
\union {}\\
& \{ {\mathit{leaf}(a)} \mid (\emptyset,a) \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\}\end{aligned}$$ Intuitively, the operation performs two distinct actions: (i) it produces a trivial tree ${\mathit{leaf}(a)}$ for every initial transition $(\emptyset, a)$; and (ii) for every non-initial transition $(A, a')$, it creates every possible tree ${\mathit{tree}(a' \leftarrow t_1,\cdots,t_n)}$, where $t_i$ are elements of $X$, and their roots correspond to distinct elements of $A$. Then, we can define the *forward tree semantics* of ${\mathbb{H}}$ as the least fixed point: $$\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}$$ Intuitively, this is the set of trees, where leaves are initial atoms, and parent-child relation is defined by the direct consequence relation. One can say that this is the set of derivation trees induced ${\mathbb{H}}$. A notable property of forward tree semantics is that it is *subtree-closed*, i.e., with every tree, it also contains all of its subtrees.
Let us now define the *set-of-atoms* abstraction of a set of trees. First, let us define an auxiliary predicate that tells whether an atom is a node of a tree. $$\begin{split}
& {\mathit{isnode}(a,{\mathit{leaf}(a')})} = (a = a') \\
& {\mathit{isnode}(a,{\mathit{tree}(a' \leftarrow t_1,\cdots,t_n)})} = (a = a') \lor \bigor_{i=1}^{n}
{\mathit{isnode}(a,t_i)}
\end{split}$$ Then, for a set of trees $T$, its set-of-atoms abstraction is $${\abstr[t]{T}} = \{ a \mid \exists t \in T.\,{\mathit{isnode}(a,t)} \}$$ In particular, when $T$ is subtree-closed, one can show that $$\label{eq:subtree-closed-abstraction}
{\abstr[t]{T}} = \{ {\mathit{root}(t)} \mid t \in T \}$$ Let us observe that the set-of-atoms abstraction of the forward tree semantics is exactly the forward collecting semantics:
\[lm:exact-fwd-abstraction\] $
{\abstr[t]{\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}}} =
\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}
$
This is an instance of *exact fixed point abstraction* [@cousot79systematic-design theorem 7.1.0.4], and to prove the proposition, we need to show that $$\label{eq:exact-post-abstraction}
{\abstr[t]{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{T}}}} = \post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{{\abstr[t]{T}}}$$ This is not true for an arbitrary $T$, but can be shown as true when $T$ is subtree-closed, as it follows from . The ${\postName[t]}$ operation preserves subtree-closure, thus can be seen as a fixed point in the lattice of subtree-closed sets, where holds and thus exact fixed point abstraction holds as well.
Let us now define the *backward tree semantics*. For a set of trees $T$, let ${\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{T}}$ be the set of trees that are produced from trees in $T$ by replacing a single leaf containing $a' \in {\mathbb{A}}$ with a subtree ${\mathit{tree}(a' \leftarrow a_1,\cdots,a_n)}$, s.t. $a_1,\cdots,a_n$ are distinct, and $(a', \{a_1,\cdots,a_n\}) \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}$. Also let ${T_g}= \{ {\mathit{leaf}(a)} \mid a \in {A_g}\}$. Then, the backward tree semantics of ${\mathbb{H}}$ is the least fixed point $$\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}$$ Intuitively, this is the set of trees where the root is in ${A_g}$, and parent-child relation is defined by the direct consequence relation.
Let us define a *pre-tree* of a tree $t$ to be an object that is a tree and that is produced by selecting a number (possibly, zero) of non-root interior nodes and replacing every such interior node ${\mathit{tree}(a \leftarrow t_1, \cdots, t_n)}$ with the leaf ${\mathit{leaf}(a)}$. A notable property of backward tree semantics is that it is *pre-tree-closed*, i.e., with every tree, it also contains all of its pre-trees. One can show that when $T$ is pre-tree closed, $${\abstr[t]{T}} = \bigunion\{ {\mathit{leaves}(t)} \mid t \in T \}$$ Similarly to the forward case, the set-of-atoms abstraction of the backward tree semantics is exactly the backward collecting semantics.
$
{\abstr[t]{\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}}} =
\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{A_g}\union \pre{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}
$
The proof idea is similar to that of . We need to show that $
{\abstr[t]{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{T}}}} = {A_g}\union \pre{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{{\abstr[t]{T}}}
$ which does hold when $T$ is pre-tree-closed; and pre-tree-closure is preserved by the transformer $\lfun{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}$.
Now, let us consider the intersection of the forward and backward tree semantics: $\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big) \isect
\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big)$. This is the set of trees that have initial atoms as leaves and a goal atom as root. We can now observe that the combined forward-backward semantics is exactly the set-of-atoms abstraction of this object.
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
& {\abstrName[t]}\Big(\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big) \isect
\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big)\Big) \\
= {} & \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{({A_g}\isect M) \union {\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},X)}} \\
& \text{where } M = \lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X}}
\end{aligned}
$
To see intuitively why this is true, let $t \in
\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{\post[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big) \isect
\big(\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{{T_g}\union {\pre[t]{{\mathbb{H}}}{X}}}\big)$ and let us observe which atoms may appear in $t$ at different depth. We know that ${\mathit{root}(t)} \in {A_g}\isect M$. At depth one, we will observe sub-trees that have initial atoms as leaves and can be combined to produce $t$. One can see that the set of atoms at depth one is ${\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},{A_g}\isect
M)}$. Similarly, the set of atoms at depth two is ${\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},{\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},{A_g}\isect M)})}$. Continuing this way, we get that the set-of-atoms abstraction of the intersection of forward and backward tree semantics is $\lfplo{\subseteq}{X}{({A_g}\isect M) \union {\preName\!|_{M}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},X)}}$.
To summarise, the combined forward-backward semantics is the set-of-atoms abstraction of the intersection of forward and backward tree semantics. Since set-of-trees intersection and set-of-states abstraction do not commute, we need to introduce the restricted pre-condition operation to define the combined semantics.
Related Work
============
Combining forward and backward analyses is standard when analysing programs. A good explanation of the technique is given by Patrick and Radhia Cousot [@cousot99refining-mc section 4]. They also propose to use it for the analysis of logic programs [@cousot92logic-programs]. Their combination is an intersection of forward and backward collecting semantics.
F. Benoy and A. King were perhaps the first to apply abstract interpretation in a *polyhedral domain* to constraint logic programs [@king96polyhedra-clp]. J. P. Gallagher et al. in a series of works (see, e.g., [@gallagher02polyhedra-clp; @gallagher15qa]) apply it to specialized CLPs or CHCs. Previous sections discuss the differences between their approach and ours. Later work by B. Kafle, J. P. Gallagher, and J. F. Morales [@gallagher15tree-refinement; @gallagher16rahft] introduces another analysis engine that is not based on abstract interpretation. M. Proietti, F. Fioravanti et al. propose a similar analysis [@proietti14specialization] that iteratively specializes the initial system of CHCs by propagating constraints both forward and backward and by heuristically applying join and widening operators. This process is repeated until the analysis arrives at a system that can be trivially proven safe or a timeout is reached. Notably, this analysis avoids explicitly constructing the model of the original system.
Multiple researchers were advocating using Horn clauses for program verification, Including A. Rybalchenko [@rybalchenko12synthesizing-verifiers], N. Bj[ø]{}rner, and others. A survey was recently made by N. Bj[ø]{}rner, A. Gurfinkel, K. McMillan, and A. Rybalchenko [@bgmr15horn-verification]. Tools that allow to solve problems stated as systems of Horn clauses include E-HSF [@rybalchenko13existentially-quantified], Eldarica [@rummer13eldarica], Z3 (with PDR [@bjorner12z3-pdr] and SPACER [@komuravelli13spacer; @komuravelli14spacer] engines), and others. As our implementation is in early development, we do not make a detailed comparison to these tools.
Path focusing was described by D. Monniaux and L. Gonnord [@david11path-focusing] and implemented by J. Henry, D. Monniaux, and M. Moy in a tool PAGAI [@david12pagai]. This is an approach to abstract interpretation, where one uses an SMT solver to find a path through a program, along which to propagate the post-conditions.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this paper, we introduce a new backward collecting semantics, which is suitable for alternating forward and backward abstract interpretation of Horn clauses. We show how the alternation can be used to prove unreachability of the goal and how every subsequent run of an analysis yields a refined model of the system. Experimentally, we observe that combining forward and backward analyses is important for analysing systems that encode questions about reachability in C programs. In particular, the combination that follows our new semantics improves the precision of our own abstract interpreter, including when compared to a forward analysis of a query-answer-transformed system.
We see the following directions for future work. *First*, we wish to be able to infer models that are *disjunctive* in a meaningful way. Currently, as we use Bddapron, we produce models where a predicate maps to a disjunctive formula, but the disjunctions are defined by the Boolean arguments of the predicate, which are often unrelated to the interesting facts about numeric arguments. We wish to explore how partitioning approaches designed for program analysis [@rival07trace-partitioning; @henry-david12succint-something] can be applied to the analysis of Horn clauses. *Second*, we note that currently, for the combination of forward and backward analyses to work, we need to explicitly specify the goal (`query`, in terms of SeaHorn language). It would be nice though, if we could use the benefits of the combined analysis (e.g., analysing the procedures only for reachable inputs) without having an explicit goal. For that, we will need to be able to distinguish, which of the clauses of the form ${P \leftarrow {\ifthenelse{\equal{}{} \or \equal{\phi}{}}{\phi}{\phi,}}}$ denote the program entry (the `main()` function in C terms), and which correspond to the procedures (recall Figures \[fig:parallel-increment-interproc-text\] and \[fig:parallel-increment-interproc-chc\]). So far, the only solution we see is that this information needs to be communicated to our analyser as part of the input. *Finally*, we observe that so far we evaluate our approach using CHCs that result from reachability questions in relatively simple C programs. These CHCs are also relatively simple and in particular contain at most two predicate applications in the bodies. We wish to evaluate our approach using more complicated CHCs, e.g., that result from cell morphing abstraction [@david16cell-morphing], but successfully analysing such systems requires to be able to produce disjunctive models.
Proofs {#apx:proofs}
======
For convenience, let us replace the direct consequence relation ${\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}$ with two objects: the set of initial atoms ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}= \{ a' \mid (\emptyset, a') \in
{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\}$ and the set of consecutions ${\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}= \{ (A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\mid A
\neq \emptyset \}$. Then, for every $R,X \subseteq {\mathbb{A}}$, $\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}}{X} = {\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\union
\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{X}$ and ${\preName\!|_{R}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}},X)} = {\preName\!|_{R}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}},X)}$.
Now let us consider the first three elements of the descending sequence, $d_1$, $b_1$, and $d_2$. For $d_1$ it holds that ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\union \post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{\concrete{{d}_1}}
\subseteq \concrete{{d}_1}$. That is, $\concrete{{d}_1}$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$ and the lemma statement holds for $k=1$.
For $b_1$, it holds that $(\concrete{{g}} \isect \concrete{{d}_1}) \union
{\preName\!|_{\concrete{{d}_1}}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}},\concrete{{b}_1})} \subseteq \concrete{{b}_1}$. This means that for every conseqution $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, if $A \subseteq
\concrete{{d}_1}$ and $A \isect (\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus \concrete{{b}_1})
\neq \emptyset$, then $a' \in (\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus \concrete{{b}_1})$.
Finally, for ${d}_2$ it holds that $({\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\union
\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{\concrete{{d}_2}}) \isect \concrete{{b}_1} \subseteq {d}_2$. First, this means that ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq (\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_1}) \union \concrete{{d}_2}$. Indeed, by definition of ${d}_1$, ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq \concrete{{d}_1}$ and by definition of ${d}_2$, ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\isect \concrete{{b}_1} \subseteq
\concrete{{d}_2}$. Second, this means that $\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{(\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_1}) \union \concrete{{d}_2}} \subseteq (\concrete{{d}_1}
\setminus \concrete{{b}_1}) \union \concrete{{d}_2}$. Indeed, let is pick an arbitrary $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, s.t. $A \subseteq
(\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus \concrete{{b}_1}) \union \concrete{{d}_2}$. There are two possible cases. If $A \subseteq \concrete{{d}_2}$ then by definition of ${d}_2$, either $a'
\in \concrete{{d}_2}$, or $a' \in (\concrete{{d}_1} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_1})$. If $A \not\subseteq \concrete{{d}_2}$ then $A \isect (\concrete{{d}_1}
\setminus \concrete{{b}_1}) \neq \emptyset$, and $a' \in \concrete{{d}_1}
\setminus \concrete{{b}_1}$. This proves the statement of the lemma for $k = 2$ and also provides the base case for the following inductive proof.
Now let $k > 2$, $L_k = \bigunion_{i=1}^{k-1} \big(\concrete{{d}_i} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_i}\big)$, and $M_k = \concrete{{d}_k} \union L_k$. Let the induction hypothesis be that: ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq M_k$, $\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{M_k} \subseteq M_k$ (i.e., $M_k$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$), and for every $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, if $A \subseteq M_k$ and $A \isect L_k \neq
\emptyset$, then $a' \in L_k$.
Then, let us consider the two subsequent elements: ${b}_k$ and ${d}_{k+1}$ and the two sets: $L_{k+1} = M_k \setminus \concrete{{b}_k}$ and $M_{k+1} =
L_{k+1} \union \concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$.
For ${b}_k$ it holds that $(\concrete{{g}} \isect \concrete{{d}_k}) \union
{\preName\!|_{\concrete{{d}_k}}({\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}},\concrete{{b}_k})} \subseteq \concrete{{b}_k}$. That is, for every $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, if $A \subseteq \concrete{{d}_k}$ and $A \isect (\concrete{{d}_k} \setminus \concrete{{b}_k}) \neq \emptyset$, then $a' \in (\concrete{{d}_k} \setminus \concrete{{b}_k})$.
For ${d}_{k+1}$ it holds that $({\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\union
\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{\concrete{{d}_{k+1}}}) \isect \concrete{{b}_k} \subseteq
\concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$.
First, observe that ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq M_{k+1}$. Indeed, we know that ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq M_k$ and that $M_{k+1} = (M_k \setminus
\concrete{{b}_k}) \union \concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$. By definition of ${d}_{k+1}$, ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\isect \concrete{{b}_k} \subseteq
\concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$. Thus, ${\mathbb{I}_{{\mathbb{H}}}}\subseteq M_{k+1}$.
Second, let us pick an arbitrary $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, s.t. $A \subseteq
M_{k+1}$. Since $M_k$ is a model of $H$, we know that $a' \in M_k$. But then, there are three possible cases. (i) If $A \subseteq \concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$, then either $a' \in
\concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$, or $a' \notin \concrete{{b}_k}$. That is, $a' \in (M_k \setminus \concrete{{b}_k}) \union \concrete{{d}_{k+1}}
= M_{k+1}$. (ii) If $A \subseteq \concrete{{d}_k}$ and $A \not\subseteq
\concrete{{d}_{k+1}}$, then $A \isect (\concrete{{d}_k} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_k}) \neq \emptyset$, and $a' \in \concrete{{d}_k} \setminus
\concrete{{b}_k} \subseteq M_{k+1}$. (iii) Finally, if $A \not\subseteq \concrete{{d}_k}$, then $A \isect L_k \neq
\emptyset$, and from the hypothesis $a' \in L_k$. There are no other possible cases. This means that $\post{{\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}}{M_{k+1}} \subseteq M_{k+1}$ and thus $M_{k+1}$ is a model of ${\mathbb{H}}$. Also, from (ii) and (iii) it follows that for $(A, a') \in {\mathbb{T}_{{\mathbb{H}}}^{\rightarrow}}$, if $A
\subseteq M_{k+1}$ and $A \isect L_{k+1} \neq \emptyset$, then $a' \in
L_{k+1}$.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by the [European Research Council](http://erc.europa.eu/) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement nr. 306595 [“STATOR”](http://stator.imag.fr).
[^2]: In this paper, we use the terms *bottom-up* and *top-down* in the meanings that they bear in logic programming and thus they correspond to *forward* and *backward* analysis respectively. In program analysis, *bottom-up* may mean *from callees to callers* or *from children to parents in the AST*, but this is *not* the meaning that we intend in this paper.
[^3]: There may be a slight abuse of notation here. When writing down the set as $\{p_1({\mathbf{c_1}}),\cdots,p_n({\mathbf{c_n}})\}$, we do *not* assume that all $p_i$ or all ${\mathbf{c_i}}$ are distinct and that the set has exactly $n$ elements.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Disturbances in gapless quantum many-body models are known to travel an unlimited distance throughout the system. Here, we explore this phenomenon in finite clusters with degenerate ground states. The specific model studied here is the one-dimensional J1-J2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian at and close to the Majumdar-Ghosh point. Both open and periodic boundary conditions are considered. Quenches are performed using a local magnetic field. The degenerate Majumdar-Ghosh ground state allows disturbances which carry quantum entanglement to propagate throughout the system, and thus dephase the entire system within the degenerate subspace. These disturbances can also carry polarization, but not energy, as all energy is stored locally. The local evolution of the part of the system where energy is stored drives the rest of the system through long-range entanglement. We also examine approximations for the ground state of this Hamiltonian in the strong field limit, and study how couplings away from the Majumdar-Ghosh point affect the propagation of disturbances. We find that even in the case of approximate degeneracy, a disturbance can be propagated throughout a finite system.'
author:
- 'Nicholas Chancellor$^{1}$ and Stephan Haas$^{1}$'
title: Propagation of Disturbances in Degenerate Quantum Systems
---
1 Department of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Quantum Information Science & Technology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-0484, USA
Introduction
============
This paper uses quantum information measures, such as entanglement, and trace distance to study quantum many body systems. Unlike physical observables, such quantities usually cannot be directly measured [@Cardy; @2010], but can give an important insite into the properties of the system. Abstract concepts such as quantum entanglement have been important for almost as long as quantum mechanics has existed [@Einstein1935]. The power of these information theoretical quantities is that they represent general ideas that can be applied to any system which can be considered quantum. By studying such abstract quantities one can more easily generalize a result for a specific system to more universal behavior. Examples of successful application of quantum information measures to the study of quantum many body systems are many, a few examples are [@Jacobson2010; @Diez2010; @Venuti2010(1); @Venuti2010(2); @Ren2010; @Hsu2009]. The specific uses of these quantities can be diverse, for example in [@Diez2010] the authors use the concept of trace distance from an averaged density matrix to define a type of quantum equilibration which would be analogous to equilibration in classical thermodynamics. Similar questions are examined, but with different methods, in [@Venuti2010(1); @Venuti2010(2)], where the concept of equilibration is used to detect criticality in a system. In [@Jacobson2010] a quantity related to fidelity is used to detect quantum chaos. This paper will make broad use of such quantum informational quantities, but will deal with relatively few direct observables. This is because our intention is to provide a study which can be easily related to other quantum systems, and to quantum many body theory in general.
The central result of this paper involves a type of local quench which can propagate disturbances an unlimited distance in a J1-J2 Heisenberg spin chain. The unitary dynamics of spin chains which can be studied through quenches can be realized experimentally with trapped cold atoms [@Duan2003; @Porras2005]. Certain superconducting qubit arrays can also provide promising physical realizations of spin chain Hamiltonians [@Makhlin2001; @Levitiov2001]. Quenches are also important from a theoretical perspective. For example, quantum equilibration can be induced and studied in spin chains using various quenches [@Diez2010; @Venuti2010(1); @Venuti2010(2); @Rossini2010]. Certain local quenches have also been proposed as a way to physically measure entanglement entropy [@Cardy; @2010]. Furthermore local magnetic field quenches similar to those studied in this paper have been used to study entanglement specifically in Heisenberg spin chains[@Ren2010], as well as other quantum systems [@Hsu2009]. A generalization of the specific system which is studied in this paper has also been proposed as being possibly useful in quantum computation [@Heule2010].
The frustrated spin-1/2 anti-ferromagnetic Heisenberg chain has one of the most prototypical matrix product ground states, featuring a two-fold degeneracy at the so-called Majumdar-Ghosh point [@Majumdar1970], when the nearest-neighbor and next-nearest-neighbor exchange integrals are the same. The Hamiltonian of this system is given by
$$H_{MG}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left(\vec{S}_{j}\cdot\vec{S}_{j+1}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{S}_{j}\cdot\vec{S}_{j+2}\right),\label{eq:hamiltonian}$$
where the sum extends over $N$ lattice sites, and the two terms represent anti-ferromagnetic nearest-neighbor and next-nearest neighbor Heisenberg interactions respectively. The ground state of this model is exactly known [@Majumdar1970], $${|\psi_{1,MG} \rangle}=\bigotimes_{l=1}^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{({|\uparrow_{2l-1}\downarrow_{2l} \rangle}-{|\downarrow_{2l-1}\uparrow_{2l} \rangle})}{\sqrt{2}},\label{eq:MDG gs}$$ i.e. the product of nearest-neighbor spin singlets, assuming an even number of lattice sites. For the case of open boundary conditions, this state is unique, whereas for periodic boundary conditions it is two-fold degenerate, as the underlying lattice can be decorated by the singlet product state in another unique way, $$\begin{aligned}
{|\psi_{2,MG} \rangle} & = & \bigotimes_{l=1}^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({|\uparrow_{mod_{N}2l}\downarrow_{mod_{N}(2l+1)} \rangle}-{|\downarrow_{mod_{\frac{N}{2}}2l}\uparrow_{mod_{\frac{N}{2}}(2l+1)} \rangle}).\end{aligned}$$ The resulting ground state for the periodic system is a superposition, $${|\psi_{PB,MG} \rangle}=a{|\psi_{1,MG} \rangle}+b{|\psi_{2,MG} \rangle},\label{eq:MDG gs,pb}$$ where the two terms are not automatically orthogonal. [@end1] Hence, changing the boundary conditions of the Hamiltonian from open to periodic one goes from a unique to a two-fold degenerate ground state, thus allowing us to study the effects of a ground state degeneracy.
Local disturbances of this ground state can be introduced by applying a local magnetic field $h$ to a subset of $N'$ adjacent spins, $$H(h,N')=H_{MG}-h\sum_{j=1}^{N'}S_{j}^{z},\label{eq:field}$$ where without loss of generality we consider the direction of the applied field to be along the z-direction.
One can take advantage of the fact that spin polarization is conserved in this system, allowing one to reduce the complexity of the problem by dividing the Hamiltonian into independent spin sectors, which may each be diagonalized independently. These sectors correspond to the total polarization of the system in the z direction, and may be diagonalized independently. The polarization sector which contains the global ground state of the system changes with field strength, therefore figures \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\], \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\],\[fig:open SDvsEM\],\[fig:periodic SDvEM\], \[fig:singlet shift\], and \[fig:initial dist to av\] all show curves for three different polarization sectors. Each sector is labeled with the total z polarization of the entire spin chain in that sector, which is conserved under the action of all Hamiltonians considered in this paper. For example in the basis where $S_{j}^{z}$ is diagonal, all of the basis states in the L=0 sector will have the same number of spins pointing in +z as -z, in the L=-1 state, 2 more spins will be facing in -z than +z, etc.
\[fig:quench\]
In this study, we identify several effects induced by the application of a local magnetic field, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:quench\]. Here we briefly summarize our findings.
Firstly, for sufficiently small field amplitudes polarization induced by the local magnetic field is stored in the vicinity of the region to which the field is applied, instead of spreading throughout the entire system. Only beyond a certain threshold field, i.e. once some of the polarization in this boundary region has saturated, can it spread throughout the entire system. We argue that this is to be expected because at the Majumdar-Ghosh point the energy spectrum of the J1-J2 Heisenberg Hamiltonian is gapped. Provided that the energy gained from the locally applied magnetic field is small compared to the coupling energy of the spins, any state which keeps the majority of spins in a matrix product configuration similar to the zero field ground state will have a lower energy. For an even number of spins in the non-field region, the system can only accomplish this if the total polarization of a given subsystem far from the field region is zero. The spins in the field region align in the direction of the applied field, thus in turn leading to an excess opposite polarization of the spins not directly subjected to the field. This induced polarization is typically localized near the edge of the field region. We will show, however, that this effect does not occur if the two degenerate ground states lie in different polarization sectors, because in this case the polarization can spread through the degenerate subspace at no energy penalty.
We will also show that, for a sufficiently small fraction of the spins subjected to the field, there exists at least one state in one of the polarization sectors which looks locally like the zero field (MPS) ground state far from the field (Fig. \[fig:boundry cartoon\]). For the systems studied in this paper one of these states is always the ground state. [@end2]
![Sketch of a typical state of the spins when exposed to a field. For all field strengths studied here, the ground state of at least one total spin sector behaves like this, and one of these states always is the global ground state of the system. Ovals represent entanglement, arrows indicate spin polarization.[]{data-label="fig:boundry cartoon"}](figure2)
For the case of periodic boundary conditions, any state which lies locally in the degenerate subspace far from the local magnetic field region will have the minimum local contribution to the energy. This means that even for a system with many more spins outside of the field than within it, a disturbance can easily propagate throughout the entire zero field region.
This paper is organized as follows. In the following section 2, we introduce the observables on which we focus to understand the effects of a local applied magnetic field on this many-body system. The cases of open and periodic boundary conditions need to be treated separately. In section 3, we then discuss the physics of open chains, and in section 4 the phenomena observed in periodic systems. In section 5, we consider how these results are affected when one departs from the Majumdar-Ghosh point in the underlying Hamiltonian. This is followed by conclusions in section 6.
Physical observables
====================
Open boundary conditions
------------------------
For open boundary conditions the field is applied to N’ spins on one end of the chain. Unless otherwise stated, we consider finite chains with a total number of spins, N, performing full numerical diagonalizations of the frustrated Majumdar-Ghosh Heisenberg Hamiltonian.[@end3] Several observables are studied. The first is the total polarization outside of the region subjected to the applied field. While the total spin polarization of the chain is conserved, local polarization is not. This quantity is defined as $$L_{\neg N'}={\left \langle \psi \mid {\textstyle \sum}_{j=N'+1}^{N}S_{j}^{z} \mid \psi \right\rangle}\label{eq:L not N'}$$
Furthermore, we study the trace distance from a singlet state of the two spins at the end of the chain opposite to the region of the applied magnetic field, i.e. the spins located at sites $N-1$ and $N$. This observable is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
d_{s}=\frac{1}{2}\Vert\rho_{s}-\frac{1}{2}({|\uparrow\downarrow \rangle}-{|\downarrow\uparrow \rangle})({\langle\uparrow\downarrow |}+{\langle\downarrow\uparrow |})\Vert_{1},\label{eq:sing dist}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{s} & = & {\mathrm{Tr}}_{\neg s}({\vert \psi \rangle \! \langle \psi \vert}),\\
\Vert O\Vert_{1} & \equiv & {\mathrm{Tr}}\sqrt{O^{\dagger}O}.\label{eq:trace norm}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we focus on the polarization of the spins at sites $N-1$ and $N$, defined the same as in Eq. \[eq:L not N’\], but with the sum running from N-1 to N. In this paper the subsystem of the 2 furthest spins will be labeled f. This observable tells about whether the polarization has been allowed to spread to the furthest 2 spins from the field.
Two different sizes of field regions are considered, N’=5 and N’=4. The reason that both are considered separately is that there are significant even-odd effects.
In this paper, no actual quenches are performed in the system with open boundary conditions, and all observables are given for the ground state of a given sector.
Periodic boundary conditions
----------------------------
For periodic boundary conditions, the field is applied to a region of N’ adjacent spins. In this case, we are considering chains with an even number of sites. While the observables studied in the periodic case are defined in analogy to those studied in the open case, some extra care is necessary. In particular, a complication arises for the trace distance from a singlet for the two spins furthest from the field region. For periodic boundary conditions, there is no unique choice of singlet covering for the system. Two different approaches to this problem are examined. Firstly, one can consider the distance from the closest of the two singlet coverings for a subsystem, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{s,cover}=min(\Vert\rho_{s}-{\mathrm{Tr}}{}_{\neg s}({\vert \psi_{1,NF} \rangle \! \langle \psi_{1,NF} \vert})\Vert_{1},\nonumber \\
\Vert\rho_{s}-{\mathrm{Tr}}{}_{\neg s}({\vert \psi_{2,NF} \rangle \! \langle \psi_{2,NF} \vert})\Vert_{1}).\label{eq:dist sing cover}\end{aligned}$$ However, this quantity has a drawback, i.e. all but a zero measure set of states in the degenerate subspace will have a finite distance to either of these coverings. An alternative approach is to look at the distance from the closest point in the subspace to the reduced density matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{s,subspace}=min_{a,b}(\Vert\rho_{s}-(\Vert a{|\psi_{1,NF} \rangle}+b{|\psi_{2,NF} \rangle}\Vert_{2})^{-2}\times\nonumber \\
({\mathrm{Tr}}[(a{|\psi_{1,NF} \rangle}+b{|\psi_{2,NF} \rangle})(a^{\dagger}{\langle\psi_{1,NF} |}+b^{\dagger}{\langle\psi_{2,NF} |})]\Vert_{1}).\label{eq:dist sing subspace}\end{aligned}$$ This equation appears as though it can be further simplified in an obvious way, but remember that the two wave functions are not orthogonal. The norm in the denominator is the usual L2 norm for a vector. Also in this case the minimization is actually simpler than it looks, by realizing that it can be reduced to: $d_{sing,subspace}=min_{0\leq\alpha\leq1}\Vert\rho_{s}-((1-\alpha)\times\frac{1}{2}({|\uparrow\downarrow \rangle}-{|\downarrow\uparrow \rangle})({\langle\uparrow\downarrow |}+{\langle\downarrow\uparrow |})+\alpha\times1_{4})\Vert_{1}$ where $1_{4}$is the 4-dimensional identity operator.
While the observables presented in this section could be considered as time dependent variables, in this paper they are always studied for the ground state of a given polarization sector.
Small magnetic field quenches
-----------------------------
Because of the degeneracy caused by the periodic boundaries there is another quantity which is interesting to look at, relating to a field quench performed by changing the magnetic field instantaneously and subsequently monitoring the time evolution of the system, especially in regions far from where the local field is applied. Unitary evolution gives the time evolution of a system following a quench at time $t=0$, in terms of energies $E_{n}$, $$\rho_{m,n}(t)=c_{m}^{*}c_{n}\exp[-\imath(E_{n}-E_{m})t]\quad,\label{eq:time evolution}$$ where $c_{m}={\left \langle m \mid \psi \right \rangle}$, where ${|\psi \rangle}$is the pre-quench ground state of the system. This leads to a definition of the time averaged state, $$\bar{\rho}_{m,n}=c_{m}^{*}c_{n}\delta(E_{n}-E_{m})\quad.\label{eq:rho bar}$$
The field quench is performed by taking ${|\psi(t=0) \rangle}={|\psi_{0} \rangle}$ to be the ground state of a Hamiltonian with a slightly stronger field, $H_{0}=H-\epsilon\sum_{j=1}^{N'}S_{j}^{z}$. At $t=0$, $\epsilon$ is instantaneously turned off. In our analysis of the time evolution, we will focus on the trace distance from the time averaged (or dephased) state of the density matrix of the two spins furthest away from the field region $$d_{av}(t)=\Vert{\mathrm{Tr}}{}_{\neg s}({\vert \psi(t) \rangle \! \langle \psi(t) \vert})-\bar{\rho}_{s}\Vert_{1}.\label{eq:dist av}$$
Large magnetic field quenches
-----------------------------
We also examine the time evolution due to large local field quenches. Several statistical distributions are studied to understand the ensuing equilibration behavior. These quenches are performed in a regime where quenches are shown to disturb the entire system, even regions far away from the field region. A global quantity which is studied is the Loschmidt echo, a measure of the overlap of the time evolved system with the initial state, $$LE(t)=|{\left \langle \psi \mid exp(-\imath\, H\, t) \mid \psi \right\rangle}|^{2}.\label{eq:Loschmidt}$$
Two local linear quantities are examined as well. In the region subjected to the local external field, the local polarization is studied. This is simply the expectation value of the magnetization operator with respect to the local density matrix, $$L_{N'}(t)={\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho_{N'}(t)M).\label{eq:locMag}$$
In the region far from the spins where the local magnetic field is applied, all of the states are expected to be locally within the degenerate ground state subspace and therefore have zero magnetization. Therefore, a more appropriate observable to use is the overlap with a singlet state, $$O_{s}(t)={\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho_{s}(t){\mathrm{Tr}}{}_{\neg s}({\vert \psi_{1,NF} \rangle \! \langle \psi_{1,NF} \vert})).\label{eq:singlet overlap}$$
Finally an important non-linear local quantity is studied far from the local magnetic field, the time evolving distance to the average state, defined by $$d_{s}(t)=\Vert\rho_{s}(t)-\bar{\rho}_{s}\Vert_{1}.\label{eq:time dist av}$$ This quantity is important, as it provides a direct measure of equilibration locally, and can thus be used to show that the quench not only disturbs the system far from the field, but also that these disturbances can cause equilibration.
Entanglement maps
-----------------
A tool which is used in this paper for visualizing quantum states is a map of two point entanglement. In these graphics, colors are used to indicate entanglement strength between single spins using von Neumann entropy, $$S_{VN}(\rho)\equiv{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho\log(\rho)),\label{eq:svn}$$ as a measure of entanglement.
These graphics consist of arrays of colored squares where, for off-diagonal elements, the color corresponds to the entanglement between the two spins. The diagonal elements correspond to the difference between the maximum possible entropy on a spin and the actual entropy. This represents the the amount of information left about a spin after the rest of the system is measured. These maps are created using $$\begin{aligned}
entMap(i,j) & = & (1-\delta_{ij})*((S_{VN}(\rho_{i})+(S_{VN}(\rho_{j})-S_{VN}(\rho_{ij}))+\label{eq:entMap}\\
& & \delta_{ij}*(S_{VN}(\frac{1}{2}*1_{2})-S_{VN}(\rho_{i}))\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
The color scale with the maximum entanglement normalized to 1 appears in Fig. \[fig:EntMap L1 h5 s4\]. It is important to note that while these figures can give a good general impression of entanglement behavior of the system, they do not tell the whole story, i.e. they only give information about two-point entanglement. Just because one of these figures shows no two point entanglement for a pair of spins, this does not mean that they are not entangled in a more complicated way.[@end4]
Although in principle there is nothing preventing one from obtaining entanglement maps for time averaged states, in this paper we only use this technique to study eigenstates.
Local magnetic field applied to Majumdar-Ghosh chains with open boundaries
==========================================================================
Subjecting a local region of a Majumdar-Ghosh spin chain to an external magnetic field forces the exposed spins to align with the field. Because of polarization conservation, excess polarization opposite to the direction of the field is generated in the field-free region of the system. In the sector of zero total spin polarization ($L=0$), and for sufficiently large magnetic field strengths, this can cause spins far from the field region to switch to non-trivial polarized configurations, whereas for smaller applied fields they remain in a spin singlet product state. In contrast, in polarization sectors with $L\neq0$ excess polarization is trapped close to the region where the field is applied, and singlets are pushed far away from this field region. This is demonstrated graphically in Fig. \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\] where parts (a) and (b) show the trace distance of two spins far from the locally applied magnetic field from a singlet for fields on an even and odd number of spins respectively. Parts (c) and (d) show the polarization stored in the region with no applied magnetic field versus field strength, again for fields on an even and odd number of spins respectively. As Figs. \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\](a) and (b) show, for local fields applied to regions with both an even and odd number of spins, there is always at least one polarization sector for which singlets are located far away from the field region. Even for relatively small finite systems, such as the ones studied here, the ground state always lies in one of these sectors.
![(color online) (a) and (b): Trace distance from a singlet state of the two spins at the end of the chain opposite to the region subjected to the local magnetic field. (c) and (d): Total spin polarization outside of the region subjected to the local field. (a) and (c) are for local fields applied to 4 spins, and (b) and (d) are for local fields applied to 3 spins. On all figures, the solid line is the L=0 sector, dashed lines indicate the L=-1 sector and the dot dashed lines indicate the L=-2 sector. Note that for sufficiently small local fields, the global ground state lies in the L=0 sector, whereas for larger local field strengths it lies in higher polarization sectors. In both cases the global ground state is locally close to the singlet state on spins far from the field. These plots are all properties realting to the ground states of given sectors.[]{data-label="fig:sd_&_L_vs_h"}](figure3)
It is also interesting to note from Figs. \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\](c) and (d) that for a small field in the L=0 sector, the spins in the field-free area behaves differently, depending on whether the local field is applied to an odd or to an even number of spins. This can be explained by the fact that for a field on an odd number of spins, the boundary between the field and the region with no field cuts through a singlet, in the original ground state. E.g. the field gradient makes one component of the singlet more energetically favorable than the other. By rotating these two spins between the singlet and the classical ${|\downarrow\uparrow \rangle}$ state, the ground state can be adjusted locally. When, however the field boundary is between two singlets, a critical local field strength must be reached for any polarization to be transferred from the field region to the field-free region as Fig. \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\](c) demonstrates. This is because the matrix product state of singlets is still an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian for any field strength in this case, and a level crossing must occur before the ground state can change. [@end5]
Fig. \[fig:EntMap L1 h5 s4\] shows the entanglement map of a system in the L=-1 global spin sector, with a magnetic field of h=5J applied on 4 of 16 spins. Fig. \[fig:EntMap L1 h5 s4\] suggests that for a range of field values, the distance from a singlet is caused by frustration from having an effectively odd number of spins available in the Majumdar-Gosh Hamiltonian. In this case, however, the frustration is alleviated by an intermediate transition region between the field behavior and far from field behavior changing its length (at the cost of some energy). [@end6]
![(color online) Entanglement map for the L=-1 sector ground state (note that this is not the global ground state) for a Majumdar-Ghosh chain of 16 spins with 4 adjacent spins, whose position is indicated by the white square, subjected to a local magnetic field of strength h=5J . The color scale is normalized to 1 as shown.[]{data-label="fig:EntMap L1 h5 s4"}](figure4a)
Polarization effects
--------------------
The way the system distributes polarization depends strongly on even-odd effects. To study the effects of polarization we examine Fig. \[fig:open SDvsEM\] which shows the dependence of trace distance from a singlet for spins far from the locally applied magnetic field on the polarization in the non-field region in parts (a) and (b) for fields on an even and odd number of spins respectively. Parts (c) and (d) show the polarization of the last 2 spins rather than trace distance from a singlet. From Figs. \[fig:open SDvsEM\](c) and (d) one can tell that if the field is placed on an even number of spins, any polarization that is in the non-field region will be immediately spread, even to the furthest spins. In the case where the field is placed on an odd number of spins, however, a finite amount of polarization can be sequestered near the boundary. Figs. \[fig:open SDvsEM\](a) and (b) show that this trend is mirrored in distance from a singlet for far-away spins.
![(color online) (a) and (b): Trace distance from a singlet state of the two spins at the end of the chain opposite to the region subjected to the local magnetic field versus polarization of the entire field free region. (c) and (d): Spin polarization of the 2 furthest spins versus polarization of the entire field free region. Local field on 4 of 16 spins with periodic boundary conditions (left column). Local field on 5 of 16 spins with periodic boundary conditions (right column). In all parts, the solid line is the L=0 sector, dashed lines indicate the L=-1 sector and the dot dashed lines indicate the L=-2 sector. These plots are all properties realting to the ground states of given sectors.[]{data-label="fig:open SDvsEM"}](figure5)
The differences between the even-spin and odd-spin ground state for the zero-field spin chain can be used to explain why polarization sequestration can occur in one case and not the other. Any spin $\frac{1}{2}$ spin chain with an odd number of spins and no applied local field must have a degenerate ground state because the particle-hole duality. The degenerate ground states also have different polarization and, therefore, 2 degenerate ground states with a continuum of polarization between $L=-\frac{1}{2}$ and $L=\frac{1}{2}$ are possible. This means that for a chain which is effectively “odd”, there is no energy penalty for being anywhere in this range. This effect allows polarization to be spread throughout the no-field region without increasing the energy in that region. Polarization can effectively be moved through this locally degenerate subspace, therefore polarization sequestration does not occur. Conversely, for a spin chain which is effectively “even”, the ground state is unique, and polarization will tend to be localized in the ground state to avoid raising the energy of all of the no-field spins. As Fig. \[fig:EntMap L1 h5 s4\] suggests, for certain field ranges in a given sector, the length of the non-field region of the chain is effectively “odd”. When this happens polarization can be spread freely throughout the non-field region, and sequestration does not occur, see Fig. \[fig:frustration cartoon\].
![Cartoon representation of the effect which prevents polarization sequestration for a field on an even number of spins.[]{data-label="fig:frustration cartoon"}](figure6)
Field Induced Effects
---------------------
For very strong fields, the spins within the field should have no entanglement with the rest of the system, in low energy states. This is because the spins subjected to the field will align with the field. Therefore an effective Hamiltonian which acts only on the spins outside of the field should be able to describe the system in low energy states. A simple model for this Hamiltonian would be to alter the coupling between the two spins closest to the field, with the supposition that the coupling with the field spins acts to mediate the interaction between the two spins coupled to them (see Fig. \[fig:coupling approx cartoon\]). The overlap between the known ground state, and the ground state calculated using the approximation shown in Fig. \[fig:coupling approx cartoon\] for different added coupling strengths and different spins in the field region appear in Fig. \[fig:coupling approx gs\]. Fig. \[fig:coupling approx gs\] supports the claim that this approximation works fairly well in the ground state for a field on an odd number of spins. For numerical results see table \[tab:coupling approx\].
![(color online) The approximation used to simulate behavior with a strong field.[]{data-label="fig:coupling approx cartoon"}](figure7)
\[fig:coupling approx gs\]
$J_{add}$
------ -------- -----------
N’=1 0.9976 -0.3323
N’=3 0.9980 -0.3786
N’=5 0.9983 -0.3756
N’=7 0.9987 -0.3706
: Statistics considering a field of h=100 placed on N’ spins, comparing the approximate to the actual Hamiltonian. The coupling listed here is the additional coupling added to the 2 closest spins to the field[]{data-label="tab:coupling approx"}
Local magnetic field applied to Majumdar-Ghosh chains with periodic boundary conditions
=======================================================================================
Unlike open boundary conditions, periodic boundaries present a case where the unperturbed Hamiltonian has a degenerate ground state. Therefore, the local Hamiltonian for the spins far away from the region subjected to the local field will also always have a degenerate ground state. The complications from this degeneracy add a new series of effects which are not observed in the open-boundary case. These effects are illustrated by Fig. \[fig:periodic SDvEM\] which shows in parts (a) and (b) the closest distance from the singlet subspace for the two furthest spins from the region of the locally applied magnetic field versus polarization on all non-field spins for 3 of 20 and 4 of 20 spins in the field respectively. Parts (c) and (d) show polarization on the two furthest spins from the locally applied field versus total polarization in the non-field region, again for field on 3 of 20 and 4 of 20 spins respectively.
![(color online) Closest local distance from singlet subspace of 2 furthest spins from the locally applied magnetic field versus polarization on all non-field spins (top row). Polarization on 2 furthest spins versus polarization on all non field spins (bottom row). Field on 3 of 20 spins with periodic boundary conditions (left column). Field on 4 of 20 spins with periodic boundary conditions (right column). On all figures, the solid line is the L=0 sector, dashed lines indicate the L=-1 sector and the dot dashed lines indicate the L=-2 sector, where I call negative L to be in the direction of the field. These plots are all properties realting to the ground states of given sectors.[]{data-label="fig:periodic SDvEM"}](figure9)
The most immediately obvious difference is that if the local magnetic field is placed on an odd number of spins, neither spin sequestration nor closeness in trace distance to the singlet subspace for any spins are observed, except for the L=0 subspace in weak local fields. Figs. \[fig:periodic SDvEM\](a) and (c) show the trace distance from a singlet in spins far from the applied magnetic field and local angular momentum for spins far from the local magnetic field respectively, both versus total angular momentum in the field free region. For larger fields, the spins far from the region where the external magnetic field is applied do not approach the singlet subspace because of frustration caused by having an odd number of spins in the non-field region. In the case of periodic boundary conditions, the effects of the frustration are stronger than in the case of open boundaries. This is because here a change in the length of the field-to-far-from-field transition region will do nothing to relieve the frustration because of the symmetry between the two field boundaries. Regardless of whether the length of one of these regions is odd or even, the total length of transition regions is always even because it is the length of a single transition region multiplied by two.
Effect of local degeneracy on small quenches
--------------------------------------------
![(color online) a) Trace distance between the two spins furthest from the field and the nearest singlet covering (see Eq. \[eq:dist sing cover\]) versus field for 20 spins with periodic boundary conditions and a field placed on 4 of the spins. b) Entanglement map for 16 spins with a field of h=1.3J placed on spins 1-4 (indicated by the white rectangle) with periodic boundary conditions c) Same as (a), but now with distance to the closest state in the degenerate subspace (see Eq. \[eq:dist sing subspace\]) d) Same as (b) but with a field of h=1.6J. On all figures, the solid line is the L=0 sector, dashed lines indicate the L=-1 sector and the dot dashed lines indicate the L=-2 sector, where negative L is in the direction of the field. All plots in this figure are for eignestates of the Hamitlonian.[]{data-label="fig:singlet shift"}](figure10)
Shifting the focus to the case where the external field is placed on an even number of spins, one can consider the effects of now having a locally degenerate ground state, i.e. having a Hamiltonian which has a ground state degeneracy when no field is applied, and therefore is degenerate in a local sense far from the spins with an applied magnetic field. Fist the ground state can be studied by observing Fig. \[fig:singlet shift\], this figure shows in parts (a) and (c) the trace distance from the closest singlet covering and minimum distance from the manifold of singlet coverings respectively for the two furthest spins from the locally applied magnetic field versus field strength, for a field applied to 4 of 20 spins with periodic boundary conditions. Parts (b) and (d) show entanglement maps for a local magnetic field strength of h=1.3J and h=1.6J respectively, again for a field on 4 of 20 spins with periodic boundaries. Fig. \[fig:singlet shift\](c) indicates that the global ground state of the system is always close to the singlet subspace far from the field, however \[fig:singlet shift\](a) suggests that around a field strength of 1.5 the system may undergo a switch between singlet coverings far from the spins to which the field is applied. Figures \[fig:singlet shift\](b,d) confirm this suspicion by showing that indeed before the peak in \[fig:singlet shift\](a) there are an even number of dimers outside of the field region, while after there are an odd number of dimers. This indicates that disturbances from the local field can be felt far from the spins with an applied field, but only for a narrow range of field values.
![(color online) Initial trace distance from average (see Eq. \[eq:dist av\]) for a subsystem far from the fields after a small field quench $\epsilon=0.001$ (top row). Polarization on all non-field spins versus field strength (bottom row). 20 spins with field placed on 3 of them and periodic boundary conditions (left column). same with field placed on 4 spins (right column). Dotted vertical lines have been added to emphasize correlation between the two graphs. On all figures, the solid line is the L=0 sector, dashed lines indicate the L=-1 sector and the dot dashed lines indicate the L=-2 sector. Lines at the top are added to show which spin sector the global ground state is in. The top two plots are time averaged quantities from a quench, while the bottom two figures are properties of the ground state of each sector.[]{data-label="fig:initial dist to av"}](figure11)
One can now consider the effect of small quenches at various applied field strengths on spins far from the field spins. The results of such quenches are shown in Fig. \[fig:initial dist to av\], parts (a) and (b) show the trace distance to average for the two furthest spins from the locally applied magnetic field, after a quench which involves a small change in field strength versus the strength of that field for a field on 3 of 20 and 4 of 20 spins respectively with periodic boundary conditions. Parts (c) and (d) show the polarization of the two furthest spins from the locally applied magnetic field versus field, and are included to emphasize the important role played by polarization in this system. One would expect that these disturbances can only be propagated through the still locally degenerate ground state subspace of the no-field Hamiltonian and therefore would only have an effect when the coverings shift. Fig. \[fig:initial dist to av\](b) shows that in fact a small quench does disturb the system strongly at the point where the coverings switch. The other two peaks in Fig. \[fig:initial dist to av\](b) are less relevant because they occur in the ground state of a spin sector, but not in the global ground state of the system. Also none of the quench disturbances which occur far from the spins with an applied field occur in the global ground state in Fig. \[fig:initial dist to av\](a), demonstrating another difference caused by even-odd effects. This is to be expected, because the the two degenerate ground states of an odd length Majumdar-Gosh chain lie in different polarization sectors and therefore cannot exhibit level repulsion, at least locally, in the region far from the applied magnetic field.
Note also that Fig. \[fig:initial dist to av\] suggests that there is a strong correlation between polarization outside of the subsystem where a magnetic field is applied and quench disturbance to the far spins, in the sense that when the quench has a strong effect, there is a rapid change in polarization in the non-field region. The converse however is not supported by this figure. This demonstrates than polarization plays a strong role in the global behavior of this system.
The same energy arguments used in the static case for behavior of spins far from the spins with an externally-applied magnetic field should be usable as a dynamical argument. A finite local field can only introduce a finite amount of energy into the system. Therefore only states which lie sufficiently close in energy to the ground state can be accessed in any significant way. For a large enough system, all of the low energy states will have to be locally close to the ground state for most of the spins far from the locally-applied magnetic field, therefore locally, far from the field, spins can only be disturbed within the degenerate subspace. Put another way, in gapped systems the effects of a local quench have to be localized, unless there exists a locally degenerate subspace far from the region where the quench is applied. When such a subspace exists it may be able to transport conserved charges, quantum entanglement and dynamical disturbances an unlimited distance away from the disturbance site. A locally degenerate ground state can be thought of as a special symmetry which allows transport of information and charges (but not energy) with no losses throughout the part of a system far from the quench. [@end7]
Long-range entanglement allows a part of the system which lies entirely in a degenerate subspace to have its evolution driven by local evolution far away, see Fig. \[fig:long range cartoon\].
![Cartoon of field quench for periodic boundaries.[]{data-label="fig:long range cartoon"}](figure12)
Large quenches
--------------
Now that it is established that a disturbance will be able to be propagated throughout the entire system from a small quench, one can perform a large quench from h=1.6 to h=1.3 for a local field applied to 4 adjacent spins of 20 total spins with periodic boundary conditions. One can then examine the time statistics of various properties of the system. These statistics are shown in Fig. \[fig:large quench statistics\], in this figure part (a) is the trace distance of 4 spins far from the locally applied magnetic field from a singlet state, part (b) is the time statistics of the Loschmidt echo of the entire system, part (c) is the time statistics of the distance from the time averaged state for 4 spins far from the locally applied field, and part (d) is the time statistics of the magnetization of the spins subjected to the field. These statistics will show the ability of the system to equilibrate, even locally for spins far from the spins where the local magnetic field is applied. In the case studied here, the system only equilibrates poorly, even in the global sense, not surprisingly, poor equilibration is also shown in local observables both close to and far from the spins with an applied magnetic field.
![(color online) Equilibration statistics for N=20, N’=4 with a quench from h$_{(i)}$=1.6 to h$_{(f)}=1.3$. a) Time statistics of the trace distance of 4 spins far from the locally applied magnetic field from a singlet state (Eq. \[eq:singlet overlap\]). b) Time statistics of the Loschmidt echo (Eq. \[eq:Loschmidt\]) with an approximation based on few frequencies. c) Time statistics of distance from time averaged state (Eq. \[eq:time dist av\]) for 4 spins far from the locally-applied magnetic field. d) Time statistics of local magnetization (Eq. \[eq:locMag\]) of the field spins. These plots are all time statistics obtained from evolution.[]{data-label="fig:large quench statistics"}](figure13)
The double-peaked pattern of equilibration seen here is typical of small systems, see [@Diez2010], and is thus consistent with the theory that although the system itself is rather large [@end8], the actual evolution is only taking place on a few spins in or near the region of externally applied field, the rest of the system is simply being drug along by long range entanglement with these spins. As Fig. \[fig:large quench statistics\](c) demonstrates, even though the dynamics is driven by long range entanglement with far away spins, a subsystem of spins is still able to be pushed toward equilibration in the trace distance sense. The fact that there is no local energy difference does not seem to interfere at all with equilibration of these spins. The trace distance from the average is observed quite close to zero at some times, unlike in similar quenches performed at the Majumdar-Ghosh point in [@Diez2010]. This is because an undisturbed singlet somewhere in the region being observed would yield a large distance from the average at all times as shown in [@Diez2010] where the quench did not cause a change in singlet coverings. In the case we are observing, where the coverings switch, there are no undisturbed singlets in the region away from the field spins.
Although the equilibration is globally poor in this system, there are no signs that equilibration via long-range entanglement through a locally degenerate subspace is any less effective than direct equilibration of the spins to which the field is applied. The data from this quench therefore indicate that the entire system can be equilibrated (at least somewhat) by a quench which only affects a very small region. In fact a system of any size should be able to be brought locally close to equilibrium in this way. Because all states of the far spins locally have the same energy, than they cannot affect the time evolution of the system, therefore the same behavior would be expected for a spin chain of any sufficiently long (even) length.
Other Coupling Strengths
========================
One can now ask what would happen if the coupling were changed such that the system was no longer using the Majumdar-Ghosh Hamiltonian, but allowed the next nearest neighbor coupling to take on arbitrary values, see Eq. \[eq:J2 hamiltonian\]. This study is done with 20 spins and periodic boundary conditions, with a local magnetic field on 4 adjacent spins.
$$H_{J2}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\vec{S}_{j}\cdot\vec{S}_{j+1}+J_{2}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\vec{S}_{j}\cdot\vec{S}_{j+2}\label{eq:J2 hamiltonian}$$
Small field quenches can be considered on this new Hamiltonian exactly in the same way they can be considered for the Majumdar-Ghosh Hamiltonian, the results appear in Fig. \[fig:Init2avJ2\] which shows the initial trace distance from average for a small field quench versus coupling and field strength. This data shows that for a wide range of coupling near the Majumdar-Ghosh point, small field quenches can drastically affect spins very far from the spins with an applied magnetic field at specific field strengths. However, when the field strength is eventually different enough, these peaks broaden out and disappear (note logarithmic scale in Fig. \[fig:Init2avJ2\]). The basic behavior seen previously in this paper holds for a wide range of couplings, where the ground state is no longer degenerate.
![(color online) Initial trace distance to average for far spins after a small field quench, larger distances are lighter, smaller distances are darker. Trace distance is plotted on a logarithmic scale, contour lines (red on-line) are included for clarity. Data using 20 spins with periodic boundaries in the L=-1 sector. \[fig:Init2avJ2\]](figure14)
For an infinite system one would expect that, far spins from the local magnetic field could not be disturbed by a local field quench unless either the system is gapless or there exists a degenerate ground state. For a finite system, this would only be necessarily true if the gap between the ground state and first excited state is sufficiently large compared to the energy introduced by the applied local magnetic field, in which case the field will be unable to introduce enough energy to affect the entire system. In this case the order of magnitude of the energy which the field introduces can be estimated by simply multiplying the field strength by the number of spins it is applied to. Because both of the quantities are of order 1, one would expect that the energy introduced would also be of order 1.
The energy gap in the system which will be used for this calculation can be determined by exact diagonalization. The energy of the gap between the ground state and first excited state of this system are shown in Fig. \[fig:differentJ2\] part (c) which shows the gap energy versus coupling at zero applied field, part (a) shows the initial distance from the average for 4 spins far from the locally applied magnetic field after a large quench (within the $L=-\frac{1}{2}$ sector), part (b) shows the local trace distance from the nearest singlet covering for spins far from the local field in the ground state of the $L=-\frac{1}{2}$ sector versus field strength and coupling, and part (d) is the same as (b), but with trace distance from the nearest state in the ground state manifold. It can be seen from Fig. \[fig:differentJ2\](c) that the gap energy is at most of order 0.1, therefore, one would expect that for the entire range of couplings, the far spins could be disturbed by the local field. The results seen in Fig. \[fig:Init2avJ2\] are as expected, however if the system size were increased to infinity, one would expect that in the gapped region for $J_{2}\gtrsim$0.25, the peaks in the distance would have to disappear except for exactly at $J_{2}$=0.5, or any other point with a degenerate ground state. Twenty spins, however, is still too small a system for changes in the coupling to destroy the ability to dephase far spins with a local field, in other words the system can be considered to have an approximately degenerate (wrt. the energy scale associated with the field) ground state for all values of $J_{2}$, the next nearest neighbor coupling.
![(color online) a) Initial distance from average for 4 spins far from the locally applied field for a large quench from h=2 to h=1 for the L=-1 sector. b) distance of far spins from nearest singlet covering (Eq. \[eq:dist sing cover\]) versus h and $J_{2}$, L=-1 sector, color scale same as for entanglement maps, but normalized to largest value. c) gap between ground state energy and first excited state, for different $J_{2}$and h=0. d) distance from singlet subspace for far spins (Eq. \[eq:dist sing subspace\]) versus h and $J_{2}$, L=-1 sector, color scale same as for entanglement maps, but normalized to largest value. All plot except for (a) are static quantities relating to eigenstates.[]{data-label="fig:differentJ2"}](figure15)
One can now ask whether the effects seen in Fig. \[fig:Init2avJ2\] away from the Majumdar-Ghosh point are also caused by some kind of shift in singlet covering. To answer this question, one can compare Fig. \[fig:differentJ2\](b) to Fig. \[fig:differentJ2\](d) and notice that where the peaks in Fig. \[fig:Init2avJ2\] are located, the trace distance from either covering tends to be relatively large, but the distance from the subspace tends to be relatively small. This indicates that movement within the singlet subspace is the cause of much of the disturbance in the far spins. Also interesting to note is that for a significant portion of the couplings, the spins far from the locally applied magnetic field are closest to the singlet subspace when the small field quenches have the most effect on far spins. It appears that even at many couplings away from the Majumdar-Ghosh point, the model of switching between coverings as a way to spread a disturbance throughout the system is accurate. In fact for many values of $J_{2}$, the system appears to move into the singlet subspace for a narrow range of fields only when the covering change occurs. For $J_{2}\gtrsim0.6$ this model seems to break down, but it is still at least relevant for a large range of $J_{2}$. Although not directly related to the quench, it is interesting to note that above a certain local magnetic field strength the spins far from the field seem to lie on the singlet superposition manifold for a fairly large range of coupling strengths near Majumdar-Ghosh coupling, as well as a narrow strip between $J_{2}=0.6$ and $J_{2}=0.8$, the reason for this is not known.
The results of a large local magnetic field quench over varying $J_{2}$ as shown in Fig.\[fig:differentJ2\](a) simply helps to underscore what has already been noted about changing coupling not being an effective way of preventing disturbances from propagating throughout the system at this system size. Not only do the large quenches have a significant effect on far spins from the local magnetic field for all coupling strengths, but the expected trend of decreasing quench effect with increasing gap is not visible in any definitive way, indicating that, not only is the energy scale of the gap (Fig. \[fig:differentJ2\](c)) too small to be the dominating factor in the quench effectiveness, it seems to not even play a very significant role. This result is consistent with the previous energy scale argument, the energy scale associated with the field is always at least an order of magnitude larger than the gap between the first 2 eigenstates.
Conclusions
===========
In systems with degenerate ground states, quantum entanglement, disturbances, and charges can propagate freely, as long as the quench crosses between pre and post quench ground states which are locally different from each other far away from the region affected by the local quench. This effect is different and independent from gapless excitations, and has been demonstrated to occur in a gapped system. Unlike in gapless systems where excitations carry an arbitrarily small amount of energy far from the quench, these excitations store all energy locally near the quench, and evolution far away is driven solely by long-range entanglement. The local energy far from the region affected by a local quench Hamiltonian is exactly zero in these systems, not arbitrarily small.
To allow a charge to be propagated through a degenerate subspace, the two degenerate ground states must have different local expectation values for said charge far from the region affected by a local quench Hamiltonian. An effectively odd spin chain far from the field is allowed to propagate polarization throughout the far region for example. Again, in such a case, long range entanglement can propagate the charge, but does not propagate any energy far from the field. In cases where two degenerate ground states with different expectation values for a charge far from the region where the quench is applied do not exist, the charge can become locally trapped in part of the system. In the case of the Majumdar-Ghosh Hamiltonian, the polarization is trapped near the boundary of the local magnetic field region. A locally unique ground state (in a gapped system) means that charges, as well as disturbances, are confined after a local quench. Energy arguments prevent a disturbance from traveling throughout the system and also therefore forbid charges from moving outside of a small area.
In the system studied here, a large local magnetic field causes the spins within the field to become effectively ’fixed’, facing in the direction of the field in the ground state. An approximation which does not include these spins directly but includes an effective modulation in coupling between the two spins neighboring the field can faithfully reproduce the ground state when an odd number of spins remain. For the case that an even number of spins are left out of the field region, this simple approximation fails. We believe that the effective transition region between the field and non-field region consists of an odd number of spins, and that this ground state cannot be faithfully reproduced in this way because of odd length frustration effects.
For Majumdar-Ghosh spin chains with periodic boundaries, with a local magnetic field on some even number of spins, there exists a range of fields where a small field quench can propagate a disturbance through the entire system using long range entanglement. This disturbance is propagated locally through the degenerate subspace of the local ground state. In this case, this range of fields is relatively narrow. A quench across this entire range does not only cause equilibration near the field, but also moves the far spins towards equilibration, within the locally degenerate subspace.
Study of systems with different next nearest neighbor coupling indicate that the basic effect which causes disturbances to be propagated to far spins can, at least for small enough systems, be extended away from the Majumdar-Ghosh point. For finite systems, if the gap between the ground state and the first excited state is small enough, the same effect which was described here for degenerate systems can also be applied to systems where the first 2 states are close in energy. In other words, under the right conditions, an approximate degeneracy will work in place of an exact degeneracy. For a system of 20 spins any value of $J_{2}$ between 0 and 1 still allows the far spins to be significantly affected by the field. We strongly suspect that for the values of $J_{2}$where the Hamiltonian is gapped and for which a degenerate ground state does not exist, spins far from a local magnetic field applied to a few spins cannot be affected in the large system limit.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors would like to thank N. Tobias Jacobson for his assistance in editing this paper. We would also like to thank S. Garnerone, B. Normand, and M. Diez for valuable discussions. The numerical computations were carried out on the University of Southern California high performance supercomputer cluster. This work a has been supported by NSF grants: PHY-803304,DMR- 0804914.
[References]{} J. Cardy, arXiv:1012.5116v1 [\[]{}cond-mat.stat-mech[\]]{} (2010)
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
N. T. Jacobson, P. Giorda and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. E 82, 056204 (2010)
M. Diez, N. Chancellor, L. Campos Venuti, S. Haas and P. Zanardi, Local Quenches in Frustrated Quantum Spin Chains: Global vs Subsystem Equilibration, arXiv:1007.0041v1 [\[]{}quant-ph[\]]{}
L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022113 (2010).
L. Campos Venuti and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 81, 032113 (2010).
Jie Ren and Shiqun Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 81, 014302 (2010)
Benjamin Hsu, Eytan Grosfeld, and Eduardo Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235412 (2009)
L. M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 090402 (2003).
D.Porras and J.I. Cirac, Laser Physics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2005, pp. 8894.
Y. Makhlin, G. Sch�n, A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 357 (2001)
L. S. Levitov, T. P. Orlando, J. B. Majer and J. E. Mooij, arXiv:cond-mat/0108266v2 [\[]{}cond-mat.mes-hall[\]]{} (2001)
Davide Rossini, Sei Suzuki, Giuseppe Mussardo, Giuseppe E. Santoro, and Alessandro Silva, Phys. Rev. B 82, 144302 (2010).
Rahel Heule, C. Bruder, Daniel Burgarth and Vladimir M. Stojanović, arXiv:1010.5715v1 [\[]{}quant-ph[\]]{} (2010)
C K Majumdar 1970 J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 3 911
However, one can orthogonalize them, still preserving the symmetry under $a\longleftrightarrow b,\,2l\rightarrow mod_{N}(2l+1)$, by adding a term $-(a\times\bigotimes_{k=1}^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{{|\uparrow_{2k-1}\downarrow_{2k} \rangle}}{\sqrt{2}}+b\times\bigotimes_{k=1}^{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{{|\downarrow_{2k-1}\uparrow_{2k} \rangle}}{\sqrt{2}})$.
The only case where this is not observed is for the case of periodic boundary conditions with a local field applied to an even number of spins. In this case these spins orient locally like in the frustrated ground state of a Majumdar-Ghosh chain with an odd number of spins.
Note that due the inhomogeneity introduced by the applied local field, translational symmetry is broken.
An example of this would be to consider a superposition of the two singlet coverings. Any non-adjacent spins will have exactly zero two-point entanglement (see Eq. \[eq:entMap\]). However, any set of two pairs of adjacent spins will have a finite entanglement between them. To see this, consider the case where one set of two spins is measured to be both in the up direction. If there is an odd number of spins between the two spin pairs, this forces the other pair to be a singlet, regardless of the distance between the pairs.
Showing that this happens consists of demonstrating that the singlet covering is an eigenstate of any field which does not change within a singlet. This can be seen by realizing that the field operator on the first spin of the singlet will give the zero magnetization triplet state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({|\uparrow\downarrow \rangle}+{|\downarrow\uparrow \rangle})$, while the operator on the second spin will give the same but with a negative sign. Thus the two will cancel making the singlet covering an eigenstate with a zero eigenvalue.
The closeness to the boundary may also be a factor in the trace distance of the last 2 spins from a singlet, the fact that no entanglement can cross the open boundary may cause spins close to it to assume more localized states, however while this effect could make finite distances smaller, it should not be able to make the trace distance (virtually) zero as it is in many parts of Fig. \[fig:sd\_&\_L\_vs\_h\](a).
Note that the excitations which travel through a locally degenerate ground state are not the same as gapless excitations, which locally carry an arbitrarily small amount of energy. The parts of these excitations which exist far from the region affected by the local quench Hamiltonian carry exactly zero energy locally.
One could argue that 20 spins is not such a large system, but it has been shown that the spins far from the evolution are always locally in the degenerate subspace. Adding more far spins and making the system into one which all of the readers would agree would be “large” (for example making the system size 100,000 spins) would not effect the dynamics, and the double peaked pattern would remain.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Weak gravitational lensing surveys have the potential to directly probe mass density fluctuation in the universe. Recent studies have shown that it is possible to model the statistics of the convergence field at small angular scales by modeling the statistics of the underlying density field in the highly nonlinear regime. We propose a new method to model the complete probability distribution function of the convergence field as a function of smoothing angle and source redshift. The model relies on a hierarchical ansatz for the behavior of higher order correlations of the density field. We compare our results with ray tracing simulations and find very good agreement over a range of smoothing angles. Whereas the density probability distribution function is not sensitive to the cosmological model, the probability distribution function for the convergence can be used to constrain both the power spectrum and cosmological parameters.'
author:
- |
Dipak Munshi$^{1}$ and Bhuvnesh Jain$^2$\
$^1$Max-Planck-Institut fur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.1, D-85740, Garching, Germany\
$^2$Johns Hopkins University, Department of Physics, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
title: |
The Statistics of Weak Lensing at Small Angular Scales:\
Probability Distribution Function
---
= 500
Cosmology: theory – large-scale structure of the Universe – Methods: analytical
Introduction
============
Weak distortions in the images of high red-shift galaxies by the intervening large-scale structure provide us with valuable information about the mass distribution in the universe. The study of such distortions provides us a unique way to probe the statistical properties of the intervening density distribution. Traditionally, the study of gravitational clustering in the quasi-linear and non-linear regime are done by analyzing galaxy catalogs. However such studies can only provide us with information on how the galaxies are clustered, and to infer the statistics of the underlying mass distribution from galaxy catalogs one needs a prescription for galaxy bias. Weak lensing studies are free from such effects and can directly probe the statistics of the underlying mass distribution.
Pioneering works in this direction were done by Blandford et al. (1991), Miralda-Escude (1991) and Kaiser (1992) based on the earlier work by Gunn (1967). Current progress in weak lensing can broadly be divided into two distinct categories. Whereas Villumsen (1996), Stebbins (1996), Bernardeau et al. (1997), Jain & Seljak (1997) and Kaiser (1998) have focussed on the linear and quasi-linear regime by assuming a large smoothing angle, several authors have developed a numerical technique to simulate weak lensing catalogs. Numerical simulations of weak lensing typically employ N-body simulations, through which ray tracing experiments are conducted (Schneider & Weiss 1988; Jarosszn’ski et al. 1990; Lee & Paczyn’ski 1990; Jarosszn’ski 1991; Babul & Lee 1991; Bartelmann & Schneider 1991,Blandford et al. 1991). Building on the earlier work of Wambsganns et al. (1995, 1997, 1998) detailed numerical study of lensing was done by Wambsganns, Cen & Ostriker (1998). Other recent studies using ray tracing experiments have been conducted by Premadi, Martel & Matzner (1998), van Waerbeke, Bernardeau & Mellier (1998), Bartelmann et al (1998), Couchman, Barber & Thomas (1998) and White & Hu (1999). While a peturbative analysis can provide valuable information at large smoothing angles, it can not be used to study lensing at small angular scales as the whole perturbative series starts to diverge.
A complete analysis of weak lensing statistics at small angular scales is not available at present, as we do not have a similar analysis for the underlying dark matter distribution. However there are several non-linear [*ansatze*]{} which predicts a tree hierarchy for matter correlation functions and are thought to be successful to some degree in modeling results from numerical simulations. Most of these [*ansatze*]{} assumes a tree hierarchy for higher order correlation functions and they disagree with each other by the way they assign weights to trees of same order but of different topologies (Balian & Schaeffer 1989, Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992; Szapudi & Szalay). The evolution of the two-point correlation functions in all such approximations are left arbitrary. However recent studies by several authors (Hamilton et al 1991; Peacock & Dodds 1994; Nityanada & Padmanabhan 1994; Jain, Mo & White 1995; Peacock & Dodds 1996) have provided us accurate fitting formulae for the evolution of the two-point correlation function, which can be used in combination with these hierarchical [*ansatze*]{} to predict the clustering properties of dark matter distribution in the universe.
Most recent studies in weak lensing have mainly focussed on lower order cumulants (van Waerbeke, Bernardeau & Mellier 1998; Schneider et al 1998; Hui 1999; Munshi, Jain & White 1999a), cumulant correlators (Munshi, Jain & White 1999a) and errors associated with their measurement from observational data using different filter functions (Reblinsky et al. 1999) . However it is well known that higher order moments are increasingly sensitive to the tail of the distribution function and are more sensitive to measurement errors due to the finite size of a catalog. On the other hand numerical simulations involving ray tracing experiments have already shown that while the probability distribution function associated with the density field is not sensitive to cosmological parameters, its weak lensing counterpart can help us in the estimation of such parameters from observational data (Jain, Seljak & White 1999). At present there is no prescription for the theoretical estimation of the PDF for the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. Valageas (1999) has used a hierarchical ansatz for computing the error involved in the estimation of $\Omega_0$ and $\Lambda$ from SNeIa observations. A similar fitting function was recently proposed by Wang (1999). Our formalism is similar to that of Valageas (1999) although the results obtained by us include the effect of smoothing. The formalism we introduce can be easily extended to the multi-point PDF and hence to compute bias and $S_N$ parameters associated with “hot spots” of convergence maps. Analytical results and detailed comparison against numerical simulations will be presented elsewhere.
The paper is organized as follows. In section $2$ we briefly the ray tracing simulations. Section $3$ presents the analytical results necessary to compute the PDF of the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. The comparison of these results with ray tracing simulations is made in section $4$. Section $5$ contains a discussion of our results.
Generation of Convergence Maps from N-body Simulations
======================================================
Convergence maps are generated by solving the geodesic equations for the propagation of light rays through N-body simulations of dark matter clustering. The simulations used for our study are adaptive $P^3M$ simulations with $256^3$ particles and were carried out using codes kindly made available by the VIRGO consortium. These simulations can resolve structures larger than $30h^{-1}kpc$ at $z = 0$ accurately. These simulations were carried out using 128 or 256 processors on CRAY T3D machines at Edinburgh Parallel Computer Center and at the Garching Computer Center of the Max-Planck Society. These simulations were intended primarily for studies of the formation and clustering of galaxies (Kauffmann et al 1999a, 1999b; Diaferio et al 1999) but were made available by these authors and by the Virgo Consortium for this and earlier studies of gravitational lensing (Jain, Seljak & White 1999, Reblinsky et al. 1999, Munshi & Jain 1999a)
Ray tracing simulations were carried out by Jain et al. (1999) using a multiple lens-plane calculation which implements the discrete version of recursion relations for mapping the photon position and the Jacobian matrix (Schneider & Weiss 1988; Schneider, Ehler & Falco 1992). In a typical experiment $4\times 10^6$ rays are used to trace the underlying mass distribution. The dark matter distribution between the source and the observer is projected onto $20$ - $30$ planes. The particle positions on each plane are interpolated onto a $2048^2$ grid. On each plane the shear matrix is computed on this grid from the projected density by using Fourier space relations between the two. The photons are propagated starting from a rectangular grid on the first lens plane. The regular grid of photon position gets distorted along the line of sight. To ensure that all photons reach the observer, the ray tracing experiments are generally done backward in time from the observer to the source plane at red-shift $z = z_s$. The resolution of the convergence maps is limited by both the resolution scale associated with numerical simulations and also due to the finite resolution of the grid to propagate photons. The outcome of these simulations are shear and convergence maps on a two dimensional grid. Depending on the background cosmology the two dimensional box represents a few degree scale patch on the sky. For more details on the generation of $\kappa$-maps, see Jain et al (1999).
Analytical Predictions
======================
In this section we provide the necessary theoretical background for the analytical derivation of the probability distribution function for the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. We will use models of nonlinear hierarchical clustering; details of various hierarchical ansatzes can be found in Balian & Schaeffer (1989), Bernardeau & Schaeffer (1992,1999), Bernardeau (1992,1994), Szapudi & Szalay (1993), Munshi et al. (1999a,b,c), Valageas & Schaeffer (1998), Valageas et al. (1997)).
The following line element describes the background geometry of the universe: $$d\tau^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + a^2(t)( d\chi^2 + r^2(\chi)d^2\Omega)$$ Where we have denoted the angular diameter distance by $r(\chi)$ and scale factor of the universe by $a(t)$; $r(\chi)= K^{-1/2}\sin (K^{-1/2}
\chi)$ for positive curvature, $r(\chi) = (-K)^{-1/2}\sinh
((-K)^{-1/2}\chi)$ for negative curvature and $r(\chi) = \chi$ for a zero curvature universe. The curvature $K$ is given in terms of the present value $H_0$ and $\Omega_0$ as $K= (\Omega_0 -1)H_0^2$. Parameters charecterising different cosmological models that we will be studying are listed in Table 1.
------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
SCDM TCDM LCDM OCDM
$\Gamma$ 0.5 0.21 0.21 0.21
$\Omega_0$ 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3
$\Lambda_0$ 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0
$\sigma_8$ 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.85
$H_0$ 50 50 70 70
------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
: Cosmological parameters characterizing different models[]{data-label="tabsig2D"}
Formalism
---------
The statistics of the convergence $\kappa$ in weak lensing is very similar to that of the projected density. In our analysis we will consider a small patch of the sky where we can use the plane parallel approximation or small angle approximation to replace spherical harmonics by Fourier modes. The 3-dimensional density contrast $\delta$ along the line of sight when projected onto the sky with the weight function $\omega(\chi)$ gives the convergence in a direction $\gamma$.
$$\kappa({\bf \gamma}) = \inc {d\chi}
\omega(\chi)\delta(r(\chi){\bf \gamma})$$
In our discussion we will be assume the source galaxies to be at a fixed red-shift $z_s$. For this case, one can express the weight function as, $$\omega(\chi) = {3\over 4} {H_0^2\over c^2}\
\Omega_m a \ {r(\chi) r(\chi_s - \chi)\over r(\chi_s)} ,$$ where $\chi_s$ is the comoving radial distance to the source galaxies. Using the Fourier transform of $\delta$, the convergence can be expressed as:
$$\kappa(\gamma) = \inc {d\chi} \omega(\chi) \int {d^3{\bf k} \over {(2
\pi)}^3} \exp ( i \chi k_{\parallel} + i r \theta k_{\perp} ) \delta_k ,$$
where $\theta$ denotes the angle between the line of sight direction ${\bf \gamma}$ and the wave vector ${\bf
k}$, $k_{\parallel}$ and $k_{\perp}$ denote the components of ${\bf k}$, parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight. In the small angle approximation one assumes that $k_{\perp}
>> k_{\parallel}$. Using these definitions we can compute the projected two-point correlation function in terms of the dark matter power spectrum $P(k,\chi)$ (Peebles 1980, Kaiser 1992, Kaiser 1998):
$$\langle \kappa(\gamma_1) \kappa(\gamma_2) \rangle = \inc d {\chi}
{\omega^2(\chi) \over r^2(\chi)} \int {d^2 {\bf l} \over (2
\pi)^2}~\exp ( \theta l )~ {\rm P} { \big ( {l\over r(\chi)}, \chi \big )}.$$
Where we have introduced ${\bf l} = r(\chi){\bf
k}_{\perp}$ to denote the scaled wave vector projected on the sky. The variance of $\kappa$ smoothed over an angle $\theta_0$ is (Jain & Seljak 1997)
$$\langle \kappa^2({\theta_0}) \rangle = \inc d {\chi_1}
{\omega^2(\chi_1) \over r^2(\chi_1)} \int {d^2 {\bf l} \over (2
\pi)^2}~ {\rm P} { \Big ( {l\over r(\chi)}, \chi \Big )} W_2^2(l\theta_0)
\label{kappa_variance}$$
Similarly the higher order moments of the smoothed convergence field relate $\langle \kappa^p ({\theta_0} \rangle$ to the 3-dimensional multi-spectra of the underlying dark matter distribution $B_p$ (Hui 1999, Munshi & Coles 1999a):
$$\langle \kappa^3 ({\theta_0}) \rangle = \inc d {\chi_1}
{\omega^3(\chi) \over r^6(\chi)} \int {d^2 {\bf l_1} \over (2\pi)^3}
W_2(l_1 \theta_0) \int {d^2{\bf
l_2}\over (2\pi)^2} W_2(l_2 \theta_0) \int {d^2 {\bf l_3} \over
(2\pi)^3} W_2(l_3 \theta_0) ~ {\rm B}_3 \Big ( {l_1\over r(\chi)},
{l_2\over r(\chi)}, {l_3\over r(\chi)}, \chi \Big )_{\sum {\bf l}_i = 0}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \kappa^4 ({\theta_0}) \rangle = \inc d {\chi_1}
{\omega^4(\chi) \over r^8(\chi)} \int {d^2 {\bf l_1} \over (2\pi)^3}
W_2(l_1 \theta_0) \int {d^2{\bf
l_2}\over (2\pi)^2} W_2(l_2 \theta_0) \int {d^2 {\bf l_3} \over
(2\pi)^2} W_2(l_3 \theta_0)\int {d^2 {\bf l_4} \over 2 \pi^2} W_2(l_4
\theta_0)\\ \nonumber ~ {\rm B}_4 \Big ( {l_1\over r(\chi)},
{l_2\over r(\chi)}, {l_3\over r(\chi)}, {l_4\over r(\chi)}, \chi \Big )_{\sum {\bf l}_i = 0}.\end{aligned}$$
We will use these results to show that it is possible to compute the complete probability distribution function of $\kappa$ from the underlying dark matter probability distribution function. Details of the analytical results presented here can be found in Munshi & Coles (1999b).
Hierarchical [*Ansatze*]{}
--------------------------
The spatial length scales corresponding to small angles are in the highly non-linear regime. Assuming a tree model for the matter correlation hierarchy in the highly non-linear regime, one can write the general form of the $N$th order correlation function as (Groth & Peebles 1977, Fry & Peebles 1978, Davis & Peebles 1983, Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992, Szapudi & Szalay 1993):
$$\xi_N( {\bf r_1}, \dots {\bf r_N} ) = \sum_{\alpha, \rm N-trees}
Q_{N,\alpha} \sum_{\rm labellings} \prod_{\rm edges}^{(N-1)}
\xi({\bf r_i}, {\bf r_j}) .$$
It is interesting to note that a similar hierarchy develops in the quasi-linear regime in the limit of vanishing variance (Bernardeau 1992); however the hierarchal amplitudes $Q_{N, \alpha}$ become shape dependent functions in the quasilinear regime. In the highly nonlinear regime there are some indications that these functions become independent of shape, as suggested by studies of the lowest order parameter $Q_3 = Q$ using high resolution numerical simulations (Sccocimarro et al. 1998). In Fourier space such an ansatz means that the hierarchy of multi-spectra can be written as sums of products of the matter power-spectrum.
$$\begin{aligned}
&&B_2({\bf k}_1, {\bf k}_2, {\bf k}_3)_{\sum k_i = 0} = Q ( P({\bf
k_1})P({\bf k_2}) + P({\bf k_2})P({\bf k_3})
+ P({\bf k_3})P({\bf k_1}) ) \\ \nonumber
&&B_3({\bf k}_1, {\bf k}_2, {\bf k}_3, {\bf k}_4)_{\sum k_i = 0} = R_a
\ P({\bf k_1})P({\bf k_1 +
k_2}) P({\bf k_1 + k_2 + k_3}) + {\rm cyc. perm.} + R_b \ P({\bf
k_1})P({\bf k_2})P({\bf k_3}) +
{\rm cyc. perm.} \\ \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Different hierarchical models differ in the way they predict the amplitudes of different tree topologies. Bernardeau & Schaeffer (1992) considered the case where amplitudes in general are factorizable, at each order one has a new “star” amplitude and higher order “snake” and “hybrid” amplitudes can be constructed from lower order “star” amplitudes (see Munshi, Melott & Coles 1999a,b,c for a detailed description). In models proposed by Szapudi & Szalay (1993) it was assumed that all hierarchal amplitudes of any given order are degenerate. Galaxy surveys have been used to study these [*ansatze*]{}. Our goal here is to show that weak-lensing surveys can also provide valuable information in this direction, in addition to constraining the matter power-spectra and background geometry of the universe. We will use the model proposed by Bernardeau & Schaeffer (1992) and its generalization to the quasi-linear regime by Bernardeau (1992, 1994) to construct the PDF of the convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. We express the one-point cumulants as:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle \kappa^3(\gamma) \rangle = (3Q_3){\cal C}_3[\kappa^2_{\theta_0}]
= S_3 \langle \kappa^2(\theta_0) \rangle^2 \label {hui} \\
&&\langle \kappa^4(\gamma) \rangle = (12R_a + 4
R_b){\cal C}_4[\kappa^3_{\theta_0}] = S_4 \langle \kappa^2(\theta_0) \rangle^3,
\label{Sn}\end{aligned}$$
where
$${\cal C}_t[\kappa^m(\theta_0)] = \int_0^{\chi_s} { \omega^t(\chi)
\over r^2(t-1)(\chi)}\kappa^m_{\theta_0} d\chi,$$
and
$$\kappa_{\theta_0} = \int \frac{d^2\bf l}{(2\pi)^2} P
\left( {l \over r(\chi)} \right) W_2^2(l \theta_0).$$
Equation ([\[hui\]]{}) was derived by Hui (1998). He showed that his result agrees well with the ray tracing simulations of Jain, Seljak and White (1998). More recent studies have shown that two-point statistics such as cumulant correlators can also be modeled in a similar way (Munshi & Coles 1999, Munshi, Jain & White 1999).
Scaling Models and Generating Functions
---------------------------------------
The success of analytical results on lower order cumulants, when compared with numerical ray tracing experiments, motivates a more general analysis of the probability distribution function of the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. For this purpose we found the formalism developed by Balian & Schaeffer (1989) and Bernardeau & Schaeffer (1992) to be most suitable. These results are based on a general tree hierarchy of higher order correlation functions and the assumption that the amplitudes associated with different tree-topologies are constant in the highly non-linear regime. These results were generalized by Bernardeau (1992, 1994) to the quasi-linear regime where the perturbative dynamics can be used to make more concrete predictions. In this section we review the basic results from the scaling models before extending such models to the statistics of the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$ (for more details see Munshi & Coles 1999b). We will use the small angle approximation throughout our derivation. Our results can be generalized to the case of the projected clustering of galaxies.
In a scaling analysis of the probability distribution function (PDF), the void probability distribution function (VPF) plays a fundamental role. The VPF can be related to the generating function of the cumulants or $S_N$ parameters, $\phi(y)$ (White 1979, Balian & Schaeffer 1989). $$P_v(0) = \exp ( \bar N \sigma(N_c) ) = \exp \Big ( - { \phi (N_c) \over
\bar \xi_2} \Big ) ,$$ where $P_v(0)$ is the probability of having no “particles” in a cell of of volume $v$, $\bar N$ is the average occupancy of the particles and $N_c = \bar N {\bar \xi_2}$. The VPF is meaningful only for a discrete distribution of particles and can not be defined for smoothed fields such as $\delta$ or $\kappa(\theta_0)$. However the scaling functions defined above as $\sigma(y) = -\phi(y)/y$, are very useful even for continuous distributions where they can be used as a generating function of the one-point cumulants or the $S_N$ parameters. $$\phi(y) = \sum_{p=1}^{\infty} { S_p \over p! } y^p$$ The function $\phi(y)$ satisfies the constraint $S_1 = S_2 = 1$ necessary for the normalization of the PDF. The other generating function which plays a very important role in such an analysis is the generating function for vertex amplitudes $\nu_n$, associated with nodes appearing in the tree representation of the higher order correlation hierarchy ($Q_3 =
\nu_2$, $R_a = \nu_2^2$ and $R_b = \nu_3$).
$${\cal G}(\tau) = 1 - \tau + { \nu_2 \over 2 ! } \tau^2 - { \nu_3 \over
3! } \tau^3 + \dots$$
A more specific model for ${\cal G}(\tau)$ is sometimes used, which is useful in making more detailed predictions (Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1979):
$${\cal G}(\tau) = \Big ( 1 + {\tau \over \kappa_a} \Big )^{-\kappa_a}$$
We will relate $\kappa$ with other parameters of scaling models. While the definition of VPF does not use any specific form of the hierarchical ansatz, writing the tree amplitudes in terms of the weights associated with the nodes is only possible when one assumes a factorizable model for the tree hierarchy (Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992). Moreover, in such an ansatz the generating functions for the tree nodes can be related to the VPF by solving a pair of implicit equations (Balian & Schaeffer 1989).
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\phi(y) = y {\cal G}(\tau) - { 1 \over 2} y {\tau} { d \over d
\tau}{\cal G}(\tau) \\
&&\tau = -y { d \over d\tau} {\cal G}(\tau)\end{aligned}$$
The VPF and PDF can be related to each other by the following equation (Balian & Schaeffer 1989) $$P(\delta) = \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} { dy \over 2 \pi i} \exp \Big [ {(
1 + \delta )y - \phi(y) \over \bar \xi_2} \Big ] \label{pdf}$$
So it is clear that the properties of $\phi(y)$ completely determine the behavior of $P(\delta)$ for all values of $\delta$. However different asymptotic expressions of $\phi(y)$ govern the behaviour of $P(\delta)$ for different intervals of $\delta$. For large $y$ we can express $\phi(y)$ as $$\phi(y) = a y^{ 1 - \omega}.$$ We have introduced a new variable $\omega$ for the description of VPF. This parameter plays a very important role in the scaling analysis. No theoretical analysis has been done so far to link $\omega$ with the initial power spectral index $n$. Numerical simulations are generally used to fix $\omega$ for different initial conditions. Such studies have confirmed that an increase of power on smaller scales increases the value of $\omega$. Typically an initial power spectrum with spectral index $n=
-2$ (which should model CDM-like spectra that we have considered in our simulations at small length scales) produces a value of $\omega = 0.3$ which we will use in our analysis of the PDF of the convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. $\phi(y)$ exhibits a singularity for small but negative value of $y_s$ $$\phi(y) = \phi_s - a_s \Gamma(\omega_s) ( y - y_s)^{-\omega_s}.$$
The parameter $k_a$ which we have introduced in the definition of $\cal G(\tau)$ can be related to the parameters $a$ and $\omega$ appearing in the asymptotic expressions of $\phi(y)$ (Balian & Schaeffer 1989. Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992).
= 4.truein
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\omega = k_a / ( k_a + 2) \\
&&a = {k_a + 2 \over 2} k_a^{ k_a / k_a + 2}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly the parameters $y_s$ and $a_s$ which describe the behavior of $\phi(y)$ near the singularity can be related to the behavior of ${\cal G(\tau)}$ near its singularity $\tau_s$, which is given by (Balian & Schaeffer 1989, Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992)
$$\tau_s = {{\cal G}'( \tau_s) \over {\cal G}'(\tau_s) } .$$
The parameter $y_s$ can be expressed as (Balian & Schaeffer 1989, Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1992)
$$y_s = - { \tau_s \over {\cal G}'(\tau_s)} , \\$$
which in turn can be related to $k_a$ as
$$-{ 1 \over y_s} = x_{\star} = {1 \over k_a } { (k_a + 2)^{k_a + 2} \over (k_a + 1)^{k_a+1}}.$$
These singularities describe $P(\delta)$ for large values of $\delta$. The newly introduced variable $x_\star$ will be useful later to define the large $\delta$ tail of $P(\delta)$. The different asymptotes in $\phi(y)$ are linked to the behavior of $P(\delta)$ for various values of $\delta$. However for very large values of the variance i.e. $\bar \xi_2$ it is possible to define a scaling function $P(\delta) = h(x)/{\bar \xi}_2^2$ which will encode the scaling behavior of the PDF, where $x$ plays the role of the scaling variable and is defined as $(1 + \delta)/\xi_2$. We list the different ranges of $\delta$ and specify the behavior of $P(\delta)$ in these regimes (Balian & Schaeffer 1989).
$${\bar \xi_2 }^{ - \omega \over ( 1 - \omega)} << 1 + \delta << \bar \xi_2;
~~~~~~
P(\delta) = { a \over \bar \xi_2^2} { 1- \omega \over \Gamma(\omega)}
\Big ( { 1 + \delta \over \bar \xi_2 } \Big )^{\omega - 2}$$
$$1+ \delta >> {\bar \xi}_2; ~~~~
P(\delta) = { a_s \over \bar \xi_2^2 } \Big ( { 1 + \delta \over \bar
\xi_2} \Big ) \exp \Big ( - { 1 + \delta \over x_{\star} \bar \xi_2}
\Big )$$
= 4.truein
The integral constraints satisfied by the scaling function are $ S_1 = \int_0^{\infty} x h(x) dx = 1$ and $ S_2 = \int_0^{\infty} x^2 h(x) dx = 1$. These constraints lead to the correct normalization of $P(\delta)$. Several numerical studies have been conducted to study the behavior of $h(x)$ for different initial conditions (e.g. Colombi et al. 1996; Munshi et al. 99). For very small values of $\delta$ the behavior of $P(\delta)$ is determined by the asymptotic behavior of $\phi(y)$ for large values of $y$. Hence the PDF can be expressed as (Balian & Schaeffer 1989):
$$P(\delta) = \int_{-i\infty}^{\infty} { dy \over 2 \pi i} \exp \Big [ {(
1 + \delta )y - a y^{ -\omega} \over \bar \xi_2} \Big ] .$$
The above equation implies that it is possible to define another scaling function $g(z)$, completely determined by $\omega$, with the scaling parameter $z = (1+
\delta)a^{-1/(1-\omega)}{\bar \xi}_2^{\omega /(1 - \omega)}$. However, numerically it is much easier to determine $\omega$ from the study of $\sigma(y)$ compared to that from $g(z)$ (e.g. Bouchet & Hernquist 1992).
$$1 + \delta << \bar \xi_2;~~~~
P(\delta) = a^{ -1\over (1 - \omega) } {{ \bar \xi}_2 ^{ \omega \over
( 1 - \omega ) }} g(z)$$
$$g(z) = \int_{i \infty}^{i \infty} { dt \over 2 \pi i} \exp ( z t - t
^{1- \omega} )$$
$$P(\delta) = a^{ -1 \over 1 - \omega} {\bar \xi}_2^{ \omega \over 1 -
\omega } \sqrt { ( 1 - \omega )^{ 1/\omega } \over 2 \pi \omega z^{(1
+ \omega)/ \omega } } \exp \Big [ - \omega \Big ( {z \over 1 - \omega}
\Big )^{- {{1 - \omega} \over \omega}} \Big ]$$
To summarize, the entire behavior of $P(\delta)$ is encoded in the two scaling functions, $h(x)$ and $g(x)$. These functions are relevant for the behavior of $P(\delta)$ at small and large $\delta$, respectively. Typically $P(\delta)$ shows a cutoff at both large and small values of $\delta$ and exhibits a power-law in the middle. The power law behavior is observed when both $g(z)$ and $h(x)$ overlap, in the highly non-linear regime and with the decrease in $\bar \xi_2$ the range of $\delta$ for which $P(\delta)$ shows such a power law behavior decreases, finally to vanish in case of small variance i.e. in the quasi-linear regime.
In the quasi-linear regime exactly the same formalism can be used to study the PDF. However the generating function now can be explicitly evaluated by using tree-level perturbative dynamics (Bernardeau 1992). It is also possible to take smoothing corrections into account in which case one can have an explicit relation of $\omega$ and the initial power spectral index $n$. In general the parameters $k_a$ or $\omega$ charecterising the VPF or the CPDF are different from their highly non-linear counterparts.
The PDF now can be expressed in terms of $G_{\delta}(\tau)$ (Bernardeau 1992, Bernardeau 1994):
$$\begin{aligned}
&&P(\delta)\ d \delta = { 1 \over -G_{\delta}'(\tau) } \Big [ { 1 - \tau G_{\delta}''(\tau)
/G_{\delta}'(\tau) \over 2 \pi {\bar \xi}_{2} } \Big ]^{1/2} \exp \Big ( -{ \tau^2
\over 2 {\bar \xi}_{2}} \Big ) d \tau \\
&&G_{\delta}(\tau) = {\cal G}(\tau) -1 = \delta \end{aligned}$$
The above expression for $P(\delta)$ is valid for $\delta < \delta_c$ where $\delta_c$ is the value of $\delta$ which cancels the numerator of the prefactor of the exponential function appearing in the above expression. For $\delta > \delta_c$ the PDF develops an exponential tail which is related to the presence of a singularity in $\phi(y)$, as was the case of its highly non-linear counterpart (Bernardeau 1992, Bernardeau 1994),
= 3.5truein
$$P(\delta) \ d \delta = { 3 a_s \sqrt {{\bar \xi}_2} \over 4 {\sqrt \pi} }
\delta^{-5/2} \exp \Big [ -|y_s|{ \delta \over {\bar \xi}_{2}} + {|\phi_s|
\over {\bar \xi}_{2}} \Big ] d \delta$$
Since the value of the parameter $\omega$ is different in the two regimes, the associated parameters such as $y_s$ and $a_s$ will also be different in these two regimes. We will show that the expressions for the probability distribution function $P(\eta)$ of the reduced convergence $\eta$ will have exactly the same asymptotes as the weakly non-linear PDF of $P(1+\delta)$, although the parameters associated with $P(\eta)$ will correspond to the ones used in the highly non-linear regime for $P(1+\delta)$. This is one of the important result of our analysis.
It may be noted that similar expressions can be derived for the approximate dynamics sometimes used to simulate gravitational clustering in the weakly non-linear regime, e.g. Lagrangian perturbation theory which is an extension of the Zeldovich approximation (Munshi et al. 1994).
PDF of the Smoothed Convergence Field
-------------------------------------
For computing the probability distribution function of the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$, we will begin by constructing its associated cumulant generating function $\Phi_{1+\kappa(\theta_0)}(y)$:
$$\Phi_{1 + {\kappa(\theta_0)}}(y) = y + \sum_{p=2}^ {\infty} {{\langle
\kappa^p(\theta_0) \rangle} \over \langle \kappa (\theta_0 )
\rangle^{p-1}} y^p$$
Now using the expressions for the higher moments of the convergence in terms of the matter power spectrum (equations \[kappa\_variance\] and \[Sn\]) gives,
$$\Phi_{1 + {\kappa({\theta_0})}}(y) = y + \int_0^{\chi_s} \sum_{N=2}^{\infty}
{ (-1)^N \over N!} S_N { \omega^N(\chi) \over r^{2(N-1)} ( \chi)}
\Big [ \ex \Big ]^{ (N-1)} { y^N \over \av^{(N-1)} }.$$
We can now use the definition of $\phi(y)$ for the matter cumulants to express $\Phi_{1 + \kappa(\theta_0)}(y)$, in terms of $\phi(y)$:
$$\Phi_{1+\kappa_{\theta_0}}(y) = \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi
\Big[ {\langle r^2(\chi) \kappa^2_{\theta} \rangle \over \ex} \Big
] \phi \Big [ {\omega (\chi) \over r^2 (\chi)} {\ex \over \av} \Big ]
- y\int_0 ^{\chi_s} \omega(\chi) d \chi$$
The extra term comes from the $N=1$ term in the expansion of $\Phi_{1+\kappa(\theta_0)}$. Note that we have used the fully non-linear generating function $\phi$ for the cumulants, though we will use it to construct a generating function in the quasi-linear regime.
The analysis becomes much easier if we define a new reduced convergence field $\eta(\theta_0)$:
$$\eta({\theta_0}) = {{ \kappa({\theta_0}) - \kappa_{min} } \over
-\kappa_{min}} = 1 + {\kappa({\theta_0}) \over |\kappa_{min}| } ,$$
where the minimum value of $\kappa(\theta_0)$ i.e. $\kappa_{min}$ occurs when the line of sight goes through regions that are completely empty of matter (i.e. $\delta = -1$ all along the line of sight):
$$\kappa_{min} = - \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi \omega(\chi) .$$
Figures 1 and 2 compare the variance of $\eta$ and $\kappa$. While $\kappa({\theta_0})$ depends on the smoothing angle, its minimum value $\kappa_{min}$ depends only on the source red-shift and background geometry of the universe, independent of the smoothing radius. Figure 3 shows the dependence of $\kappa_{min}$ on source red-shift for three cosmological models. With the reduced convergence $\eta$, the cumulant generating function is given by,
$$\Phi_{\eta} (y) = { 1 \over [\kmin]} \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi
\Big [{ r^2(\chi) \over \kmin}{ \av \over \ex }\Big ] \phi \Big [
\omega(\chi) \kmin { \ex \over r^2(\chi) \av} \Big ]$$
= 3.truein
The constructed cumulant generating function $\Phi_{\eta}(y)$ satisfies the normalization constraints $S_1 = S_2 = 1$. The scaling function associated with $P(\eta)$ can now be easily related with the matter scaling function $h(x)$ introduced earlier:
$$h_{\eta} (x) = - \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} { dy \over 2 \pi i} \exp (x
y) \Phi_{\eta} (y) .$$
Using this definition we can write:
$$\begin{aligned}
h_{\eta} (x) = { 1 \over [\int_0^{\xi_s} d \chi \omega(\chi)] }
\int_0^{\chi_s} \omega (\chi) d \chi \Big [ {\langle
\kappa_{\theta_0}^2\rangle \over \omega (\chi) \int d^2 {\bf k}_{\perp} P({\bf
k}_{\perp}) W^2( {\bf k}_{\perp} \theta_0 r(\chi)) \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi \omega
(\chi)} \Big ]^2 \times \\ \nonumber
h \Big ({\langle
\kappa_{\theta_0}^2\rangle x \over \omega (\chi) \int d^2 {\bf k}_{\perp} P({\bf
k}) W^2( {\bf k}_{\perp} \theta_0 r(\chi)) \int_0^{\chi_s} d \chi \omega
(\chi)}\Big ). \end{aligned}$$
While the expressions derived above are exact and are derived for the most general case using only the small angle approximation, they can be simplified considerably using further approximations. In the following we will assume that the contribution to the $\chi$ integrals can be replaced by an average value coming from the maximum of $\omega(\chi)$, i.e. $\chi_c$ ($0<\chi_c<\chi_s$). So we replace $\int f(\chi) d\chi$ by $1/2 f(\chi_c)\Delta_{\chi}$ where $\Delta_{\chi}$ is the interval of integration, and $f(\chi)$ is the function of $\chi$ under consideration. Similarly we replace the $\omega(\chi)$ dependence in the ${\bf k}$ integrals by $\omega(\chi_c)$. Under these approximations we can write,
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\eta}(y) = \phi(y) \\
h_{\eta}(x) = h(x) \end{aligned}$$
Thus we find that the statistics of the underlying field $1+\delta$ and the statistics of the reduced convergence $\eta$ are exactly the same under such an approximation (the approximate functions $\Phi_{\eta}$ and $h_{\eta}(x)$ do satisfy the proper normalization constraints). Although it is possible to integrate the exact expressions of the scaling functions, there is some uncertainty involved in the actual determination of these functions and associated parameters such as $\omega, k_a, x_{\star}$ from N-body simulations (e.g. see Munshi et al. 1999, Valageas et al. 1999 and Colombi et al. 1996 for a detailed description of the effect of the finite volume correction involved in their estimation). We have used $\Phi_{\eta}(y)$ as derived above to compute $P(\eta)$ with the help of equation (\[pdf\]).
An Edgeworth expansion of the pdf can be made by starting with the simpler form $P(\eta({\theta_0}))$, which can then be used to construct the Edgeworth series for $P(\kappa({\theta_0}))$. The Edgeworth expansion (see e.g. Bernardeau & Koffman 1994) is meaningful when the variance is less than unity, which guarantees a convergent series expansion in terms of Hermite polynomials $H_n(\nu)$, of order n and with $\nu = \eta/\sqrt{(\xi_{\eta}}$). Hence it is used in quasi-linear analysis with the perturbative expressions for cumulants. However the $S^{\eta}_N$ parameters used in the expansion of $P(\eta)$ are from the highly non-linear regime; i.e. although the variance is smaller than unity, the parameters that characterize it are from the highly non-linear dynamics of the underlying dark matter distribution.
$$P(\eta) \equiv { 1 \over \sqrt 2 \pi {\bar \xi}_{\eta} } \exp ( - {\nu^2 \over 2} )
\Big [ 1 + {\sqrt {\bar \xi}_{\eta}}
{S_3^{\eta} \over 6} H_3(\nu)+ {\sqrt {\bar \xi}_{\eta}}^2 \Big
( {{S_4^{\eta} \over 24} H_4(\nu)+ {{S_3^{\eta}}^2 \over 72}} H_6(\nu) \Big ) + \dots \Big ]$$
The magnification $\mu$ can also be used instead of $\kappa$ using the weak lensing relation $\mu({\theta_0}) = 1 + 2 \kappa({\theta_0})$. Its minimum value can be related to $\kappa_{min}$ defined earlier as $\mu_{min} = 1 + 2 \kappa_{min}$. Finally, the reduced convergence $\eta$ and the magnification $\mu$ can be related by the following equation (Valageas 1999):
$$\eta{(\theta_0)} = {\mu({\theta_0}) - \mu_{min} \over 1 - \mu_{min}} .$$
So we can express the relations connecting the probability distribution function for the smoothed convergence statistics $\kappa({\theta_0})$, the reduced convergence $\eta({\theta_0})$ and the magnification $\mu({\theta_0})$ as,
$$P(\kappa({\theta_0})) = 2 P(\mu) = P(\eta) { 2 \over ( 1 - \mu_{min})
} = P(\eta) { 1 \over |\kappa_{min}|} .$$
Throughout our analysis we have used a top-hat filter for smoothing the convergence field, but our study can be extended to compensated filters (Schneider et al. 1998; Reblinsky et al. 1999), which may be more suitable for observational purposes. The formalism which we have developed for one-point statistics such as the PDF and the VPF can also be extended to compute the bias and higher order cumulants associated with spots in $\kappa$ maps above a certain threshold. The statistics of such spots can be associated with the statistics of over-dense regions in the underlying mass distribution which represent the collapsed objects. A detailed analysis of these issues will be presented elsewhere (Munshi & Coles 1999b).
= 4.truein
= 4.truein
= 4.truein
= 4.truein
= 5.truein
= 5.truein
Comparison with Ray Tracing Simulations
=======================================
To compare analytical results with numerical simulations we smooth the convergence maps generated from numerical simulations using a top-hat filter of suitable smoothing angle $\theta_0$. The minimum smoothing radius we have used is $1'$ which is much larger than the numerical resolution length scale. The maximum smoothing radius we have studied is $8'$ which is much smaller than the box size and we expect that finite volume effects are not significant in our studies. The box size is $L = 166.28'$ for the EDS models, $L =235.68'$ for the $\Omega=0.3$ open model, and $L = 209.44'$ for the $\Omega=0.3$ model with cosmological constant $\Lambda =
0.7$. Numerical outputs from one realization of each of these cosmological models were used to compare against theoretical results. Elsewhere, we have used these simulations to test analytical results for cumulants and cumulant correlators and found very good agreement.
Figures 4-8 show the analytical and numerical pdf’s for the four cosmological models for $z_s=1$ and smoothing angles ranging from $\theta_0=1'-8'$. Figures 9 and 10 show the dependence on $z_s$, by showing the pdf’s for $\theta_0=1'$ with $z_s=0.5$ and $z_s=2$ respectively. Several qualitative features in $P(\kappa(\theta_0))$ can be understood from the results shown. As we decrease the smoothing angle, the peak of the pdf curves shifts towards negative values of $\kappa(\theta_0)$, the peak height decreases and the distribution becomes more non-Gaussian. The reason is that when we decrease the smoothing angle we probe more non-linear scales in the underlying mass distribution and therefore the probability distribution for $\kappa(\theta_0)$ is more non-linear. Increasing the source red-shift $z_s$ has two distinct effects. It introduces more dark matter regions between the observer and the source which are virtually uncorrelated with each other. This has the effect of making probability distribution more Gaussian, even though the variance increases due to the increased path length. The peak height of the PDF decreases with increasing red-shift $z_s$ and $P(\kappa(\theta_0))$ becomes broader with the increase in the variance.
For given smoothing angle and fixed redshift, the PDFs of the OCDM model are peaked most sharply, followed by that of the LCDM, TCDM and SCDM models. With the reduced convergence field $\eta(\theta_0)$, $P(\eta(\theta_0))$ does not depend on the background geometry of the universe. We have noted that due to the presence of an extra $|\kappa_{min}|$ in the denominator, the variance of the reduced convergence $\eta$ actually decreases with red-shift $z_s$ in contrast to the variance of $\kappa(\theta_0) $. The skewness and other higher order moments for $\eta$ are also the same as for underlying mass distribution $\delta$. It is therefore easy to understand that the PDF of the $\eta$ field is independent of background cosmological parameters and is very similar to the PDF of the density contrast $\delta$. However the difference is that variance of $\delta$ is much larger than unity, while that of $\eta$ is much smaller than unity, although the moments and hence the VPF associated with them are exactly the same. The cosmological dependence of $P(\kappa)$ enters through $\kappa_{min}$ and $\langle \eta^2(\theta_0)
\rangle$. Since $P(\eta(\theta_0))/|\kappa_{min}| =
P(\kappa(\theta_0))$, the peak height of $P(\eta)$ is determined by the relative ordering of $|\kappa_{min}|$, for given red-shift. Thus we find that $|\kappa_{min}|$ and $\langle
\eta^2(\theta_0)\rangle$ play a very important role in the construction of $P(\kappa(\theta_0))$.
The approximation we have used to simplify the void probability distribution function of $\eta$ also gives us simple and new powerful method to compute the $S_N$ parameters for the convergence field, by relating them with with the $S_N$ parameters of the underlying mass distribution as $S_N^{wl} = S_N /({|\kappa_{min}|})^{N-2}$. The comparison of the analytical results with numerical simulations shown in figures 4-8 shows that there is a very good match, particularly for small smoothing angles. The exponential tail for positive values of $\kappa$ is well reproduced by our analytical results. The analytical PDF also reproduces correctly the exact position of the maxima and the sharp fall of the PDF for negative values of $\kappa$. The relative ordering of the peaks for various cosmological models are also well reproduced. For large smoothing angles there is some disagreement between the analytical predictions and the ray tracing experiments. This is partially due to the fact that local initial spectral index for length scales making the dominant contribution for larger smoothing angles is different compared to that for the case of small smoothing angle. We have chosen $\omega = .3$ for all our theoretical models, which correspond to initial power spectral index of $n=-2$.
For larger smoothing angles length scales contributions to the one-point statistics of the convergence field come from quasi-linear length scales, hence the non-linear theory will not be accurate. In such cases one has to change the generating function ${\cal G}(\tau)$ to the perturbative generating function ${\cal
G}^{PT}(\tau)$. With this change, we can extend all our results in a straight forward way. From the point of view of the Edgeworth expansion, the only change we need to make is in the values of $S_N$ parameters, where we have to replace the values obtained from the hyper-extended perturbation theory with ones obtained from the tree-level perturbation theory. However for very large smoothing angles ($\theta_0 >1^\circ$) we have to keep in mind that the small angle approximation is a necessary ingredient in all our analytic calculations.
Discussion
==========
We have found an analytic expression for the PDF $P(\kappa(\theta_0))$ of the smoothed convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$. This is a generalization of our earlier work on lower order cumulants. We found very good agreement of our analytic results with results from ray tracing experiments. We found that the PDF of the convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$ can distinguish different cosmological models. We also show that one can define a reduced convergence field $\eta(\theta_0)$ which has the same reduced moments as its counterpart for the density contrast $\delta$.
While the variance of the convergence increases with source red-shift, the PDF itself tends to become more Gaussian. The differences in PDFs of different cosmological models become less prominent for very large source red-shift. From an observational view point this means that while the detection of weak lensing is easier from deep red-shift surveys, distinguishing cosmological models is easier when the source red-shift is smaller. We have not included the effect of noise due to intrinsic source ellipticity in our calculations. Several authors have focussed on weak gravitational lensing effects in the determination of cosmological parameters from SNeIa observations (e.g. Valageas 1999). Our results match with their finding for small smoothing angles.
The study relating the PDF of the convergence field $\kappa(\theta_0)$ with the PDF of the density contrast $\delta$ can be easily extended to relate the $\kappa_{\theta_0}$ field with the bias associated with high peaks of the density contrast field $\delta$. In recent studies (Munshi, Coles & Melott 1999a,b,c; Bernardeau & Scheaffer 1999) it has been shown that the generating function approach used here can be generalized to compute not only the bias associated with the over dense cells but can also provide valuable insight into the statistics of collapsed objects such as cumulants and cumulant correlators. Using the same analytical tools as we have used here, it can be shown that the statistical properties of high $\kappa(\theta_0)$ spots in convergence maps, e.g. cumualnts and cumulant correlators associated with them, can also be related to their counterpart for the density field $\delta$. A detailed analysis of the signal to noise ratio is needed to determine the feasibility of estimating these quantities from observational data.
The analytical expression for $\kappa$ used in this work is a line of sight integration of the density field $\delta$ which relies on the Born approximation, i.e. it neglects higher order correction terms in the photon propagation equation. The error introduced by such an approximation in the quasi-linear regime has been studied by several authors (e.g. Schneider et al (1997). Perturbative calculations tend to show that this error is negligible for lower order cumulants, clearly such an analysis is not possible in the highly non linear regime. However since the tail of $P(\kappa(\theta_0)$ contains information on all orders, a good match between theoretical predictions and the simulation results found by our study indicate that such corrections are negligible even in the highly non-linear regime.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Dipak Munshi was supported by a fellowship from the Humboldt foundation at MPA where this work was completed. It is a pleasure for Dipak Munshi to acknowledge many helpful discussions with Patrick Valageas, Peter Coles and Katrin Reblinsky. The complex integration routine used to generate $P(\eta)$ was made available to us by Francis Bernardeau; we are grateful to him for his help.
Babul, A., & Lee, M.H., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 407 Balian R., Schaeffer R., 1989, A& A, 220, 1 Bartelmann M., Huss H., Colberg J.M., Jenkins A. Bartelmann, M. & Schneider, P., 1991, A& A, 248, 353 Pearce F.R., 1998, A&A, 330, 1 Bernardeau F., 1992, ApJ, 392, 1 Bernardeau F., 1999, astro-ph/9901117 Bernardeau F., Schaeffer R., 1992, A& A, 255, 1 Bernardeau F., Schaeffer R., 1999, astro-ph/9903087 Bernardeau F., van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y., 1997, A& A, 322, 1 Blandford R.D., Saust A.B., Brainerd T.G., Villumsen J.V., 1991, MNRAS, 251, 600 Boschan P., Szapudi I., Szalay A.S., 1994, ApJS, 93, 65 Bouchet F.R., & Hernquist, L., 1992, ApJ, 400, 25 Couchman H.M.P., Barber A.J., Thomas P.A., 1998, astro-ph/9810063 Davis M., Peebles P.J.E., 1977, ApJS, 34, 425 Diaferio A., Kauffmann G, Colberg J.M., White S.D.M, 1999, MNRAS, 307, 537 Fry, J.N., 1984, ApJ, 279, 499 Fry, J.N., & Peebles, P.J.E., 1978, ApJ, 221, 19 Groth, E., & Peebles, P.J.E., 1977, ApJ, 217, 385 Gunn, J.E., 1967, ApJ, 147, 61 Hamilton A.J.S., Kumar, P., Lu, E. & Matthews, A., 1991, ApJ, 374, L1 Hui, L., astro-ph/9902275 Hui, L., & Gaztanaga, astro-ph/9810194 Jain, B., Mo H.J., & White S.D.M., 1995, MNRAS, 276, L25 Jain, B., & Seljak, U., 1997, ApJ, 484, 560 Jain, B., Seljak, U., White, S.D.M., 1999a, astro-ph/9901191 Jain, B., Seljak, U., White, S.D.M., 1999b, astro-ph/9901287 Jaroszyn’ski, M., Park, C., Paczynski, B., & Gott, J.R., 1990, ApJ, 365, 22 Jaroszyn’ski, M. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 430 Kaiser, N., 1992, ApJ, 388, 272 Kaiser, N., 1998, ApJ, 498, 26 Kauffmann G, Colberg J.M., Diaferio A., White S.D.M, 1999a, MNRAS, 303, 188 Kauffmann G, Colberg J.M., Diaferio A., White S.D.M, 1999b, MNRAS, 307, 529 Limber D.N., 1954, ApJ, 119, 665 Lee, M.H., & Paczyn’ski B., 1990, ApJ, 357, 32 Miralda-Escudé J., 1991, ApJ, 380, 1 Munshi D., Bernardeau F., Melott A.L., Schaeffer R., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 433 Munshi D., Melott A.L, 1998, astro-ph/9801011 Munshi D., Coles P., Melott A.L., 1999a, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9812337 Munshi D., Coles P., Melott A.L., 1999b, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9902215 Munshi D., Melott A.L., Coles P., 1999c, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9812271 Munshi D. & , Coles P., 1999a, MNRAS, in press Munshi D. & , Coles P., 1999b, MNRAS, submitted Munshi D. & , Jain B., 1999a, MNRAS, submitted Mellier Y., 1999, astro-ph/9901116 Nityananda R., & Padamanabhan T., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 976 Padmanabhan T., Cen R., Ostriker J.P., Summers, F.J., 1996, ApJ, 466, 604 Premadi P., Martel H., Matzner R., 1998, ApJ, 493, 10 Press, W.H., & Schechter, P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425 Peebles P.J.E., 1980, [*The Large Scale Structure of the Universe*]{}. Princeton University Press, Princeton Reblinsky, K., Kruse, G., Jain, B., Schneider, P., astro-ph/9907250 Schneider, P., & Weiss, A., 1988, ApJ, 330,1 Schneider, P., van Waerbeke, L., Jain, B. & Kruse, G. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 873, 873 Scoccimarro R., Colombi S., Fry J.N., Frieman J.A., Hivon E., Melott A.L., 1998, ApJ, 496, 586 Scoccimarro R., Frieman J., 1998, preprint, astro-ph/9811184 Szapudi I., Colombi S., 1996, ApJ, 470, 131 Szapudi I., Szalay A.S., 1993, ApJ, 408, 43 Szapudi I., Szalay A.S., 1997, ApJ, 481, L1 Szapudi I., Szalay A.S., Boschan P., 1992, ApJ, 390, 350 Valageas, P., 1999, astro-ph/9904300 Valageas, P., Lacey C., Schaeffer R. 1999, astro-ph/9902320 Valageas, P.,Schaeffer R 1997, astro-ph/9710128 van Waerbeke, L., Bernardeau, F., Mellier, Y., 1998, astro-ph/9807007 Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., & Ostriker, J.P., 1998, ApJ, 494, 298 Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., Xu, G. & Ostriker, J.P., 1997, ApJ, 494, 29 Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P. & Turner, E.L., 1995, Science, 268, 274 Wang Y., 1999, ApJ, in press. White, M. & Hu, W., astro-ph/9909165 White S.D.M, 1979, MNRAS, 186, 145
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Claude Bernard\
Physics Department, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO 63130, USA\
E-mail:
- |
\
Physics Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA\
E-mail:
title: 'Non-equilibration of topological charge and its effects'
---
Evolution of $Q$
================
QCD simulations using (approximately) continuous evolution algorithms show very slow evolution of the topological charge $Q$ when the lattice spacing is small. This is expected, since in the continuum theory $Q$ cannot change in a continuous evolution of the fields. This is a concern for QCD simulations since the distribution of $Q$ may not be properly sampled in a simulation of practical length. Here we study the evolution of $Q$ in the MILC collaboration’s ensembles of lattices with a one-loop Symanzik and tadpole improved gauge action and four flavors of highly improved staggered quarks (HISQ). We use chiral perturbation theory to compute the effects of poor sampling of $Q$ on pseudoscalar masses and decay constants, and compare these results to our simulations.
The ensembles we study have lattice spacings ranging from $0.09$ fm to $0.03$ fm, and light sea quark masses either at one fifth of the strange quark mass or approximately tuned to the physical light quark mass. Figure \[topo\_history\_fig\] shows the time histories of $Q/V^{1/2}$, where $V$ is the four dimensional lattice volume in fm$\null^4$. In this plot the blue traces are for ensembles with light sea quark mass one fifth of the strange quark mass and red traces for ensembles with physical light quark mass. The increasing autocorrelation time of $Q$ as $a$ gets small is clearly visible, and we see that at $a=0.03$ fm the simulation has not yet explored most of the desired values of $Q^2$. We also see that for each lattice spacing the local structure of the time histories is very similar for the $m_l=m_s/5$ ensemble and the physical $m_l$ ensemble. However, in the $m_l=m_s/5$ ensemble $Q$ ranges over larger values, therefore taking longer to random walk through this range, leading to a longer autocorrelation time. This is as expected, since the gauge action controls the tunneling rate for $Q$, so the average squared change in $Q$ per unit volume per unit simulation time is approximately independent of the light quark mass. However, the fermion determinant does suppress the average $Q^2$, and we expect the topological susceptibility, $\langle Q^2/V \rangle$, to be approximately proportional to $m_l$.
![ \[topo\_history\_fig\] Topological charge time histories for various lattice spacings. Blue traces are for ensembles with light sea quark mass one fifth of the strange quark mass and red traces for ensembles with light sea quark mass at its physical value. Notice the narrower distributions and shorter autocorrelation times for physical quark mass ensembles. Multiple traces in some graphs correspond to multiple runs, sometimes with differing trajectory lengths. ](topo_hist_4a.pdf){width="105.00000%"}
Figure \[qsq\_vs\_a\_fig\] shows the tunneling rate, $\langle \LP \Delta Q \RP^2/\LP V dt \RP \rangle$ with octagons, where the blue symbols are for the $m_s/5$ ensembles and the red for the physical $m_l$ ensembles. We see that the tunneling rate doesn’t depend much on the quark mass, but is decreasing as expected as $a$ gets small. (In the cases where there are two blue octagons, there were two sub-ensembles with a different molecular dynamics trajectory length in each sub-ensemble.) The crosses in Fig. \[qsq\_vs\_a\_fig\] show the topological susceptibility, $\langle Q^2/V \rangle$. Here we see the expected strong dependence on light quark mass. The small error bar on the $0.03$ fm point is unrealistic — it simply reflects the fact the $Q$ is basically stuck near this value in this simulation.
Theoretical treatment of the dependence on topological charge
=============================================================
The topological susceptibility is defined by [@leutwylersmilga1992] Z() &=& A [D]{}|(- S\[A,|,\]) (- i Q\[A\])\
\_t && - ()\_[=0]{} = Q\^2.Quantities evaluated at fixed $Q$ are found by Fourier transforming Z\_Q &=& \_[-]{}\^d (i Q) Z() G\_Q &=& \_1 [O]{}\_2 ... [O]{}\_n \_Q = \_[- ]{}\^d (i Q) Z() G() with $G(\theta)= \langle {\cal O}_1 {\cal O}_2 ... {\cal O}_n \rangle_\theta$. For large 4-dim volumes $V$, we can do the $\theta$ integrals by the saddle point method to find (for $B$ the mass $M$ or the decay constant $f$) [@brower2003; @aoki2007] \[topo\_dep\_eq\] B |\_[Q,V]{} = B + B” 1- + [O]{} where $B'' \equiv \PARTWO{B}{\theta}\big|_{\theta=0}$. By , the correction vanishes when averaged over $Q$.
![ \[qsq\_vs\_a\_fig\] Average topological susceptibility $<Q^2/V>$ (crosses) and tunneling rate $\langle (\Delta Q)^2 \rangle$ (octagons) versus lattice spacing. The cyan and magenta squares are the lowest order chiral perturbation theory predictions for the susceptibility. ](topo_susc_vs_a.pdf){width=".70\textwidth"}
Since the quantities $M''$ and $f''$ are physical, we can get a theoretical handle on topological effects by calculating them in continuum, infinite volume, . A first calculation of $M''$ in for full (unitary) QCD appears in . Since most of our lattice data is partially quenched, we need to extend the calculation to $M''$ and $f''$ to partially quenched (PQ). worked this out, using the replica method to remove the determinant of the valence quarks. However, the required calculation is non-perturbative, at least on its face, since the vacuum state changes in the presence of $\theta$. The replica method is only justified perturbatively, so a non-perturbatively safe method is preferable. The Lagrangian approach of , which introduces ghost (bosonic) quarks to cancel the valence quark determinant, is also only valid perturbatively, since it ignores the requirement that bosonic path integral be convergent. fixed the non-perturbative problems of the Lagrangian approach by taking into account the convergence requirement.
The PQ Lagrangian in the presence of $\theta$ for $n_F$ sea quarks, $n_V$ valence quarks, and $n_V$ ghost quarks is [@gss; @sharpeshoresh2001] $${\cal L}= \frac{f^2}{8}{\rm str}(\partial_\mu\Sigma\partial_\mu\Sigma^{-1})
-\frac{Bf^2}{4}{\rm str}(e^{-i\theta/n_F}{\cal M}\Sigma + e^{i\theta/n_F}{\cal M}\Sigma^{-1}),
\vspace{-1mm}$$ where str is the supertrace, the factors $e^{\pm i\theta/n_F}$ arise from an anomalous rotation to remove the $i\theta Q$ term in , and $\Sigma$ is an $(n_F+2n_V)\!\times\!(n_F+2n_V)$ matrix constructed from the meson field $\Phi$: $$\eqn{Phi}
\Sigma=e^{2i\Phi/f},\qquad \Phi=
\begin{pmatrix} \phi & \bar\chi \\
\chi & -i\hat \phi
\end{pmatrix}.
\vspace{-1.5mm}$$ Here $\phi$ and $\hat\phi$ are hermitian bosonic fields[^1], representing quark-quark and ghost-ghost mesons, respectively. The quark-ghost fields $\chi$ and $\bar\chi$ are fermionic. The field $\hat\phi$ is integrated from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$; the factor $i$ in ensures a convergent path integral, making the $\hat\phi$ action positive definite. Convergence for the $\phi$ integral is not a problem because the domain of $\phi$ is a compact space, as usual. Subtleties for fields along the diagonal have been ignored in for simplicity.
In the full theory, we would now minimize the potential energy term to find the vacuum state $\langle \Sigma \rangle$. Here, the potential energy is complex. argues that we should therefore find a saddle point (deforming the $\hat\phi$ contour as needed), not a minimum. We note that, unlike what happens in the quenched case [@gss], the symmetry between valence and ghost quarks is automatically preserved by the saddle point, and does not need to be imposed by hand. To find the $\theta$-dependence of the mass (at tree level), we can then expand the Lagrangian to quadratic order in $\Phi$ around the vacuum state by writing $$\Sigma = \sqrt{ \langle \Sigma \rangle}\; e^{2i\Phi/f} \sqrt{\langle \Sigma \rangle}.$$ This way of expanding keeps “extended parity” symmetry (parity + $\theta\!\to\!-\theta$) simple: $\Phi\to
-\Phi$, $\Sigma \to \Sigma^{-1}$. For the decay constant, we similarly expand the axial current to linear order in $\Phi$.
For $n_F=3$ with masses $m_u=m_d=m$ and $m_s$, and $n_V=2$ with masses $m_x$, $m_y$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chiptresults_eq}
M_{xy}'' &=& -M_{xy}\;\frac{m^2 m^2_s}{2(m+2m_s)^2}\;\frac{1}{m_x m_y}, \EL
f_{xy}'' &=& -f_{xy}\; \frac{m^2m_s^2}{4(m+2m_s)^2}\;\frac{(m_x-m_y)^2}{m^2_x m^2_y} .
\vspace{-3mm}\end{aligned}$$ These results agree with those in . This indicates that it is not necessary to use a nonperturbatively correct approach for this problem; the reason seems to be that in the end we only need the new vacuum state in the infinitesimal neighborhood of $\theta=0$. The singular limit as $m_x$ or $m_y\to0$ presumably comes from topological zero modes, which are not suppressed by low valence-quark mass since the valence determinant is absent. For $n_F=4$, decoupling works (if $m_c$ is sufficiently heavy), so we can still use the above results.
![ \[d2m\_fig\] $\PARTWO{M}{\theta}$ on ensembles with $m_l=m_s/5$ along the line $m_x=m_y$. The red line is the PQ$\chi$PT prediction (no free parameters), and the square is the unitary point. ](d2M_dtheta2_mp2s_mxeqmy.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
Comparison to simulation results
================================
We have calculated pseudoscalar masses and decay constants on the HISQ ensembles described above, using methods described in Ref. [@fermimilcdecay2014]. To find the dependence on the topological charge, we use the results of a single-elimination jackknife analysis of these quantities together with the time histories of topological charge shown above. We first construct effective masses and decay constants for each lattice by taking the ensemble average values minus $N$ times the deviation of the corresponding jackknife sample value from the ensemble average. Then we fit to a linear function of the topological charge, $M = M_0 + \frac{C}{2}Q^2$, assigning each data point an error equal to the standard deviation of the distribution. (Strictly speaking, it should be the standard deviation reduced by the contribution of the dependence on topological charge to the variance, but this turns out to make little difference.) Then we use Eq. \[topo\_dep\_eq\] to convert $C$ into a derivative with respect to $\theta$.
The results are noisy, but consistent with the $\chi PT$ predictions. Statistically significant signals are found in the $m_l=m_s/5$ ensembles, since these have much smaller physical volumes than the physical light quark mass ensembles. For example, in the $a\approx 0.06$ fm ensembles the $m_l=m_s/5$ lattices have a volume of $180$ fm$\null^4$, while the physical $m_l$ lattices have a volume of $1920$ fm$\null^4$. Also, Eq. \[chiptresults\_eq\] shows that the derivatives of the masses and decay constants have a partially quenched divergence when $m_x$ or $m_y$ goes to zero with $m_l$ fixed, and for the $m_l=m_s/5$ ensembles we have used valence quark masses smaller than $m_l$, in some cases as small as the physical $m_l$.
Figure \[d2m\_fig\] shows $\PARTWO{M}{\theta}$ for the $m_s/5$ ensembles for degenerate valence quark masses, $m_x=m_y$. The red line in the figure is the $PQ\chi PT$ prediction in Eq. \[chiptresults\_eq\], which we emphasize is a prediction with no free parameters. Obviously the statistical errors are large, but they are consistent with the prediction, and the divergence at small valence quark mass is clearly seen. Since $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ vanishes for degenerate valence quarks, we plot this quantity along different lines in Fig. \[d2f\_fig\]. The left panel shows $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ as a function of one valence quark mass, $m_x$, with the other fixed at the strange quark mass, together with the $\chi PT$ prediction. The right panel shows $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ along lines where $m_y$ is held fixed at the lightest valence quark mass available in each ensemble. The vanishing of $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ when the valence quarks are degenerate is particularly striking in this plot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ \[d2f\_fig\] $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ on ensembles with $m_l=m_s/5$. The left panel shows $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ as a function of one valence quark mass, $m_x$ along the line $m_y=m_s$. The red line is the PQ$\chi$PT prediction (no free parameters), which vanishes for degenerate quarks. The right panel shows the quantity with $m_y$ fixed to the smallest available value. The lines are the PQ$\chi$PT predictions. There are three separate lines in the right panel because the smallest valence quark mass was different in each ensemble, $0.1\, m_s$, $0.05\,m_s$ and $0.037\,m_s$ for the $0.09$, $0.06$ and $0.042$ fm ensembles respectively. ](d2F_dtheta2_mp2s_ms_mx.pdf "fig:"){width=".57\textwidth"} ![ \[d2f\_fig\] $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ on ensembles with $m_l=m_s/5$. The left panel shows $\PARTWO{F}{\theta}$ as a function of one valence quark mass, $m_x$ along the line $m_y=m_s$. The red line is the PQ$\chi$PT prediction (no free parameters), which vanishes for degenerate quarks. The right panel shows the quantity with $m_y$ fixed to the smallest available value. The lines are the PQ$\chi$PT predictions. There are three separate lines in the right panel because the smallest valence quark mass was different in each ensemble, $0.1\, m_s$, $0.05\,m_s$ and $0.037\,m_s$ for the $0.09$, $0.06$ and $0.042$ fm ensembles respectively. ](d2F_dtheta2_mp2s_ml_mx.pdf "fig:"){width=".57\textwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing the dependence of masses and decay constants on the average $Q^2$, we can correct our simulation results to account for the difference of the average in our simulation, $<Q^2>_{sample}$ and the correct $<Q^2>$. To estimate this correct $<Q^2>$ we use the lowest order $\chi PT$ result, $\chi_T = \frac{f_\pi^2}{4} \overline{M_I^2}$ where $1/\overline{M_I^2} = 2/M_{\pi,I}^2 + 1/M_{ss,I}^2$ [@leutwylersmilga1992]. Here the “$I$” indicates the taste singlet masses [@tastesinglettopo]. The $\chi PT$ results are shown in Fig. \[qsq\_vs\_a\_fig\]. For large $a$ the deviation from the lowest order $\chi PT$ results is due to lattice artifacts, probably mostly higher order taste breaking effects, but for $a=0.042$ and $0.03$ fm we expect the $\chi PT$ results to be pretty good. For an example of the size of these effects in our simulation, we look at $f_K/f_\pi$ in our two ensembles with $a \approx 0.042$ fm. This ratio has very small statistical errors, so this is a good test. To make this correction, rearrange Eq. \[topo\_dep\_eq\] as f\_[corrected]{} = f\_[sample]{} - F\^ 1 - For the $0.042$ fm physical $m_l$ ensemble, with $L=6.05$ fm and estimating $\frac{<Q^2>_{sample}}{\chi_T V} \approx 0.7$ we find a fractional shift $\frac{\Delta f}{f} = 0.0002$. This can be compared to our statistical error on this ratio, $0.0010$ and to the “conventional” finite size effects from pions propagating around the periodic lattice, estimated in NLO staggered $\chi PT$, of 0.0009. The effects are larger in the ensemble with $m_l/m_s=0.2$, since these lattices have much smaller volume and a partial quenching divergence. In this case a similar estimate gives $\frac{\Delta f}{f} \approx -0.002$ to be compared with a statistical error of $0.003$.
We close by noting that this strategy is in the same spirit as our treatment of “conventional” finite size effects. We use $\chi PT$ to estimate the effects and correct our results, and estimates of the effects of higher order $\chi PT$ and/or uncertainties in the $\chi PT$ parameters should be included in the systematic error budget.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by US DOE contracts DE-FG02-91ER40628 and DE-FG02-13ER-41976. Computations were done at centers supported by the US DOE and NSF, including ALCF, NCSA Bluewaters, NERSC, TACC, NICS, NCAR and USQCD facilities.
[99]{}
H. Leutwyler and A.V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 5607 (1992).
R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan, J.W. Negele and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B. [**560**]{}, 64 (2003) \[hep-lat/0302005\].
S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto and T. Onogi, Phys. Rev. [**D76**]{}, 054508 (2007 \[arXiv:0707.0396\].
S. Aoki and H. Fukaya, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 034022 (2010).
C. W. Bernard and M. F. L. Golterman, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 486 (1994) \[hep-lat/9306005\].
M. Golterman, S. Sharpe and R. Singleton, Jr., Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 094503 (2005) \[hep-lat/0501015\].
S. Sharpe and N. Shoresh, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 114510 (2001) \[hep-lat/0108003\].
A. Bazavov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 074509 (2014), \[arXiv:1407.3772\].
C. Aubin and C. Bernard, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 034014 (2003); B. Billeter, C.E. Detar and J. Osborn, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 077502 (2004).
[^1]: Technically, this applies to the “body” of $\hat\phi$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'Thompson-GC.bib'
title: 'Grand Challenges in the Physics of the Sun and Sun-like Stars'
---
Introduction
============
“If the Sun had no magnetic field, it would be as uninteresting as most astronomers think it is”. This statement is attributed to R. B. Leighton [@Moore1985]. Personally I think the Sun is of enormous interest in all respects, magnetic and non-magnetic; nonetheless, the grand challenges I have selected for this article do indeed pertain to the Sun’s magnetic field.
The study of stellar structure and evolution is one of the main building blocks of astrophysics, and the Sun has an importance both as the star that is most amenable to detailed study and as the star that has by far the biggest impact on the Earth and near-Earth environment through its radiative and particulate outputs. Over the past decades, studies of stars and of the Sun have become somewhat separate. But in recent years, the rapid advances in asteroseismology, as well as the quest to better understand solar and stellar dynamos, have emphasized once again the synergy between studies of the stars and the Sun. In this article I have selected two “grand challenges” both for their crucial importance and because I thnk that these two problems are tractable to significant progress in the next decade. They are (i) understanding how solar and stellar dynamos generate magnetic field, and (ii) improving the predictability of geo-effective space weather.
Solar and Stellar Dynamos
=========================
[*How does the Sun generate its periodically reversing large-scale magnetic field? How do other solar-like stars generate their magnetic fields, and what are the similarities and differences between stellar activity cycles and that of the Sun? What can be learned about the solar dynamo by studying other stars?*]{}
One of the most evident manifestations of solar magnetism is the number of sunspots, which waxes and wanes with an approximately 11-year quasi-periodic cycle. Once the polarity flip between 11-year cycles is taken into account, this becomes an approximately 22-year cycle. The Sun’s large-scale ambient field, which is predominantly dipolar, has a similar 22-year cycle. Sunspots occur where concentrations of magnetic flux poke out through the Sun’s surface, inhibiting the convection and causing that portion of the surface to be cooler (and hence darker) than its surroundings. Sunspots often occur in identifiable bipolar pairs, roughly oriented along lines of constant latitude but with the leading spot typically closer to the equator. The polarity of the leading spot is oppositely signed in the two hemispheres, and moreover changes sign every approximately 11 years.
The number of sunspots reaches a maximum approximately every eleven years, though the cycle length is quite variable. Also, the number of sunspots at maximum is very variable. There can also be extended periods when the sunspot cycle appears to turn off, notably in the Maunder minimum of approximately 1645-1715, and proxies for solar activity such as isotope deposits in ice cores suggest that such “grand minima” occur occasionally and apparently randomly in the Sun’s past.
How the Sun generates its oscillatory magnetic field is, however, not yet understood. The appearance of pairs of sunspots of opposite polarity is strongly suggestive of magnetic flux tubes rising from the interior and that these tubes are approximately aligned parallel to the solar equator, i.e., the field they contain is [*toroidal*]{}. The large-scale but weaker field is [*poloidal*]{}. It seems likely that in some way the cycling large-scale magnetic field of the Sun involves a dynamo in the course of whose operation toroidal field is converted to poloidal field and poloidal field is converted to toroidal field. Typically, generic dynamo models involve stretching, twisting and folding of the magnetic field [e.g. @Childress1995].
There are a number of models for how the Sun continues to generate a large-scale magnetic field via dynamo action, but none at this point is anything more than a cartoon of what may be taking place. Many are “mean-field dynamos”, which are based on the assumption that one can make a separation of scales between the large scale on which one wishes to describe the evolution of magnetic field, and the small-scale interactions of magnetic field and plasma motions that ultimately get parametrized in some closure scheme [e.g. @Moffatt1978]. Some often-invoked elements for the solar dynamo are differential rotation in the solar interior, which stretches out the poloidal field to produce toroidal field, and the convective motions that take place in the convective envelope of the Sun, which may take toroidal field and produce poloidal field via the so-called [*alpha*]{} mechanism. Helioseismology has mapped the rotation in much of the solar interior [e.g. @Thompson1996; @Schou1998]. Helioseismology has also established that the convective envelope occupies the outer 30 per cent of the solar interior [@jcd1991], and that the base of the convection zone roughly coincides with a region of rotational shear that is now called the tachocline [e.g. @jcd2007].
The state of understanding of the solar dynamo has been reviewed by e.g. [@Weiss2009], [@Charbonneau2010] and [@Jones2010]. A class of models that is currently popular in solar physics is the “flux transport dynamo model” [@Choudhuri:etal:1995; @Dikpati1999]. These models are mean-field models that invoke the Babcock-Leighton mechanism in which the near-surface motions of differential rotation and meridional circulation statistically convert the toroidal field in decaying sunspots into a poloidal field. Meridional circulation sets up a conveyor belt that advects this field to high latitudes, then subducts it to the base of the convection and transports it towards the equator, during which passage it gets converted to toroidal flux that rises to the surface when it gets strong enough to be magnetically buoyant and forms sunspots.
Shortcomings of present-day models of the solar dynamo are that they are either highly idealized mathematical or computational models that possibly elucidate some of the principles but do not yet match the solar behavior; or they have [*ad hoc*]{} parameters that can match the observed large-scale behavior (e.g. sunspot number) but have little or no predictive power. That we are still far from a robust predictability is well illustrated by the wide range of predictions for the amplitude of Cycle 24 [@Pesnell2008], most of which inevitably were incorrect.
Recent developments include numerical models of the solar convection zone and outer radiative interior that capture the convective motions and rotation and begin to show cycling dynamo behaviour [@Brown2010; @Brown2011; @Ghizarou2010; @Racine2011], though they do not yet succeed in producing solar-like behavior: either they need a rotation rate that is far greater than that of the Sun, or they produce cycle periods that are longer than the Sun’s. Nonetheless this line of research is promising. Understanding the solar dynamo is certainly a Grand Challenge.
Other stars are also observed to exhibit magnetic activity cycles [e.g. @Judge2012 and references therein], and seeking to understand stellar activity cycles and the Sun’s dynamo in the context of those of other stars is a promising line of attack on the solar dynamo problem. Asteroseismology is opening up the study of stellar interiors, analogous to the impact of helioseismology on solar interior studies, and the [*Kepler*]{} mission in particular has made a step-change in the subject [e.g. @Chaplin2010; @Chaplin2011; @Chaplin2014; @Metcalfe2010; @Metcalfe2012; @Beck2011]. For a summary of early and more recent asteroseismic results from the [*Kepler*]{} mission, see, respectively, [@jcd2011] and [@Chaplin2013]. For understanding stellar dynamos and the physical ingredients for dynamo action, asteroseismology provides a valuable complement to traditional spectroscopy and accuate photometry, which themselves are extremely useful for measuring stellar surface rotation rates and latitudinal differential rotation, as well as revealing acitivity cycles similar to that of the Sun. A puzzle still to be resolved is that the Sun appears to be anomalous in the context of other stellar dynamos. As shown by [@Bohm-Vitense2007], activity cycle periods in a variety of other stars seem to fall onto two branches: those for which the cycle period $P_{\rm cycle}$ is about 400 times as long as the rotational period $P_{\rm rot}$ of the star, and those for which $P_{\rm cycle}$ is about 90 times as long as $P_{\rm rot}$. Some stars seem to have two periods in their activity, one falling on each of two branches. This finding suggests there may be two basic dynamo modes in stars. The Sun’s 11-year cycle and approximatly 26-day rotation period puts it on neither of these branches, but rather intermediate between the two. Interestingly, the Sun seems to exhibit a secondary period of about 2 years in some of its activity indices, which would mean that the Sun’s two activity periods are in a ratio that is not dissimilar to 400:90. There is much still to be understood.
Improving the Predictability of Space Weather
=============================================
[*What causes large potentially Earth-impacting space weather events on the Sun and how can we better predict them? What improvements, especially in terms of observations of the solar atmosphere and its magnetic field, can we foresee to improve forecasts of the geo-effectiveness of such events?*]{}
As our nearest star, the Sun has a dominant influence on the Earth and near-Earth environment. One particular class of solar influences on the Earth is known collectively as space weather, magnetically driven episodic variations in the Sun’s radiative and particulate outputs that impact on the Earth and geospace. The potential societal impacts of space weather – on power grids, on communications and GPS, on satellites, on airline crew and passengers, on humans in space – are increasingly recognized [@Baker2008].
The Sun’s role as the driver of space weather is evident, but we have only a poor understanding of the physics that actually triggers the most impactful space weather eruptions – X-class flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) – and we have little capability to predict when such events will occur and how geo-effective they will be. To the latter point, it is particularly important to be able to determine whether the embedded magnetic field in an Earthward-directed CME will be northward or southward, since the southward case is much more impactful as it interacts with the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Advances are needed in a number of key areas. New instrumentation and analysis tools are required to better observe the Sun’s chromosphere and corona and hence to determine the plasma conditions and magnetic fields there. In contrast, the photosphere is relatively well observed and understood, though even there recent observations have thrown up surprises and controversy, such as the finding from Hinode satellite observations that the small-scale magnetic field is apparently predominantly horizontal rather than vertical [@Lites2008].
The Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope ([*DKIST*]{}), formerly known as the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope ([*ATST*]{}), will be the largest ground-based solar telescope and will provide extremely high resolution observations of the Sun’s photosphere, chromosphere and corona, but only in a very small field of view [@Keil2003]. Though with its small field of view it will not provide a forecasting capability for space weather, a major justification for [*DKIST*]{} is to observe and lead to an understanding of the small-scale drivers of space weather events. In my view, a key component for predicting the onset of large flares and possibly CMEs is also a knowledge of the near subsurface emergent magnetic field and plasma flows, and the only viable means of detecting these is local helioseismology [@Gizon2005]. There is evidence that the onset of major flare activity is preceded by an increase in kinetic helicity in the subsurface region [@Komm2009; @Reinard2010]. Advances require improved local helioseismic analyses, particularly in regions of strong magnetic field [e.g. @Braun2011]. Overall, a complete picture will likely require better theoretical understanding of the roles of a number of different elements – magnetic field-line footpoint motions in the photosphere, new emergent flux, and the complexity of existing magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere – in the genesis of space-weather events.
The chromosphere constitutes a boundary layer between the photosphere and solar interior on the one side and the corona and heliosphere on the other. It is the most poorly understood region of the solar atmosphere: it is highly dynamic in nature [e.g. @DePontieu2007], and the approximation of local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) is inadequate for modeling the observations there. Yet it is a region through which mass and energy fluxes from the Sun must pass, and it can be argued that the chromosphere rather than say the photosphere is the true bottom boundary for modeling the heliosphere and understanding space weather. [@Ayres2009] provides a good overview of the challenges and opportunities for advancing understanding of the chromosphere and also gives context from chromospheres of other stars. Spectro-polarimetric observations in multi-wavelengths of the spectral lines formed in the solar chromosphere are one key to advancing understanding of this region, and a number of instruments have been or are being developed and deployed to make such observations. These include several of the first-light instruments to be deployed on the [*DKIST*]{}, the [*CRISP*]{} instrument at the Swedish Solar Telescope [@Scharmer2008], and the Chromosphere and Prominence Magnetometer, [*ChroMag*]{} [@DeWijn2012]. Development of non-LTE spectro-polarimetric inversion codes [e.g. @Socas-Navarro2000] is also essential for the interpretation of the observations from the new suite of instruments.
It is evident from the spectacular loop structures observed there that the corona is dominated by magnetic fields, but direct measurements of the magnetic field in the corona are very challenging and are only now being realized [@Lin2000]. Such measurements over extended spatial regions, complemented by magnetic field measurements in the chromosphere, promise to provide knowledge of the magnetic field in CMEs as they leave the Sun, thus perhaps making possible the forecasting of the magnetic field strength and direction in the sheaths and cores of Earth-impacting CMEs. Spectro-polarimetric observations in emission lines formed in the corona and observations at radio wavelengths provide two complementary avenues for coronal magnetic field measurements. The proposed Frequency Agile Solar Radiotelescope (FASR) will observe the corona at radio wavelengths [@Bastian2003]. Observations in the near-infrared will be made by the [*DKIST*]{} (again, only in a small field of view) and by the proposed Coronal Solar Magnetism Observatory coronagraph ([*COSMO*]{}) [@Gallagher2012]. A prototype for the [*COSMO*]{} coronagraph, the Coronal Multi-Channel Polarimeter ([*CoMP*]{}), is currently making daily spectro-polarimetric observations in the near-IR and has demonstrated that it is possible to measure the magnetic field in the corona [@Tomczyk2007; @Tomczyk2008]. Modeling of observations to reconstruct the coronal magnetic field by tomographic or other techniques looks promising [@Kramar2013].
Other issues
============
I have chosen the above two areas of major challenge because of their importance and because I believe that significant progress on them can be made in the next decade. No doubt, another author could have picked two other but equally fascinating areas of challenge. In closing, I would just like to mention a further set of issues that are undoubtedly important for improving our understanding of the Sun and Sun-like stars.
Since around 2005, there has been an “abundance problem” with the Sun. Prior to that date, solar models constructed with the then-current estimates of the Sun’s chemical abundances were in good agreement with helioseismology. But new spectroscopic analyses and 3-D atmospheric modeling by [@Asplund2005] revised significantly downwards the solar heavy-element abundance, particularly the oxygen abundance. This resulted in a much worse agreement between solar models and the Sun’s internal stratification as inferred from helioseismology [@Montalban2006]. Subsequent spectroscopic re-evaluations of the solar abundances, though they have revised upwards slightly the values originally published by Asplund et al., still give a significantly lower heavy-element abundance than pre-2005, and attempts to modify the microphysics assumed in 1-D stellar models have not resolved the discrepancy with helioseismology [@Basu2013]. A number of current attempts are underway in 2-D and 3-D models to incorporate macrophysics that has not to date been part of the standard solar and stellar models. These include incorporating rotation, magnetic fields, and internal gravity waves [e.g. @Talon2008; @Eggenberger2010; @Mathis2010; @Mathis2013]. These additional physical effects can variously redistribute angular momentum and chemical abundances within the stellar interior. Asteroseismology provides constraints on what can be assumed [@Deheuvels2012; @Deheuvels2014]. My own view is that fully incorporating these effects into models, particular in 3-D, may take rather longer than a decade. Nonetheless it is excellent that these modeling efforts have begun, and there will be a rich interplay between the modeling and asteroseismology for years to come.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I thank Scott McIntosh for comments that have improved this paper. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the largest database so far of atmospheric optical-turbulence profiles (197035 individual C$_N^2(h)$) for an astronomical site, the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (La Palma, Spain). This C$_N^2$(h) database was obtained through generalized-SCIDAR observations at the 1 meter Jacobus Kapteyn telescope from Febrary 2004 to August 2009, obtaining useful data for 211 nights. The overestimation of the turbulence strength induced during the generalized SCIDAR data processing has been analysed for the different observational configurations. All the individual C$_N^2$(h) have been re-calibrated to compensate the introduced errors during data treatment following [@avila09]. Comparing results from profiles before and after the recalibration, we analyse its impact on the calculation of relevant parameters for adaptive optics.'
author:
- |
B. García-Lorenzo$^{1,2}$[^1], & J.J. Fuensalida$^{1,2}$\
1 Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, C/Via Lactea S/N, 38305-La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
2 Dept. Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna, C/ Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez, E-38205 Tenerife, Spain\
date: 'Accepted ..... Received .....; in original form .....'
title: 'Atmospheric optical-turbulence at Roque de los Muchachos Observatory: database and recalibration of the generalized-SCIDAR data'
---
\[firstpage\]
Atmospheric effects —- instrumentation: adaptive optics —- Site Testing
Introduction
============
The atmospheric optical turbulence is an effect that acts on the propagation of light waves through the atmosphere. Its origin is on random variations of the refractive index associated to temperature fluctuations. Atmospheric optical turbulence drastically affects to astronomical observations, limiting the capabilities of ground-based telescopes. The refractive index structure parameter, C$_N^2$, constitutes a quantitative measure of the atmospheric optical turbulence strength [@tatarskii71]\[e.g.\] which depends on the position. C$_N^2$ as a function of the altitude is commonly referred to as optical turbulence profile, being a relevant variable in the definition of adaptive optics systems in astronomy. The SCIntillation Detection And Ranging (SCIDAR) technique is an efficient technique to measure the optical turbulence profiles in astronomical observatories. SCIDAR is based on the analysis of the intensity distribution (scintillation patterns) at the pupil plane (classical-SCIDAR) or at a virtual plane (generalized-SCIDAR) of a telescope when observing a double-star. Atmospheric turbulence profiles are derived through the inversion of the normalized autocovariance of a large number of scintillation patterns. The SCIDAR technique, in its classical or generalized versions, has been extensively explained in previous papers [@vernin73; @rocca74; @fuchs94; @avila97; @kluckers98; @johnston02]. The classical-SCIDAR [@vernin73; @rocca74] is not sensitive to turbulence at the observatory level while generalized-SCIDAR [@fuchs94; @avila97; @kluckers98; @johnston02] is able to measure this turbulence by locating the analysis plane in a virtual position a few kilometers below the pupil plane. Generalized SCIDAR has been extensively used in astronomical sites to study the atmospheric optical turbulence for applications in the development of adaptive optics systems and site characterization [@avila97; @fuchs98; @kluckers98; @avila98; @kern00; @prieur01; @avila01; @wilson03; @avila04; @tokovinin05; @garcia06; @egner07; @vernin07; @salida08; @garcia09; @chun09; @masciadri10; @dali10; @mohr10; @garcia11]. From the early experimental implementations of the technique, it was noted that generalized-SCIDAR data processing leads to an overestimation of the optical turbulence strength [@johnston02] that was assumed as negligible at any altitude. [@avila09] demonstrated that this overestimation might be negligible or relevant strongly depending on the selected observational parameters – namely telescope diameter, double-star angular separation and analysis plane conjugation altitude. An analytical expression to calculate the actual errors induced during generalized-SCIDAR data processing as well as a procedure for the correct recalibration of C$_N^2$ profiles derived from generalized-SCIDAR observations were also provided in [@avila09]. This procedure has been already applied to re-calibrate atmospheric optical turbulence profiles retrieved in Mt Graham [@masciadri10], El Teide [@garcia11], and San Pedro Mártir [@avila11] observatories.
The atmospheric optical turbulence monitoring programme at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (ORM hereafter) started in 2004. The classical data processing [@kluckers98]\[see e.g.\] was performed to retrieved the C$_N^2$ profiles from the generalized-SCIDAR observations assuming negligible errors induced in the data treatment. Results derived from the C$_N^2$ profiles in the ORM database were already published [@castro09; @garcia09b; @garcia07; @salida07; @salida04a; @salida04b] before the [@avila09] work. In this paper, we present the database of atmospheric optical turbulence profiles recorded at the ORM through generalized-SCIDAR observations, the largest database of C$_N^2$(h) for an astronomical site that has been published so far. We also perform the recalibration of the C$_N^2$ profiles in the ORM database to compensate for the errors introduced during data processing. We analyze the implications in the statistical results derived from this database before and after the recalibration. Section §2 presents the database of C$_N^2$ profiles derived from generalized-SCIDAR measurements at the ORM. We also calculate the impact of the data processing error on retrieved C$_N^2$ profiles and re-calibrate the full database following the proposed procedure in [@avila09]. Section §3 analyzes the implications of the C$_N^2$ database recalibration on results derived from profiles. Conclusions are summarized in section §4.
THE DATA
========
The ORM is located at an altitude of $\sim2396$ meters above sea level ([*asl*]{} hereafter), at latitude $28^0 46'$ N and longitude $17^0 53'$ W on the island of La Palma (Canary Islands, Spain). This astronomical site was one of the final candidates to locate the European Extremely Large Telescope (42m-EELT). A monitoring program of the atmospheric turbulence structure at the ORM began in 2004 using the generalized-SCIDAR technique. The 1-m Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope was used in combination with the Cute-SCIDAR instrument [@ho04; @salida04c] developed at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain). Each detector pixel of Cute-SCIDAR instrument covers a square 1.935 cm in size on the 1-m Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope pupil. The generalized-SCIDAR data were processed using the traditional procedure [@kluckers98]\[see e.g.\] of deriving the normalized autocovariance from a series of scintillation patterns (1000 images in ORM case). The autocovariance peaks allow the determination of C$_N^2$(h) using a numerical inversion. The C$_N^2$(h) systematic campaigns at ORM were carried out from February 2004 to October 2006 and from January 2008 to August 2009 with a frequency of about 4-6 nights per month. Useful generalized-SCIDAR observations were obtained in 211 nights during these campains and 197035 individual C$_N^2$ profiles constitute the database of turbulence profiles at ORM (see table \[tab1\]), the largest C$_N^2$ database published until now. The dome and mirror turbulence contribution was removed from all the profiles using the procedure in [@salida08].
------------------ --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -- ---------------
[**Year**]{} [**Total**]{}
[**Month**]{} [**Jan**]{} [**Feb**]{} [**Mar**]{} [**Apr**]{} [**May**]{} [**Jun**]{} [**Jul**]{} [**Aug**]{} [**Sep**]{} [**Oct**]{} [**Nov**]{} [**Dec**]{}
[**Profiles**]{} 2004 — 2323 5942 9586 5953 5702 7530 8186 8867 1260 3847 3191 62387
[**Nights** ]{} — 3 6 8 6 5 7 7 9 2 4 4 61
[**Profiles**]{} 2005 10347 380 1029 4450 4039 5116 4313 1337 1723 2715 1035 2123 38607
[**Nights** ]{} 7 1 3 4 4 7 4 3 3 3 2 2 43
[**Profiles**]{} 2006 2460 2478 1640 2710 4363 0 3203 1933 1329 275 0 0 20391
[**Nights** ]{} 2 2 2 3 4 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 20
[**Profiles**]{} 2008 2860 961 5462 671 3200 7150 4818 5818 3257 2088 3236 3361 42882
[**Nights** ]{} 4 1 6 2 3 7 8 8 4 2 5 3 53
[**Profiles**]{} 2009 8287 4048 4805 3316 3365 3162 2170 3615 — — — — 32768
[**Nights** ]{} 8 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 — — — — 34
[**Profiles**]{} [**Total**]{} 23954 10190 18878 20733 20920 21130 22034 20889 15176 6338 8118 8675 197035
[**Nights** ]{} 21 11 21 21 21 22 25 24 17 8 11 9 211
------------------ --------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -- ---------------
\[tab1\]
A set of 19 double-stars (see table \[stars\]) were selected to carry out the generalized-SCIDAR observations at the ORM. The double-stars selection was based on : (1) apparent magnitude of the primary star brighter than 6.5 and double-star magnitude difference smaller than 2.5, in order to garantee an appropiate signal-to-noise in the autocovariance peaks; (2) double-star angular separations in the range from 4.2 to 10 arcsec, to ensure that the SCIDAR maximum altitude is high enough to detect all turbulent layers. After a few months of operations showing that most of the turbulence was concentrated in low-altitude layers, we increase the range of double-star angular separation to 16.5 arcsec to better sample low-altitude turbulence structure; (3) double-star declination in the range between 2 and 56 degrees, allowing generalized SCIDAR measurements at zenith angles shorter than 30$^0$; and (4) a variety of double-star right ascension, to allow a full monitoring of the atmospheric turbulence structure along seasons. The selected double-star systems allow to retrieved C$_N^2$(h) with vertical resolutions [@avila98]\[see e.g.\] at ground ($\Delta H$(0)) that ranges from $\sim$195 to $\sim$1314 meters. The typical $\Delta H(0)$ for Generalized SCIDAR observations is about 1000 meters. The observations carried out at ORM are split in two groups according to $\Delta H(0)$. Hereafter Generalized SCIDAR observations obtained with a $\Delta H(0)$ lower and higher than 500 meters will be referred to as high- and low-resolution modes, respectively. Generalized SCIDAR data recorded using high vertical resolution are limited to turbulence structures up to $\sim17$ km (only $\sim$17% of the profiles were obtained in high-vertical resolution mode), while data obtain in low vertical resolution ($\Delta H(0)>$ 500 meters) reaches well above 20 km at the 1-m Jacobus Kapteyn telescope (constituting $\sim$83% of the profiles in the ORM database).
--------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ------- ----------- ---------- ------ ------------- -----------------
[**Double-star**]{} $\alpha_a$ $\delta_a$ m$_1$ $\Delta$m $\theta$ d Percentage Average
(J2000) (J2000) (arcsec) (km) of profiles error (%)
[**BS 282** ]{} 01$^h$ 00$^m$ 03$^s$ +44$^o$ 42$'$ 40.1$''$ 5.70 0.34 7.8 4 0.25 41.47$\pm$20.03
[**BS 546** ]{} 01$^h$ 53$^m$ 31$^s$ +19$^o$ 17$'$ 38.6$''$ 4.64 0.08 7.5 3 8.60 31.29$\pm$18.66
4 4.42 38.47$\pm$19.13
[**BS 628** ]{} 02$^h$ 10$^m$ 53$^s$ +39$^o$ 02$'$ 22.0$''$ 5.63 0.41 16.7 2 0.07 42.70$\pm$20.18
[**BS 1821** ]{} 05$^h$ 29$^m$ 16$^s$ +25$^o$ 09$'$ 00.7$''$ 5.47 0.32 4.8 4 3.70 15.53$\pm$4.13
5 1.61 20.29$\pm$4.76
[**BS 1847** ]{} 05$^h$ 32$^m$ 14$^s$ +17$^o$ 03$'$ 29.2$''$ 5.46 0.09 9.6 4 0.42 45.53$\pm$20.36
[**BS 1879** ]{} 05$^h$ 35$^m$ 08$^s$ +09$^o$ 56$'$ 02.9$''$ 3.30 2.07 4.4 4 0.75 15.55$\pm$4.53
5 1.13 18.57$\pm$5.04
[**BS 2784** ]{} 07$^h$ 22$^m$ 52$^s$ +55$^o$ 16$'$ 53.0$''$ 5.78 1.08 15.0 2 0.26 41.65$\pm$21.95
[**BS 2890** ]{} 07$^h$ 34$^m$ 35$^s$ +31$^o$ 53$'$ 18.5$''$ 1.93 1.04 4.4 5 5.33 18.34$\pm$ 4.59
[**BS 3617** ]{} 09$^h$ 07$^m$ 27$^s$ +22$^o$ 58$'$ 52.0$''$ 6.40 0.62 7.6 3 0.12 32.26$\pm$19.78
[**BS 4057** ]{} 10$^h$ 19$^m$ 58$^s$ +19$^o$ 50$'$ 28.5$''$ 2.61 0.86 4.6 4 4.22 15.33$\pm$4.13
5 12.59 18.46$\pm$4.51
[**BS 4259**]{} 10$^h$ 55$^m$ 36$^s$ +24$^o$ 44$'$ 59.2$''$ 4.50 1.95 6.5 4 1.85 29.87$\pm$14.36
[**BS 5054** ]{} 13$^h$ 23$^m$ 55$^s$ +54$^o$ 55$'$ 31.3$''$ 2.27 1.68 14.5 2 2.42 41.77$\pm$23.78
[**BS 5329** ]{} 14$^h$ 13$^m$ 29$^s$ +51$^o$ 47$'$ 25.0$''$ 4.50 2.19 13.4 2 0.12 41.04$\pm$25.09
[**BS 5475** ]{} 14$^h$ 40$^m$ 43$^s$ +16$^o$ 25$'$ 05.9$''$ 4.91 0.94 5.6 4 7.15 21.33$\pm$7.66
[**BS 5789** ]{} 15$^h$ 34$^m$ 48$^s$ +10$^o$ 32$'$ 20.7$''$ 3.80 0.00 4.3 5 6.28 18.18$\pm$4.42
6 4.34 21.05$\pm$4.47
[**BS 5834** ]{} 15$^h$ 39$^m$ 22$^s$ +36$^o$ 38$'$ 08.9$''$ 5.00 0.96 6.3 3 0.89 20.38$\pm$9.70
[**BS 6730** ]{} 18$^h$ 01$^m$ 30$^s$ +21$^o$ 35$'$ 44.8$''$ 4.96 0.22 6.2 3 7.46 19.82$\pm$9.03
4 11.95 25.86$\pm$11.24
[**BS 6781** ]{} 18$^h$ 07$^m$ 49$^s$ +26$^o$ 06$'$ 05.0$''$ 5.86 0.04 14.3 2 0.52 38.78$\pm$20.37
[**BS 7948** ]{} 20$^h$ 46$^m$ 39$^s$ +16$^o$ 07$'$ 27.4$''$ 4.27 0.87 9.6 2 2.95 31.78$\pm$22.62
3 10.60 40.26$\pm$22.85
--------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ------- ----------- ---------- ------ ------------- -----------------
\[stars\]
Recalibration to compensate the error induced in generalized-SCIDAR data processing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the shift between the pupil footprints of the two stars on the detector (see Fig. 1 in [@garcia11]) during generalized-SCIDAR observations, the derived C$_N^2$ intensities are indeed an overestimation of the actual turbulence strength [@avila09]. This overstimation is induced during data processing and strongly depends on the selected double-stars and the analysis planes combinations as well as on the telescope diameter. Table \[stars\] shows the different observational configurations of the generalized-SCIDAR observations carried out at the 1-m Jacobus Kapteyn telescope and, following equations in [@avila09], we have calculated the actual error $\epsilon(h)$ induced in the retrieved C$_N^2$ profiles for each of these 26 different configuration (see Fig \[error\_juntas\]). The turbulence strength at any altitude should be multiplied by a factor 1/(1+$\epsilon(h)$) to compensate the error induced during the generalized-SCIDAR data processing. Table \[stars\] includes the average 1/(1+$\epsilon$) factor and its standard deviation, as reference of an average error induced by each configuration. Figure \[error\_juntas\] clearly shows that these errors are not negligible for most of the used observational configurations at the ORM.
The derived turbulence strength at the observatory level ($\sim 2400$ m) after the generalized-SCIDAR data proccessing is overestimated in a percentage factor that ranges from $\sim11$% to $\sim34$%. The C$_N^2$ profiles recorded in high-vertical resolution mode are the most affected (see table \[stars\] and Fig. \[error\_juntas\]) by the error introduced during generalized-SCIDAR data processing. A 45% overstimation between the actual and the retrieved turbulence strength at 10 km [*asl*]{} is found in average for high-resolution profiles, reaching a maximum error of 72%. Only 17% of the profiles in the ORM were obtained in high-vertical resolution mode. For low-vertical resolution configurations, errors in C$_N^2$ profiles up to 10 km do not exceed 28% in any case, with a median overstimation of 18.5 %. At 18 km [*asl*]{}, turbulence strength in profiles retrieved using low-resolution mode presents a $\sim20$% overestimation in average of the turbulence strength.
Following [@avila09], we have re-calibrated the full database of C$_N^2$ profiles obtained at ORM multiplying the retrieved C$_N^2$ strengths at any altitude by the calculated factor 1/(1+$\epsilon$(h)) for each particular double-star and analysis plane combination.
Implications on statistical profiles and parameters derived
===========================================================
Generalized SCIDAR observations at ORM have been taken using high-, and low-resolution modes. From Fig. \[error\_juntas\] is clear that errors are more important in profiles obtained in high-resolution mode than those derived from low-resolution observations. In order to have a view of the implications of these errors, we have derived from these profiles some statistical parameters relevant for adaptive optics purposes, namely total seeing ($\epsilon$), boundary layer (B-L) contribution to the seeing ($\epsilon_{B-L}$), free atmosphere (F-A) contribution to the seeing ($\epsilon_{F-A}$), and isoplanatic angle ($\theta_0$). The derived values for these parameters before and after the recalibration of the turbulence profiles are presented in table \[stat\_high\_low\]. It is important to note that the boundary layer is not clearly defined in low-vertical resolution profiles because we are combining several profiles with $\Delta H(0)> 1000$ meters. Moreover, the reader should take into account at this point that parameters derived combining profiles obtained in high-resolution mode are affected by the limitation in altitude of these profiles. In addition, there is a seasonal bias in profiles obtained using high-resolution mode (see Fig. \[relfre\]). For these reasons, statistical values for the different parameters derived from profiles obtained in high- and low-resolution mode are not directly comparable. As we already noted, the error induced during Generalized SCIDAR data processing leads an overestimation of the turbulence intensity [@avila09]. For this reason, the seeing values ($\epsilon$, $\epsilon_{B-L}$, $\epsilon_{F-A}$) derived before the recalibration of the profiles are larger than the corresponding values obtained from re-calibrated C$_N^2$. In the case of $\theta_0$, the error introduced by the generalized SCIDAR data processing results in an underestimation of this parameter.
----------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- -- --
recalibration [**before**]{} [**after**]{} [**before**]{} [**after**]{}
[**Seeing (”)**]{} Average 0.87 0.71 1.07 0.93
Median 0.78 0.63 0.96 0.84
$\sigma$ 0.41 0.34 0.43 0.38
[**BL (”)**]{} Average 0.57 0.48 0.85 0.75
Median 0.49 0.41 0.76 0.67
$\sigma$ 0.42 0.35 0.43 0.38
[**FA(”)**]{} Average 0.52 0.41 0.49 0.42
Median 0.45 0.35 0.43 0.37
$\sigma$ 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.21
[**$\theta_0$(”)**]{} Average 1.97 2.96 2.02 2.39
Median 1.82 2.74 1.88 2.22
$\sigma$ 0.81 1.19 2.35 2.26
----------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- -- --
\[stat\_high\_low\]
Figure \[median\_profiles\] shows the average turbulence profile derived from the combination of C$_N^2$(h) in high- (Fig. \[median\_profiles\]a), and low-resolution (Fig. \[median\_profiles\]b) modes before (dashed-line) and after (solid-line) the recalibration of the profiles. As it has been already shown in previous recalibrations [@avila11; @garcia11], the effect of the induced error during data processing consists of an overestimation of the turbulence strength, but following the actual turbulence structure.
Generalized SCIDAR observations in high-resolution mode were obtained when the normalized autocovariance showed no evidence of high-altitude turbulence layers, but stratified turbulence at low level (the selection of this mode was subject to observer criteria and experience). Moreover, the use of high-resolution mode presents a seasonal bias according to Fig. \[relfre\]. For these reasons, the median high-resolution turbulence profile (Fig. \[median\_profiles\]a) derived for ORM could not be representative of a statistical turbulence profile at this site. Fig. \[median\_profiles\]a shows the median recalibrated profile where $\sim$67% of the detected turbulence is concentrated at the boundary layer (B-L), being 96.6% of this turbulence located in the first 500 meters above the observatory level. A clear turbulence layer is resolved at about 5.2 km [*asl*]{}, that constitute about 12% of the turbulence in the median high-resolution C$_N^2$ profile (integrating C$_N^2$(h) from 3.4 to 7 km). The turbulence upwards 7 km [*asl*]{} represents only 11% of the total turbulence measured in the derived high-resolution C$_N^2$ profile. The median low-resolution C$_N^2$(h) derived for ORM (Fig. \[median\_profiles\]b) presents a smoother structure in altitude compared with the high-resolution profile. 76% of the turbulence is concentrated in the B-L, while turbulence above 5 km represents only a $\sim$11 % of the total turbulence. A turbulence feature appears at $\sim$7.2 km [*asl*]{} with a strength at the peak of about 6$\times$10$^{-18}$ m$^{-2/3}$. Any other turbulence layer is not clear in this median low-resolution turbulence profile, being the background turbulence at any altitude above 10 km always bellow 3.5$\times$10$^{-18}$ m$^{-2/3}$. There is a 2 km difference in altitude for a mid-altitude (3 km $<$ H $<$ 10 km) turbulence layer in the median high- and low-vertical resolution profiles. This difference is well-explained taking into account the seasonal variation of the turbulence structure already reported for the Canary Islands observatories [@garcia11; @garcia09b; @garcia07; @salida07]. Most of the high-vertical resolution profiles (53 %) were recorded between June and August (see Fig. \[relfre\]a): turbulence structure in these months is characterized by a relatively strong turbulence layer at $\sim$5-6 km [*asl*]{} that is stable from year to year [@garcia09b]. This turbulence layer evolves in altitude and strength along the year [@garcia11; @garcia09b; @garcia07; @salida07]. The relative frequency of turbulence profiles recorded in low-vertical resolution mode ( Fig. \[relfre\]b) has not a clear peak at any month, better smoothing the seasonal evolution of the turbulence structure above ORM.
Conclusions
===========
The optical atmospheric turbulence structure has been monitoring since 2004 at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain). Useful generalized SCIDAR measurements were obtained during 211 nights. The total number of individual C$_N^2$(h) profiles recorded at this site is 197035. The error induced during generalized SCIDAR data processing has been calculated, being more significant when using high-vertical resolution mode ( $\Delta H(0)<$ 500 meters). Following the procedure proposed by [@avila09], we have re-calibrated the full database of turbulence profiles recorded at ORM, showing the effects of theses errors in the calculation of statistical atmospheric parameters relevant for adaptive optics. Combining the corrected turbulence profiles, we have obtained the statistical high- ( $\Delta H(0)<$ 500 meters) and low-vertical ( $\Delta H(0)>$ 500 meters) resolution turbulence profiles to have a view of the turbulence structure at ORM. The main conclusions that we have derived from this work can be summarized as follows.
- The generalized SCIDAR data processing leads to an overstimation of the optical turbulence strength that it is not negligible for most of the observational configurations used at Roque de los Muchachos Observatory.
- The error introduced during the processing of the generalized SCIDAR data can drastically affect the statistical values derived for atmospheric parameters relevant for adaptive optics (namely total seeing, boundary-layer, free-atmosphere contributions and isoplanatic angle), being as large as 50 per cent for high-altitude layers in some generalized SCIDAR configurations used at ORM.
- Both the high- and low-vertical resolution profiles obtained for ORM show that most of the optical turbulence is concentrated in the first 5 km. The most intense turbulence layer is at the observatory level. A lower strength turbulence layer is detected in mid-altitude levels (4 $<$ H $<$ 8 km).
The C$_N^2$(h) set recorded at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory constitutes the largest database of optical atmospheric turbulence profiles so far.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This paper is based on observations obtained at the Jacobus Kapteyn Telescope operated by the Isaac Newton Group at the Observatorio de Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. The authors thank all the staff at the observatory for their kind support. Thanks are also due to all the observers that have recorded generalized SCIDAR data at this site (J. Castro-Almazán, S. Chueca, J.M. Delgado, E. Sanroma, C. Hoegemann, M.A.C. Rodríguez-Hernández, and H. Vázquez-Ramió). We also thank A. Eff-Darwich for help and useful discussions. We are grateful to the referee, Remy Avila, whose comments helped to improve this paper. This work was partially funded by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias and by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (AYA2006-13682 and AYA2009-12903). B. García-Lorenzo thanks the support from the Ramón y Cajal program by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e innovación.
[99]{}
Avila, R., Sánchez, L.J., Cruz-González, I., Carrasco, E., & Castaño, V.M. 2011, Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica, 47, 75
Avila, R., & Cuevas, S. 2009, Optics Express, 17, 10926
Avila, R., Vernin, J., & Cuevas, S. 1998, PASP, 110, 1106
Avila, R., Masciadri, E., Vernin, J., & Sánchez, L.J. 2004, PASP, 116, 682
Avila, R., Vernin, J., & S[á]{}nchez, L. J. 2001, A&A, 369, 364
Avila, R., Vernin, J. & Masciadri, E. 1997, Appl.Opt. 36, 7898
Castro-Almaz[á]{}n, J. A., Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., & Fuensalida, J. J. 2009, , Optical Turbulance: Astronomy Meets Meteorology, Proceedings of the Astronomy Meets Meteorology, Proceedings of the Optical Turbulence Characterization for Astronomical Applications Sardinia, Italy, 15 - 18 September 2008, edited by Elena Masciadri (Instituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Italy) & Marc Sarazin (European Southern Observatory, Germany), pp. 350-357 (2010)
Chun, M., Wilson, R., Avila, R., Butterley, T., Aviles, J.-L., Wier, D., & Benigni, S. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1121
Dali Ali, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, A73
Egner, S. E., Masciadri, E., & McKenna, D. 2007, PASP, 119, 669
Fuensalida, J. J., Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., & Hoegemann, C. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 731
Fuensalida, J. J., Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., Delgado, J. M., Rodr[í]{}guez-Hern[á]{}ndez, M. A. C., & Vernin, J. 2007, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 31, 86
Fuensalida, J. J., Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., Delgado, J. M., Hoegemann, C., Verde, M., Reyes, M., & Vernin, J. 2004c, The Newsletter of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, 8, 15
Fuensalida, J. J., García-Lorenzo, B., Castro, J., Chueca, S., Delgado, J.M., González-Rodrí[i]{}guez, J.M., Hoegemann, C., Reyes, M., Verde, M., & Vernin, J. 2004b, Proc. SPIE, 5572, 1
Fuensalida, J. J., Chueca, S., Delgado, J.M., García-Lorenzo, B., Rodríguez-González, J.M., Hoegemann, C., Medizabal, E., Reyes, M., Verde, M., & Vernin, J. 2004a, Proc. SPIE, 5490, 749
Fuchs, A., Tallon, M., & Vernin, J. 1998, PASP, 110, 86
Fuchs, A., Tallon, M., & Vernin, J. 1994, SPIE, 2222, 682
Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., & Fuensalida, J. J. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 934
Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., Eff-Darwich, A., Fuensalida, J. J., & Castro-Almaz[á]{}n, J. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1633
Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., Fuensalida, J. J., Castro-Almazán, J., & Rodriguez-Hernández, M. A. C. 2009, Optical Turbulance: Astronomy Meets Meteorology, Proceedings of the Astronomy Meets Meteorology, Proceedings of the Optical Turbulence Characterization for Astronomical Applications Sardinia, Italy, 15 - 18 September 2008, edited by Elena Masciadri (Instituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Italy) & Marc Sarazin (European Southern Observatory, Germany), pp. 66-73 (2010)., 66
Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., Fuensalida, J. J., & Rodr[í]{}guez-Hern[á]{}ndez, M. A. C. 2007, Proc. SPIE, 6747, 11
Garc[í]{}a-Lorenzo, B., & Fuensalida, J. J. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1483
Hoegemann, C. K., et al. 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5490, 774
Johnston, R.A., Dainty, C., Wooder, N., & Lane, R. 2002, Appl.Opt., 41, 6768
Kern, B., Laurence, T. A., Martin, C., & Dimotakis, P. E. 2000, Applied Optics, 39, 4879
Kluckers, V., Wooder, N., Adcock, M., & Dainty, C. 1998, A&ASuppl.Ser., 130, 141
Masciadri, E., Stoesz, J., Hagelin, S., & Lascaux, F. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 144
Mohr, J. L., Johnston, R. A., & Cottrell, P. L. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia , 27, 347
Prieur, J.-L., Daigne, G., & Avila, R. 2001, A&A, 371, 366
Rocca, A., Roddier, F., & Vernin, J. 1974, J.Opt.Soc.Am., 64, 1000
Tatarskii, V. I. 1971, [*The effects of the turbulent atmosphere on wave propagation*]{}, Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1971,
Tokovinin, A., Vernin, J., Ziad, A., & Chun, M. 2005, PASP, 117, 395
Vernin, J., Trinquet, H., Jumper, G., Murphy, E., & Ratkowski, A. 2007, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 7, 371
Vernin, J. & Roddier, F. 1973, J.Opt.Soc.Am., 63, 270
Wilson, R. W., Wooder, N. J., Rigal, F., & Dainty, J. C. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 491
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that to correctly describe the effects of the heavy-quark mass, $m_\Q$, in DGLAP evolution, it is necessary to work in the so-called ‘physical’ scheme. In this way, we automatically obtain a smooth transition through the heavy-quark thresholds. Moreover, we show that to obtain NLO accuracy, it is sufficient to account for the heavy-quark mass, $m_\Q$, just in the LO (one-loop) splitting function. The use of the $\MS$ factorisation scheme is not appropriate, since at NLO we deal with a mixture of quarks and gluon (that is, the mass of the heavy parton is not well-defined). The formulae for the explicit $m_\Q$ dependence of the splitting functions, and for $\alpha_s$, are presented.'
---
IPPP/13/53\
DCPT/13/106\
\
[**Treatment of heavy quarks in QCD**]{}
E.G. de Oliveira$^{a,b}$, A.D. Martin$^a$, M.G. Ryskin$^{a,c}$ and A.G. Shuvaev$^{c}$\
$^a$ Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham, Durham, DH1 3LE\
$^b$ Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, C.P. 66318,05315-970 São Paulo, Brazil\
$^c$ Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute, Gatchina, St. Petersburg, 188300, Russia\
Introduction \[sec:1\]
======================
The correct treatment of heavy quarks in an analysis of parton distributions is essential for precision measurements at hadron colliders. The up, down and strange quarks, with $m^2 \ll \Lambda^2_{\rm QCD}$, can be treated as massless partons. However, for charm, bottom or top quarks we must allow for the effects of their mass, $m_\Q$ with $\Q=c,b$ or $t$. The problem is that we require a consistent description of the evolution of parton distribution functions (PDFs) over regions which include [*both*]{} the $Q^2 \sim m^2_{\Q}$ domain and the region $Q^2 \gg m^2_\Q$ where the heavy quark, $\Q$, can be treated as an additional massless quark.
Let us briefly summarize how heavy quarks are treated in PDF analyses at present[^1]. These analyses are performed in the $\MS$ scheme, in which the splitting and coefficient functions have been calculated using dimensional regularisation. We will call this the ‘conventional’ approach. Starting the evolution at a low scale we need consider only the three light quarks, taken as massless. As we evolve upwards we reach the charm quark threshold $Q^2=m_c^2$. We could choose to keep just the three light flavours as quark PDFs, and include all the effects of the charm quark and its mass $m_c$ in the coefficient functions. Historically, higher-order calculations of charm production were done in such a so-called Fixed-Flavour-Number-Scheme (FFNS) [@FFNS].
Unfortunately, a FFNS cannot be used far above the threshold. For $\ln Q^2 \gg \ln m^2_c$, the charm quark starts to participate in the evolution. Therefore in the FFNS coefficient functions, we have to sum up an infinite number of diagrams in order to reproduce inside these functions all the missing effects in the DGLAP evolution. Indeed, higher-order contributions, $\alpha_s^n \ln^n(Q^2/m_c^2)$, do not decrease in comparison to lower-order terms, and perturbation theory breaks down. Here, we call this a 3-flavour scheme (3FS). For higher $Q^2$ we should include the $c$-quark (which is taken as massless) in the evolution and so generate [^2] a 4FS giving reliable results for $m_c^2\lapproxeq Q^2 \lapproxeq m_b^2$, and 5FS giving reliable results for $m_b^2\lapproxeq Q^2 \lapproxeq m_t^2$ and so on.
Hence, we are led to a more general Variable-Flavour-Number-Scheme (VFNS), which is a composite of a sequence of $n_f$-flavour schemes, each with its own region of validity. As we pass through each transition [*point*]{}, $Q_{\rm trans}$ (usually taken as $Q^2=m_\Q^2$), the number of quarks active in the evolution increases from $n_f$ to $n_f+1$. So at a transition point we have two different sets of PDFs: the $n_f$-FS set for $Q^2 \le m_\Q^2$ and the $(n_f+1)$-FS set for $Q^2 \ge m_\Q^2$. The two sets have to be matched together in the transition region. The matching conditions are a\_i\^[n+1]{}(Q\^2) = \_k A\_[ik]{}(Q\^2/m\^2\_) a\_k\^n(Q\^2), \[eq:1\] where $\otimes$ denotes the convolution Aa = \_x\^1 A(x’) a(x/x’), where the PDF set $a_i^n=g,q,\Q$, with 3 light quarks and $n-3$ heavy quarks $\Q$. We have suppressed the $x$ arguments in (\[eq:1\]). The perturbative matrix elements $A_{ik}(Q^2/m_\Q^2)$ contain $\ln(Q^2/m_\Q^2)$ terms known to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ [^3]. In summary, the various $n_f$ schemes are related to each other by perturbatively calculable transformation matrices between the PDFs and the coefficient functions[^4].
Note that the matrix $A$ in (\[eq:1\]) is not a square matrix; neglecting the NNLO correction there is some freedom in performing the matching at the transition points, which is exploited phenomenologically to ensure that the matching is as smooth as possible. The ACOT [@ACOT] and RT [@RT] prescriptions were early attempts to implement this matching. An important development was the use of the so-called the General Mass (GM)-VFNS, which allows an estimate of the suppression of the final-state phase space when heavy flavour is produced. A rescaling variable = x(1+) \[eq:rescale\] is introduced, where the sum is over the heavy particles produced in the final state. (For example, neutral-current heavy-flavour production has $\Q {\bar \Q}$ in the final state, whereas a charge-current process has a single $\Q$.) Then the convolution $C\otimes$PDF, with the corresponding coefficient function, $C$, should be integrated over the momentum fraction range $\chi < \xi <1$. Rescaling shifts the momentum fraction variable in the PDF, $a(\xi,\mu^2)$, to a higher value than in the zero-mass case. This rescaling prescription [@ACOTchi1; @ACOTchi2] is known as ACOT$\chi$.
The GM-VFNS is adopted in the MSTW [@MSTW], CTEQ(CT10) [@CT10] and NNPDF [@NNPDF] global parton analyses, although each analysis uses its own variant. For example, MSTW use the formalism of [@thorne73], while NNPDF use a prescription [@FLNR] based on the fixed-order next-to-leading-log (FONLL) method. For comparison the most recent FFNS analysis [@ABM] finds both the value of $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ and the size of the gluon PDF at large $x$, significantly smaller than those of the GM-VFNS analyses.
The VFNS is well justified at LO accuracy. Indeed, at LO, in each cell (loop) of the evolution diagram, the transverse momenta, $k_{ti}$, or the virtualities, $k^2_i$, are strongly ordered; $k^2_i\gg k^2_{i-1}$ and a large logarithmic integration $\int^{k^2_{i+1}}_{k^2_{i-1}}dk^{2}_i/k^{2}_i$ compensates the small value of the QCD coupling $\alpha_s(k^2_i)$. The contribution from a finite interval of $\ln(k^2_i)$ (say, $k^2_i\sim k^2_{i+1}$) is considered as a NLO correction to the Leading Log evolution since here (from this extra loop) we get a small $\alpha_s$ now unaccompanied by a large logarithm. In the same way, we have to treat the heavy-quark mass dependence, which comes only from the finite region of $\ln(k^2_i)$ (that is, from $k^2_i\sim m^2_\Q$) [**as a NLO effect**]{}. Correspondingly, the effect of the [*running*]{} mass is a NNLO contribution.
If we account for the NLO corrections within the VFNS, where at each threshold, $Q^2=m^2_\Q$ we just increase the number of light active quarks by 1 (but each type of quark is considered as massless in the evolution), then, as mentioned above, we get JUMPs in the splitting functions (and kinks in $\alpha_s$) when the value of $n_f$ is changed. This behaviour is compensated by the matching condition (\[eq:1\]). The effect of the kink is calculated and added to the NLO PDFs in such a way as to provide the correct behaviour for $Q^2 \gg m^2_\Q$, assuming that there is only one threshold in this interval of evolution. The remaining kink in the derivative may be considered as a NNLO effect (and, in its turn, it can be compensated for in the region $Q^2 \gg m^2_\Q$ at the NNLO level, again assuming that there is only one threshold in this interval of evolution).
The GM-VFNS allows us to correctly reproduce the evolution in a large $\ln Q^2$ interval, but it cannot describe precisely the behaviour in the regions around the heavy-quark thresholds $Q^2\sim m^2_\Q$. Such an approach does not remove the jumps in the splitting functions at the transition point, $Q=Q_{\rm trans}$. The kinks in these domains are only compensated in some [*average*]{} sense.
In this paper, we propose a completely different, physically-motivated, approach, which automatically results in a [*smooth*]{} behaviour of the PDFs, the coefficient functions and of $\alpha_s$ as the scale $\mu^2$ passes through each heavy-quark threshold. In this ‘physical’ approach the partons which occur in the Feynman diagrams are the basic entities. However, before we describe our approach, a comment about the conventional $\MS$ scheme is needed.
It was shown in [@OMR1] that the NLO coefficient functions, $\CNLO$, obtained within the ‘conventional’ $\MS$ prescription using the dimensional ($D=4+2\epsilon$) regularization, are different from the results calculated in the ‘physical’ approach of working in normal $D=4$ space where the infrared divergency is removed by an appropriate subtraction of the contribution, $C^{\rm LO}\otimes P^{\rm LO}$, generated by the iteration of LO evolution.
The above difference, $\Delta C$, is due to an $\epsilon/\epsilon$ contribution coming from very large (non-physical) distances. It can be written as the convolution C\_[ik]{}=C\^[LO]{}\_[ik’]{}\_[k’k]{}(z), \[eq:cf\] where $\delta_{ik}(z)$ denotes the part of the LO splitting functions that is proportional to $\epsilon$ P\_[ik]{}(z)=P\_[ik]{}\^[LO]{}(z)+\_[ik]{}(z). This contribution can be absorbed in the redefinition of the partons, $a(x,\mu^2)=xg,\ xq,\ x\Q$ a\^[phys]{}(x,\^2)=a\^(x,\^2)+dz\_b\_[ab]{}(z) b\^(x/z,\^2) . \[eq:newparton\] Correspondingly, there is a difference between the NLO splitting functions in DGLAP evolution equation obtained in the conventional $\MS$ scheme and the physical approach, see [@OMR2] . As seen from (\[eq:newparton\]), at NLO, the conventional $\overline{\rm MS}$ partons are ‘rotated’ with respect to the physical partons by some angle. In particular, the singlet-quark distribution gets an admixture of gluons[^5]. This mixture greatly complicates the calculations of heavy-quark mass effects, and any other Feynman graph calculations, beyond LO, in the $\MS$ scheme. By working in the ‘physical’ approach, where we calculate the explicit $m_\Q$ dependence of the DGLAP splitting functions (and of $\alpha_s$), we obtain a well-defined, and simplified treatment of heavy-quark mass effects to NLO accuracy.
In fact, in the present paper we show how to account for the heavy-quark mass [*already*]{} in the LO splitting function. To do this we calculate the explicit $m^2_\Q/Q^2$ dependence of the derivatives of the PDFs, $\partial a(x,Q^2)/\partial\ln Q^2$; instead of using the conventional splitting functions, which only depend on $Q^2$ via the running coupling $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. In Section \[sec:2\] the corresponding splitting functions are calculated from the one-loop (i.e. LO) Feynman diagrams. We discuss whether, accounting for the mass effect already at the LO level, we have to correct the usual NLO splitting and the coefficient functions. In Section \[sec:3\] we obtain an analogous LO formula which gives the effects of the heavy-quark masses to the running of $\alpha_s$ at NLO. This provides a smooth behaviour of $\alpha_s$ across the heavy-quark thresholds. All the calculations are done in the ‘physical’ scheme; so in the Appendix we present the formulae to provide the ‘rotation’ from $\overline{\rm MS}$ to physical scheme, and vice versa. We present our conclusions in Section \[sec:4\].
Heavy-quark mass effects already included at LO \[sec:2\]
=========================================================
![Part of the parton evolution chain which contains the $g \to \Q\bar{\Q}$ transition[]{data-label="fig:1"}](HQfig1.pdf){height="8cm"}
Since the heavy-quark mass effects come only from a finite interval of the $\ln Q^2$ evolution, to reach the NLO accuracy it is sufficient to account for $m_\Q$ only in the LO diagrams. We will see that keeping the mass in the NLO (two-loop) graphs leads to a NNLO correction. As usual we use the axial gauge, where only the ladder (real emission) and the self-energy (virtual-loop contribution) diagrams give Leading Logarithms. Actually, for real emission we need to consider only the ‘gluon-to-heavy quark’ splitting function. Indeed the heavy-quark mass effects can be identified in the following subset of integrations ... ... \[eq:5\] corresponding to the part of the parton chain containing the $g \to \Q \bar{\Q}$ transition, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. The $k^2$’s are the virtualities of the $t$-channel partons, and the heavy-quark mass effects enter in the $k_i^2$ integration that results from the $g \to \Q\bar{\Q}$ transition. The kinematics responsible for the LO result are when the virtualities are strongly ordered (...$k^2_{i-1}\ll k^2_i \ll k^2_{i+1}$...). If two of the partons have comparable virtuality, $k^2_j \sim k^2_{j+1}$, then we lose a $\ln Q^2$ and obtain a NLO contribution of the form $\alpha_s(\alpha_s\ln Q^2)^{n-1}$ for $n$ emitted partons.
At first sight it appears that $m^2_\Q$ should also have been retained in the integration over the heavy-quark line with virtuality $k_{i+1}$. However, the heavy quark was produced at $Q^2 \sim m^2_\Q$ via the $g \to \Q$ splitting. Due to the strong ordering $k^2_{i+1} \gg k_i^2$ in the evolution chain, we have $k^2_{i+1} \gg m^2_\Q$, and so we may neglect $m^2_\Q$ in the $k_{i+1}^2$ integration; otherwise this would be the NNLO effect.
Note that in our NLO calculations, described below, we use a fixed number $m_\Q(m_\Q)$ for the heavy quark mass[^6]. All the effects of the running quark mass should be regarded as part of the NNLO corrections.
Quark mass effects in the LO splitting functions
------------------------------------------------
We are now in a position to calculate the heavy-quark mass effects in real LO $\Q\ ({\bar \Q})$ production which determines the explicit $m^2/\Q^2$ dependence of $P_{\Q g}$. This, in turn, allows us to account for the $m_\Q$ dependence in the heavy-quark virtual-loop contribution (that is in the gluon self-energy), which gives an additional term in $P_{gg}$, which is proportional to $ \delta(1-z)$. Recall that the full $g\to g$ splitting function has the form \[eq:delta-g\] P\_[gg]{}(z)=P\^[real]{}\_[gg]{}(z)-(1-z)\_0\^1 (z’P\^[real]{}(z’)+\_f P\_[qg]{}(z’))dz’ , where the $\sum_f$ includes the summation over different type of quarks. Correspondingly \[eq:delta-q\] P\_(z) = P\_\^[real]{}(z)-(1-z)\_0\^1 P\^[real]{}\_[g]{}(z’)dz’ .
To determine the $m^2_{\Q}/Q^2$ dependence of $P_{\Q g}$ we must calculate the one-loop ladder (heavy-quark box[^7]) diagram. We denote the virtuality of the $t$-channel heavy quark $\Q$ by $k_i^2$, as in Fig. \[fig:1\]. Now strong-ordering means that the virtuality of incoming gluon $k^2_{i-1} \ll k^2_i$ and that $k^2_i\ll k^2_{i+1}$. We find that the $m_\Q$ dependence of the LO ‘gluon to heavy-quark’ splitting function, $P_{\Q g}$, is \[eq:g-to-Q\] P\_[g]{}(z,Q\^2)=T\_R(\[z\^2+(1-z)\^2\] + )(Q\^2-) . where $T_R=1/2$. The first term is the usual LO splitting function $P_{\Q g}$ modified by a factor, $Q^2/(Q^2+m^2_\Q)$, which tends to 1 for $Q^2\gg m^2_\Q$, while for low $Q^2$, $Q^2\ll m^2_\Q$, this contribution becomes negligible. The second term, proportional to $m^2_\Q$, accounts for the possibility to flip the helicity in the heavy-quark loop. It dies out for $Q^2\gg m^2_\Q$. Finally, the $\Theta$ function accounts for the correct kinematics of heavy-quark production. We need energy to put the heavy-quark on-mass-shell. This leads to a minimum value of the (longitudinal part of) $Q^2$.
Simultaneously we have to include heavy-quark loops in the gluon self-energy, as was mentioned in (\[eq:delta-g\]). That is, we must add a term to the gluon-gluon splitting function, $P_{gg}$, P\_[gg]{}=-(1-z)\_\_0\^[z\_]{}P\_[g]{}(z’,Q\^2)dz’ , where the upper limits of integration, $z_\Q =Q^2/(Q^2+m^2_\Q)$, are determined by the $\Theta$ function in (\[eq:g-to-Q\]).
For completeness, and to provide the smooth behaviour in all the LO splitting functions, we present the other two LO kernels which involve the heavy quark. An analogous calculation for the $\Q\to \Q$ splitting gives P\^[real]{}\_(z,Q\^2)=C\_F( + ) and for the $\Q \to g$ transition P\_[g]{}(z,Q\^2)=C\_F(z + z)(Q\^2-) .
We may summarize the LO evolution equations in the symbolic form \[eq:b4\] & = & P\_[gg]{} g + \_q P\_[gq]{} q + \_P\_[g]{}\
& = & P\_[qg]{} g + P\_[qq]{} q\
& = & P\_[ g]{} g + P\_ where $q = u,d,s$ denotes the light quark density functions and $\Q=c,b,t$ are the heavy-quark densities. We have abbreviated $P^{\rm LO}$ by $P$, and $\dot{a} = (2 \pi/\alpha_S) \partial a/\partial \ln Q^2$.
Note that there are evolution equations, (\[eq:b4\]), for [*all*]{} type of partons (including heavy quarks) just starting from $Q_0$. The input heavy-quark distribution $\Q(x,Q^2_0)$ should be treated as an ‘intrinsic’ PDF introduced in [@Brod]. Of course, at low $Q^2 \ll m^2_\Q$ the corresponding splitting functions are strongly suppressed by the small value of the ratio $Q^2/m^2_\Q$. So, actually the evolution of the heavy quark will start somewhere in the region $Q^2\simeq m^2_\Q$.
Quark mass effects in NLO diagrams
----------------------------------
It turns out that to include heavy-quark mass effects in NLO evolution we do not need to modify the usual NLO splitting functions. In the absence of intrinsic heavy quark, we only have to take $m_\Q$ into account in $P_{\Q g}$ and then only in the LO part $P_{\Q g}^{(0)}$. (Of course, as a consequence, we must adjust the virtual corrections to $P_{gg}$). The argument is as follows.
The $k_i^2$ integral of (\[eq:5\]) written with NLO accuracy, has the form = A\_1(z) + A\_2(z)+ A\_3(z). \[eq:b6\] The first term gives the leading logarithm contribution. To be specific we have \_[k\_[i - 1]{}\^2]{}\^[Q\^2]{} = \[eq:b7\] for $k_{i - 1}^2 \ll m_\Q^2$. Both the second term in (\[eq:b6\]), which is concentrated in the region $k_{i}^2 \sim
m_\Q^2$, and the third term, which is concentrated near the upper limit, at $k^2_i\sim k^2_{i+1}$, give non-logarithmic contributions.
In the axial gauge the two first terms on the right-hand-side of (\[eq:b6\]) come only from the pure ladder (and the corresponding self-energy) diagrams, from the region of $k^2_i \ll k^2_{i+1}$. That is, these two terms are exactly the same as those generated by LO$\otimes $LO evolution, in which we have already accounted for the $m_\Q$ effects. To avoid double counting, we have to subtract these contributions from (\[eq:b6\]). Thus the true NLO contribution is given by the third term only, in which we can omit the $m_\Q$ dependence since: (a) $k^2_{i+1}\gg m^2_\Q$, and, (b) these order of ${\cal O}(m^2_\Q /k^2_{i+1})$ terms kill the large logarithm in the further $\int dk^2_{i+1}/k^2_{i+1}$ integration. That is, at NLO accuracy we can use the old, well-known, NLO splitting functions $P^{(1)}_{ik}(z)$. If we were to account for the mass effect in $P^{(1)}_{ik}(z)$, then we would be calculating a NNLO correction[^8].
In summary, there are no heavy-quark mass effects in the NLO splitting functions. Only LO $P^{(0)}_{\Q g}$ needs to be modified in order to reach the NLO accuracy in the absence of intrinsic heavy quark.
NLO coefficient functions
-------------------------
Recall that the NLO coefficient function, $C^{\rm NLO}(z,Q^2)$, is calculated assuming that the incoming parton virtuality, $k^2_n$ is much less than the scale $Q^2$, so that the integral $\int^{Q^2} dk^2_n/k^2_n$ has a logarithmic form. This means that at NLO accuracy we may neglect the virtuality of the incoming parton. Moreover, in our ‘physical’ scheme there is no mixture of different types of partons (like those generated by (\[eq:1\]) in conventional VFNS). As a consequence there is no change to the NLO coefficient functions.
Note also that in the physical scheme we consistently use the $x$ variable as the light cone momentum fraction and it not necessary to introduce rescaling described in (\[eq:rescale\]), and the subsequent text.. That is, in the physical scheme we deal with quantities which have a clear physical interpretation.
Smooth $\alpha_s$ evolution across a heavy-quark threshold \[sec:3\]
====================================================================
![The contribution of a heavy quark to the running of $\alpha_s$, showing a smooth behaviour across the heavy-quark threshold. If $\kappa=1$, the heavy quark acts as if it were massless.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](HQfig2.pdf){height="8cm"}
In analogous way we account for the heavy-quark mass effect in the QCD coupling $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. The running of the coupling to NLO is given by () = -\_0()\^2 -\_1()\^3 , where the $\beta$-function coefficients are \_0(n\_f)=11- n\_f, \_1(n\_f)=102- n\_f. To determine the effect of a heavy quark mass in the running of $\alpha_s$ at NLO, it is sufficient to calculate the ‘gluon to heavy-quark’ loop insertion (that is, the gluon self energy) to gluon propagator. This fermion loop insertion is responsible for the $-(2/3)n_f$ term in the LO $\beta$-function. In this way we find that, instead of changing $n_f$ from 3 to 4 (at $Q^2=m^2_c$), and from 4 to 5 (at $Q^2=m^2_b$), we must include in $n_f$ a term \[alpha\] (r) = , for each heavy quark, where $r\equiv m^2_\Q /Q^2$. In Fig. \[fig:2\] we plot $\kappa$ as a function of $Q^2/m^2_{\Q}$. As expected, $\kappa \to 1$ at large $Q$, where the heavy quark acts as if it were massless, but even for $Q^2 \simeq 10 m^2_\Q$ we see that the effects of $m_\Q$ are very important. For $Q^2\ll m^2_\Q$ it vanishes as $1/5r=Q^2/5m^2_\Q$, so there is only a small heavy-quark contribution to $n_f$ for $Q<m_\Q$.
![(a) The running of $\alpha_s$ at NLO: the continuous curve is obtained with the effects of the heavy-quark masses $m_c,~m_b$ included, and the dashed curve is that used by MSTW. Both evolutions are normalised to $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.12$. (b) The ratio of the above two evolutions of $\alpha_s$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](al.pdf "fig:"){height="8cm"} ![(a) The running of $\alpha_s$ at NLO: the continuous curve is obtained with the effects of the heavy-quark masses $m_c,~m_b$ included, and the dashed curve is that used by MSTW. Both evolutions are normalised to $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.12$. (b) The ratio of the above two evolutions of $\alpha_s$.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](ral.pdf "fig:"){height="8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:3\] we compare the evolution of $\alpha_s$ in which the effects of the heavy-quark masses are included, with an evolution assuming all quarks are massless. In the latter case a prescription has been used to ensure that $\alpha_s$ is continuous across the heavy-quark thresholds. Different prescriptions are possible, but it is not possible to make the derivative also continuous, as can be seen from Fig. \[fig:3\](b). Indeed, with massless evolution, different reasonable prescriptions can lead to a difference of more than 0.5$\%$ in going from $Q^2 \sim 20~\GeV^2$ up to $Q^2=M_Z^2$, see the Appendix in [@MSTWFF]. However, when the heavy quark masses are properly accounted for, we see that the difference over this interval is about $4\%$, and in fact up to 14$\%$ starting from $Q^2=1$ GeV$^2$. The fact that the $\alpha_s$ curve, obtained with mass effects included, lies consistently above that for massless evolution in Fig. \[fig:3\](a) follows from the behaviour of $\kappa$ in Fig. \[fig:2\] and that we have required both curves to have $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)=0.12$.
Conclusions \[sec:4\]
=====================
In order to account for the effects of the heavy-quark mass, $m_\Q$, in DGLAP evolution, and to provide a smooth transition through the heavy-quark threshold regions, we include the $m_\Q$ dependence already in the LO (one-loop) splitting functions. We show that this modification of the LO splitting functions already provides NLO accuracy; there is no need to modify the known NLO splitting and coefficient functions. The crucial difference of our approach with those of the conventional FFNS or VFNS, is the fact that the heavy-quark mass is included directly in the splitting functions; that is, the heavy-quark mass is retained throughout the evolution. The presence of the quark mass in the splitting function automatically suppresses the evolution of the heavy quark at low scales, $Q^2 \ll m^2_\Q$, while at large $Q^2 \gg m^2_\Q$ the massless limit is restored.
To express it another way, by explicitly calculating the appropriate Feynman diagrams, keeping the heavy-quark mass dependence, we obtained the corresponding expressions for the LO splitting functions and the running QCD coupling $\alpha_s$. In this way, we have determined the full $m^2_\Q /Q^2$ behaviour of DGLAP evolution at NLO.
The idea to account for the heavy-quark mass already in the splitting function was proposed in [@MRRS].[^9] However, there, the conventional $\MS$ factorization scheme was used and the splitting function still has some irregularity, since the heavy-quark part was included only at large enough $Q^2$ above the heavy-quark threshold. It was shown in [@OS] that, in this form, the resulting physical cross sections are not different from those obtained in the conventional VFNS approach. On the other hand, in the present paper, we work in the ‘physical’ scheme including the effect of the heavy-quark mass consistently starting from the input scale $Q_0$ of the DGLAP evolution. Therefore, there are no irregularities at the heavy-quark thresholds. All the formulae at NLO level are quite simple. The generalization to NNLO is straightforward – we need to account for $m_\Q$ in the two-loop (NLO) diagrams.
We emphasize the advantage of using the ‘physical’ scheme where we deal with the true physical quantities: there is no mixture of the partons of different types, and no ‘rescaling’ of the $x$ variable as in (\[eq:rescale\]). Our $x$ is just the light-cone momentum fraction. Thus the mass of each parton is well-defined. In contrast in the $\MS$ factorization scheme, at NLO level, we deal with some mixture of partons - for example the singlet quark distribution has an admixture of gluons, and so on. Recall that also in NLO Monte Carlos, where the quantum numbers of each parton must be correctly defined, an alternative scheme to the $\MS$ scheme is used [@MC]. Our approach should also be useful to compare Monte Carlo event generators, in which parton radiation is similarly performed including heavy quark masses, with the analytical results.
To summarize, the treatment of heavy-quark mass effects is perturbatively calculable in QCD with no ambiguity[^10], with the heavy-quark masses as free parameters. It is not necessary to adopt one of the GM-VFNSchemes (or a FFNS). In the ‘physical’ scheme that we introduce, there is a smooth behaviour of all quantities across the heavy-quark thresholds. Clearly, Fig. \[fig:3\](b), for example, shows that a new global analysis of data is essential to determine the PDFs of the proton. However, first, we must complete the calculation of all the splitting and coefficient functions in the physical scheme; this is underway.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
At NLO accuracy the relation between the $\overline{\rm MS}$ and the physical parton distributions are given by (\[eq:newparton\]), where the long-distances part of the NLO coefficient function $\Delta C$ originates from the term proportional to $\epsilon$ in the LO splitting functions P\_[ab]{}(z)=P\_[ab]{}\^[LO]{}(z)+\_[ab]{}(z). \[eq:99\] The $\epsilon$- dependent term, $\delta_{ab}$ is known (see for example [@CG]). However, in comparison with the results listed in [@CG], we have to add a contribution of pure kinematical origin. Indeed, in $D=4+2\epsilon$ space the logarithmic integration $\int dk^2_t/k^2_t$ is replaced by $\int d^{2+2\epsilon}k_t/k^2_t\propto (1/\epsilon)(k^2_t)^\epsilon$. If expressed in terms of the virtuality variable, this phase-space factor $(k^2_t)^\epsilon$ reads (k\^2\_t)\^=(k\^2(1-z))\^=1+k\^2+(1-z) . The last term in this expansion leads to an additional contribution to $\delta_{ab}(z)$ of (\[eq:99\]) of the form $P^{\rm LO}_{ab}(z)\ln(1-z)$. Thus we obtain P\^[real]{}\_[qq]{}(z)=C\_F , P\_[qg]{}(z)=T\_R , P\_[gq]{}(z)=C\_F , P\^[real]{}\_[gg]{}(z)=2C\_A . To be complete, recall also the relation between the $\MS$ NLO coefficient functions and those in the physical scheme. As was mentioned already in Section \[sec:1\], C\^[NLO]{}\_a([phys]{})=C\^[NLO]{}\_a()-\_iC\^[LO]{}\_i\_[ia]{}, see (\[eq:cf\]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Robert Thorne for valuable discussions. EGdO and MGR thank the IPPP at the University of Durham for hospitality. This work was supported by the grant RFBR 11-02-00120-a and by the Federal Program of the Russian State RSGSS-4801.2012.2; and by FAPESP (Brazil) under contract 2012/05469-4.
R.S. Thorne and W.K. Tung, arXiv:0809.0714. E. Laenen, S. Riemersma, J.Smith and W.L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [**B392**]{} (1993) 162.
A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. [**C70**]{} (2010) 51. M. Aivazis, J.C. Collins, F. Olness and W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{} (1994) 3102. R.S. Thorne and R.G. Roberts, Phys. Lett. [**B421**]{} (1998) 303; Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} (1998) 6871.
W.K. Tung, S. Kretzer and C. Schmidt, J. Phys. [**G28**]{} (2002) 983.
S. Kretzer et al., Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{} (2004) 114005.
MSTW: A.D. Martin, W.J. Stirling, R.S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. [**C63**]{} (2009) 189.
CT10: Jun Gao et al., arXiv:1302.6246.
NNPDF: R.D. Ball et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B867**]{} (2013) 244.
R.S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. [**D73**]{} (2006) 054019; [*ibid*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 074017.
S. Forte, E. Laenen, P. Nason and J. Rojo, Nucl. Phys. [**B834**]{} (2010) 116.
S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. [**D86**]{} (2012) 054009.
E.G. de Oliveira, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, JHEP [**1302**]{} (2013) 060.
E.G. de Oliveira, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys . J. [**C73**]{} (2013) 2534.
S.J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, C. Peterson, N. Sakai, Phys. Lett. [**B93**]{} (1980) 451. A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. [**C2**]{} (1998) 287.
M. Gluck, E. Hoffmann and E. Reya, Z. Phys. [**C13**]{} (1982) 119. V.N. Baier, V.S. Fadin and V.A. Khoze, Nucl. Phys. [**B65**]{} (1973) 381.
F.I. Olness and R.J. Scalise, Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} (1998) 241.
see for example: A. Kusina, S. Jadach, M. Skrzypek, M. Slawinska, Acta Phys. Polon. [**B42**]{} (2011) 1475;\
S. Jadach, A. Kusina, W. Placzek, M. Skrzypek, M. Slawinska, Phys. Rev. [**D87**]{} (2013) 034029.
S. Catani and M. Grazzini, Phys. Lett. [**B446**]{} (1999) 143
[^1]: A detailed review can be found in [@TT].
[^2]: There are special processes where a 4-flavour set of partons is still necessary, see, for example [@MSTWFF].
[^3]: In general the matching may be performed at any $Q^2=c\cdot m^2_\Q$, where the value of $c$ is $c \gapproxeq 1$. Recall however, that actually the matching (\[eq:1\]) is done at one, [*fixed*]{} point $Q^2=Q^2_{\rm trans}$, say $Q^2=m^2_\Q$.
[^4]: In analogous way the smooth behaviour of the coupling $\alpha_s(Q^2)$ is provided.
[^5]: This ‘rotation’ is compensated by a corresponding rotation back arising from the difference in the splitting functions. For heavy quarks we do not have an infrared problem. However, in general, using the conventional $\MS$ scheme, we do not know the mass of the parton that we are dealing with. It is therefore difficult to account for mass effects in the $\MS$ scheme.
[^6]: Strictly speaking we may choose any [*reasonable*]{} fixed value for $m_\Q$, say $m_c(1.4$ GeV), so that the NNLO correction is not large,
[^7]: Better to say “heavy-quark triangle”, since the upper line with the largest $k_t$ at LO is treated as a ‘point-like operator’.
[^8]: Before proceeding to NNLO, a phenomenological way to provide very smooth behaviour of the NLO contribution would be to multiply the ‘heavy-quark’ NLO terms (that is, those NLO terms which are proportional to $n_\Q$) simply by the factor $Q^2/(Q^2+m^2_\Q)$.
[^9]: A similar splitting function which depends on quark mass was presented in earlier work by [@GHR]. An analogous result for QED may be found in [@BFK].
[^10]: There is the possibility of a small ${\cal O}(1/m_\Q^2)$ non-perturbative ‘intrinsic’ heavy-quark component in the starting heavy-quark distributions to the DGLAP evolution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. S. Bloomfield'
- 'S. K. Solanki'
- 'A. Lagg'
- 'J. M. Borrero'
- 'P. S. Cally'
date: 'Received date / Accepted date'
title: 'Modified $p$-modes in penumbral filaments?'
---
Introduction {#sec:int}
============
Disentangling the signatures of various atmospheric waves that are supported by structured magnetic atmospheres is a difficult, even daunting, task. Recent advances in dynamic, 2-D modeling of magnetised atmospheres [@2002ApJ...564..508R; @2003ApJ...599..626B; @2006ApJ...653..739K], highlight the dilemma that observers face – i.e., measuring not just singular wave modes but the superposition of many magneto-atmospheric modes that most likely propagate in different directions and exist in differing plasma-$\beta$ environments. This poses a distinct problem, especially if studies do not resolve the true size scale of solar magnetic features.
However, information may be extracted from spatially unresolved structures by spectropolarimetry . This approach uses the full Stokes polarization spectra ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$), allowing physical properties of the emitting plasma to be inferred through the application of appropriate model atmospheres. The suitability of using Stokes profiles for wave diagnostics has been shown through numerical simulations , while Stokes profiles were also used by to interpret magnetic field oscillations in a sunspot as resulting from magneto-acoustic-gravity waves.
In this paper we present a method that may identify the form of wave which exists in a magnetic environment using the information available to full Stokes spectropolarimetry. The observational data, their reduction, and details of the form of atmospheric inversion procedure applied are outlined in Sect. \[sec:obs\]. Results of response function calculations and a Fourier phase difference analysis are presented and discussed in Sect. \[sec:res\] in terms of the various forms of wave modes which may exist at differing propagation angles, while in Sect. \[sec:con\] the implications of our work are summarized.
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ----------
Species $\lambda_0$ Configuration $\chi_l$ $\log gf$ $\alpha$ $\sigma$ $g_l$ $g_u$ $\bar g$
(Å) (eV) (dex) ($a_0$)
Fe 15662.018 $^{5}F_{5}-^{5}F_{4}$ 5.83 0.19 0.24 1200 1.40 1.35 1.50
Fe 15665.245 $^{5}F_{1}-^{5}D_{1}$ 5.98 -0.42 0.23 1283 0.00 1.50 0.75
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ----------
Observations {#sec:obs}
============
A small and ellipsoidal sunspot, NOAA 10436, was observed on 21 August 2003 using the Tenerife Infrared Polarimeter [@1999ASPC..183..264M] attached to the 0.7 m German solar Vacuum Tower Telescope in Tenerife, Canary Islands. A fast scan was performed over the whole sunspot to obtain a global picture, comprising 79 slit positions of 035 width (each with a slit integration time of 7 s) incrementally stepped 04, from which the continuum intensity image in Fig. \[fig:spa\_con\] was constructed. The sunspot was located somewhat out of disk centre ($\theta = 26.7$, $\mu = \cos \theta
\approx 0.9$) and a light bridge separated the two umbrae.
![Continuum intensity image of NOAA 10436 at 15666.5$\pm$0.5 Å. White (black) contours mark the umbral/penumbral (penumbral/quiet Sun) boundaries. The straight black line marks the slit position during the time series and the white portion indicates the region studied in detail. The dark grey pixel within the white portion of the slit marks the position from which the profiles in Fig. \[fig:pen\_sto\_pro\] are taken, while the arrow in the umbra points to disk centre.[]{data-label="fig:spa_con"}](7330fi01.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Prior to this scan, the slit was fixed across the sunspot and the full Stokes vector ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$) was measured (see Fig. \[fig:pen\_sto\_pro\] for example spectra) in a time series comprising 250 stationary-slit exposures acquired at a cadence of 14.75 s over 14:39-15:41 UT. Seeing conditions were moderate during the observations, with an estimated spatial resolution of around 15. The most striking feature observed in the time series was the oscillatory behaviour of Stokes $Q$, most prominently seen in the inner part of the limb-side penumbra (white part of the slit in Fig. \[fig:spa\_con\]). This oscillation in the Stokes $Q$ signal is diplayed in Figs. \[fig:Q\_area\][*c*]{} and \[fig:Q\_area\][*d*]{}, where a dominant 5 min period is observed.
Spectral Lines {#subsec:spe_lin}
--------------
The recorded spectral region contains two moderately magnetically sensitive neutral iron lines ( 15662.0 Å with effective Landé factor $\bar{g} = 1.50$ and 15665.2 Å with $\bar{g} = 0.75$) at a wavelength sampling of 29.7 mÅ pixel$^{-1}$. The data reduction included polarization demodulation and calibration, flat fielding, dark current and continuum correction, and the removal of instrumental cross-talk between the Stokes profiles [@2003SPIE.4843...55C]. The noise in the reduced data lay below $5 \times 10^{-4}$ in units of continuum intensity. The wavelength calibration was done assuming that the core position of average quiet-Sun intensity profiles corresponds to the laboratory wavelength, $\lambda_0$, shifted towards the blue by 500 m s$^{-1}$, the approximate value for the blueshift in these lines deduced from the convective velocity relation of @1988ApJ...325..480N.
Table \[tab:ato\_par\] presents the atomic data for the spectral lines used in this work, where laboratory wavelengths, electronic configurations, and excitation potentials were taken from @1994ApJS...94..221N while the parameters $\alpha$ and $\sigma$, which are used in the calculation of spectral line broadening by collisions with neutral perturbers, were taken from @1995MNRAS.276..859A [sp transitions]. The two-component model of the quiet Sun from was used to calculate empirical oscillator strengths for the observed lines, as in . For the 15665 Å line, the value for the derived oscillator strength is especially inaccurate (we estimate $\pm$0.2 dex) as the intensity profile is blended and the effective quantum number for the upper level was beyond the value given in the tables of @1995MNRAS.276..859A; here we take the maximum value provided by these authors to avoid large extrapolations.
![Example penumbral profiles of Stokes $I$ ([*a*]{}), Stokes $Q$ ([*b*]{}), Stokes $U$ ([*c*]{}), and Stokes $V$ ([*d*]{}), each normalized to the local continnum intensity, $I_C$, from the pixel marked dark grey inside the region of interest shown in Fig. \[fig:spa\_con\]. Wavelengths are relative to the 15662 Å line, with dotted lines at the blueshift-corrected laboratory values.[]{data-label="fig:pen_sto_pro"}](7330fi02.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:pen\_sto\_pro\] represents an example of the observed penumbral profiles, in this case from the dark grey pixel inside the region of interest of Fig. \[fig:spa\_con\]. As already mentioned, the intensity profile of the 15665 Å line is blended with an unidentified profile. We identify the blend as solar – it varys in strength between quiet Sun and umbra – but its origin could not be determined. However, it seems that it is not magnetically sensitive because even when the field is strong, as in the penumbra, no residual polarization signal appears at that wavelength. In our analysis we only weakly consider the $I$ spectrum for this line but make full use of the polarization spectra ($Q$, $U$, $V$) because, although small in magnitude, they provide additional information.
The circular polarization (Stokes $V$) shows that the magnetic field points downward in the spot but, more interestingly, the linear polarization signals (Stokes $Q$ and $U$) are oppositely signed in each line. This is due to their opposite Zeeman patterns and can be easily proved following @1992soti.book...71D. In the weak magnetic field limit, it can be written that, $$Q \left( \lambda_0 \right) = - \frac{1}{4} \left( \bar{g}^2 + \epsilon \right) \lambda_B^2 \sin^2 \gamma \cos 2\chi \left( \frac{\partial^2 I_0}{\partial \lambda^2} \right)_{\lambda = \lambda_0} \ ,$$ $$U \left( \lambda_0 \right) = - \frac{1}{4} \left( \bar{g}^2 + \epsilon \right) \lambda_B^2 \sin^2 \gamma \sin 2\chi \left( \frac{\partial^2 I_0}{\partial \lambda^2} \right)_{\lambda = \lambda_0} \ ,$$ where $\gamma$ is the inclination of the magnetic field vector to the line-of-sight (LOS), $\chi$ is the azimuthal angle of the magnetic field vector in the plane perpendicular to the LOS, $\lambda_B$ is the Zeeman wavelength splitting, $\bar{g}$ is the effective Landé factor of the transition, and $\epsilon$ is a correction factor for anomalous Zeeman triplets ($J_L \neq 0$ or $J_U \neq 1$ or $g_L \neq g_U$) given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon & = & \frac{1}{80} ( 7 \left[ J_U \left( J_U + 1 \right) - J_L \left( J_L + 1 \right) \right]^2 \nonumber \\
& & \ \ - 16 \left[ J_U \left( J_U + 1 \right) + J_L \left( J_L + 1 \right) \right] + 4 ) \left( g_U - g_L \right)^2 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $J_L$ and $J_U$ are the total angular momentum quantum numbers for the lower and upper transitions, respectively, as defined by the electronic configurations (Table \[tab:ato\_par\]), while $g_L$ and $g_U$ are the Landé factors of the lower and upper levels whose expressions can be analytically determined as these lines are in pure L-S coupling [see, e.g., @2003isp..book.....D]. Values of $\bar{g} + \epsilon$ can be calculated, yielding $\simeq$2.2 for 15662 Å and $\simeq$$-1.1$ for 15665 Å, explaining the opposite linear polarization signals observed in Fig. \[fig:pen\_sto\_pro\]. Note, the inversion technique detailed in the following section makes use of the full Zeeman splitting pattern and does not use the effective Landé factor.
Atmospheric Inversion {#subsec:atm_inv}
---------------------
The data were inverted using the SPINOR inversion code . Prior to the inversion we computed the relative Stokes $V$ area asymmetry , defined as, $$\delta A = \frac{\int V \left( \lambda \right) d \lambda}{\int \vert V \left( \lambda \right) \vert d \lambda} \ .$$ Given the small magnitude of $\delta A$ observed in the circular polarization over the inner limb-side penumbra (Fig. \[fig:Q\_area\][*b*]{}; area between the dot-dashed lines) it is likely that these lines are not affected by strong gradients in either the magnetic field vector or velocity along the LOS. Therefore, we have adopted the same model as used by and referred to as a two-component (2-C) inversion. This model consists of two magnetic components and one non-magnetic straylight component – all parameters except temperature are height independent in each component. The inversion returns the thermodynamic, magnetic, and kinematic structure of the atmosphere that provides the best fit to the observed Stokes ($I$, $Q$, $U$, $V$) polarization signals.
![Space-time plots of continuum intensity as a percentage of average quiet-Sun continnum ([*a*]{}), magnitude of the relative Stokes $V$ area asymmetry ([*b*]{}), and Stokes $Q$ at +0.145 Å from the core of the 15662 Å line ([*c*]{}). [*d*]{}): Spatially-averaged Stokes $Q$ signal from the region of interest. Only the slit portion extending toward solar north east from the northern umbra is shown in [*a*]{}-[*c*]{}. The white (black) contour marks the umbral/penumbral (penumbral/quiet Sun) boundary and the dot-dashed lines bound the region studied (white area of slit in Fig.\[fig:spa\_con\]).[]{data-label="fig:Q_area"}](small-7330fi03.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![Variation through the limb-side penumbra of the parameters obtained by the inversion at $\log \left( \tau \right) = 0$: temperature ([*a*]{}), field strength ([*b*]{}), local solar inclination ([*c*]{}), and filling factor ([*d*]{}). Points mark the temporal mean for each spatial pixel and error bars extend over $\pm$1$\sigma$.[]{data-label="fig:rad_var"}](7330fi04.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Parameters retrieved from the inner limb-side penumbra (Fig. \[fig:rad\_var\]; pixels $1-11$) yield a magnetic geometry consisting of a near-horizontal component, at local solar inclinations $\gamma^{\prime}
\approx 90-125$ ($55-90$ from vertical), and a closer-to-vertical one, $\gamma^{\prime} \approx 150-160$ ($20-30$ from vertical), consistent with the observations of @1993ApJ...403..780T. Note that the retrieved values of $\gamma^{\prime}$, temperature, field strength, and filling factor are similar to those obtained by . From this point on, the near-horizontal component will be referred to as flux tube (FT) and the less-inclined one as magnetic background (MB) following the flux tube interpretation of , , , and . Note that this interpretation is subject to current discussion . In principle, it may be possible to distinguish between the two scenarios by means of an analysis similar to ours, but this requires further development of the Spruit and Scharmer scenario and is beyond the scope of the current paper.
Results & Discussion {#sec:res}
====================
Height Separations {#subsec:hgt_sep}
------------------
In the following analysis the height at which the oscillations are observed in both components plays an important role, so that we describe in detail how this height is determined. We compute the line depression response function (RF), which is most appropriate for the Stokes parameters . The wavelength-integrated RFs of Stokes $Q$ to LOS velocity are presented in Fig. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\][*a*]{} since the velocity variations were most strongly observed in Stokes $Q$ (Fig. \[fig:Q\_area\]). The RFs for each of the components overlap over most of the atmosphere, but their center-of-gravity (COG), displayed as vertical lines, reveal a distinct separation between the components. These COG heights were taken as the origin of the LOS velocity signals.
![Height variation of wavelength-integrated 15662 Å and 15665 Å Stokes $Q$ velocity response ([*a*]{}), total pressure ([*b*]{}), acoustic ([*c*]{}), and Alfvénic ([*d*]{}) wave speeds for the magnetic background and flux tube atmospheres (solid and dotted curves, respectively). Vertical lines in [*a*]{} mark the COG in each component; vertical dashed and dot-dashed lines in [*b*]{}-[*d*]{} show these heights translated into the reference frame of the other atmosphere by enforcing total pressure balance.[]{data-label="fig:hei_pre_bal"}](7330fi05.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
One problem with comparing these COG heights is that each refers to the height scale of the atmosphere in which the lines were computed. The atmospheres returned by the inversion each have their own height scale due to the different effective temperatures (Fig. \[fig:rad\_var\][*a*]{}) yielding different pressure scale heights (Fig. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\][*b*]{}). As such, they cannot be simply reduced to a single height scale, since pressure balance between the two atmospheres can only be enforced at a single height at a time.
In order to determine vertical height separations between the COG heights of the two components this height scale inequality must be overcome. This was achieved by enforcing total pressure balance between the two atmospheres at the COG heights. For example, in Fig. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\][*b*]{} the value from the FT pressure curve at the FT COG (dotted vertical line) is translated onto the MB pressure curve, yielding its pressure-balanced COG in the MB reference frame (dashed line). Similarly, the value from the MB pressure curve at the MB COG (solid vertical line) is translated onto the FT pressure curve, providing its pressure-balanced COG in the FT reference frame (dot-dashed line).
Through this approach we arrive at representative heights for the velocity signals of the MB and FT atmospheres in the reference frames of either atmosphere. Values are determined for both cases as a consistency check for the method. This allows the vertical separation distances of the velocity signals to be calculated in either of the reference frames – in the MB (FT) atmosphere it is the distance between the solid and dashed (dotted and dot-dashed) vertical lines. These heights also allow the retrieval of characteristic wave propagation speeds from the output inversion atmospheres (e.g., Figs. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\][*c*]{} and \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\][*d*]{}).
Time Series Analysis {#subsec:tim_ser}
--------------------
All atmospheric parameters except velocity were found to be time independent within the error bars. Clear periodic LOS velocity variations were observed in both atmospheric components, prompting the application of Fourier phase difference analysis following . The analysis was performed between the MB and FT velocity signals of eleven pixels of the inner limb-side penumbra. The phase difference from one pixel is the frequency-dependent phase lag of the FT velocity signal with respect to the MB signal, while the coherence measures the quality of phase difference variation.
![[*a*]{}): Fourier power spectra from co-spatial magnetic background and flux tube atmosphere LOS velocities (solid and dotted curves, respectively). [*b*]{}): Fourier phase difference spectra between the magnetic background and flux tube velocities from the eleven analyzed pixels. Darker shading denotes greater Fourier coherence and larger symbol size greater cross-spectral power. [*c*]{}): PDF of phase difference values over the range $2.5-4.5$ mHz. The thick curve displays the measured values and the thin curve the best-fit Gaussian profile to the data.[]{data-label="fig:fft_pha_dif"}](7330fi06.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:fft\_pha\_dif\] displays the output from applying such an analysis to the observed velocities. Example Fourier power spectra from one spatial pixel are given in Fig. \[fig:fft\_pha\_dif\][*a*]{} where both components obviously show power at very similar frequencies. The overplotted phase difference spectra for all eleven of the analyzed spatial pixels is presented in Fig. \[fig:fft\_pha\_dif\][*b*]{}, where symbol size represents the magnitude of cross-spectral power and shading denotes the coherence. Phase difference values are approximately constant in the range showing strongest cross-spectral power ($\sim$$2.5-4.5$ mHz) and, although close to zero, the probability distribution function (PDF) in Fig. \[fig:fft\_pha\_dif\][*c*]{} reveals that they are centred on $-5.5$. This centroid phase difference value was converted to a time delay between the signals, resulting in values of $-6.3$ s to $-3.8$ s over the detected range of oscillation frequencies. Negative phase differences mean that the FT velocity leads the MB, agreeing with the COG heights in Fig. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\] for upward wave propagation.
Wave Modes {#subsec:wav_mod}
----------
The range of atmospheric parameters existing in a sunspot penumbra supports the possibility of many differing forms of wave modes. However, all of these could be excited by $p$-mode waves propagating up towards the solar surface and the fact that the power peaks at $\sim$3 mHz (Fig. \[fig:fft\_pha\_dif\][*a*]{}) suggests that this is indeed the case for the observed wave modes. The dispersion relation for acoustic (i.e., $p$-mode) waves has the form $k^2 c_S^2 = \omega^2 - \omega_{\rm{ac}}^2$, where $c_S$ is the sound speed, $\omega$ is the angular frequency, and $\omega_{\rm{ac}}$ is the acoustic cutoff frequency: waves are evanescent for $k^2 < 0$ and propagation occurs for $\omega > \omega_{\rm{ac}}$.
![Variation of propagation angle from the vertical, $\psi$, with angular wave mode, $l$, for acoustic waves at a frequency of $3.5$ mHz. The solid curve shows the case 50 km below the equipartition level (where the acoustic and Alfvén speeds are equal) in a 1.75 kG field inclined at 20, while the dashed curve is 90 km below the equipartition level in a 1.5 kG field inclined at 75 (the sampling heights and configurations of the magnetic background and flux tube components, respectively).[]{data-label="fig:pmod_inc_ang"}](small-7330fi07.eps){width="8.0cm"}
------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Wave Mode
MB FT MB FT MB FT MB FT
Alfvénic 5 … 5 … 5 … 5 …
Slow 9 … 9 … 9 … 9 …
Acoustic 7 12 2 6 8 1 20 7
Fast (ingressing) 10 16 5 9 0 4 12 5
Fast (egressing) … … 1 8 5 2 16 6
------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Attributing the observed phase differences in the $2.5-4.5$ mHz range to propagating waves conflicts with this simple picture of evanescent behaviour as the cutoff frequency at the photosphere is $\sim$5 mHz in the isothermal case. However, in the presence of a magnetic field the acoustic cutoff is reduced for non-vertical waves in a rather complicated manner . The largest deviation occurs for waves in the strong-field limit (i.e., when the Alfvén speed, $v_A$, is much greater than $c_S$). In this situation the cutoff frequency is lowered to $\omega_{\rm{ac}} \cos \gamma^{\prime}$ – termed the ramp effect – where $\gamma^{\prime}$ is the magnetic field inclination from the vertical. Furthermore, $p$-modes may travel at angles away from the vertical at the heights sampled here. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pmod\_inc\_ang\] using ray-theory calculations like those of @2007AN....328..286C for 3.5 mHz waves in environments similar to our two magnetic components: angles of $40 -
60$ are possible for angular modes $l \approx 760 - 980$ around the sampling heights of the MB and FT components.
The situation is further complicated here as these data are not recorded in the strong field limit and the waves are influenced by two separate magnetic inclinations. If we assume that incident $p$-mode waves actually experience some average between the differing magnetic inclinations of the MB and FT components then the effective value of field inclination will be in the range $40 - 60$. As such, investigation of Fig. 1 in yields an expected reduction of the cutoff frequency to $\sim$$0.8\,\omega_{\rm{ac}}$ ($\approx$4 mHz) for the case where $c_S \approx v_A$, with an absolute maximum reduction to $0.5\,\omega_{\rm{ac}}$ ($\approx$2.5 mHz) in the strong field limit. However, we note that the concept of a cutoff frequency is somewhat questionable [see discussions in @2006MNRAS.372..551S; @2007AN....328..286C], especially its discrete nature if radiative cooling is considered [@1980SoPh...68...87W].
The low-photospheric sampling of the spectral lines means that both components are mostly gas dominated over the heights sampled (Fig. \[fig:hei\_pre\_bal\]). As mentioned previously, differing forms of wave can exist, each having certain properties in terms of their propagation speed and direction: isotropic acoustic waves propagate at $c_S$; Alfvén waves are restricted to the direction of the field and move at $v_A$; magneto-acoustic slow modes propagate along the field at $v_A$ or, if the sunspot is considered a large “flux tube”, the tube speed, $c_T^2 = c_S^2
v_A^2 / \left( c_S^2 + v_A^2 \right)$; magneto-acoustic fast modes move at, $$v_F^2 = \frac{ c_S^2 + v_A^2 }{2} + \frac{ \sqrt{ \left( c_S^2 + v_A^2 \right)^2 - 4 c_S^2 v_A^2 \left( \cos \alpha \right)^2 } }{ 2 } \ ,$$ where $\alpha$ is the angle between the direction of the field ($\gamma^{\prime}$) and that of wave propagation ($\psi$). Note that the fast-mode speed differs depending on the initial direction of the $p$-mode waves exciting these wave modes, the most extreme difference being between the case of waves moving toward the sunspot (ingressing; $\alpha = \psi +
\gamma^{\prime}$) and those moving away (egressing; $\alpha = \psi -
\gamma^{\prime}$) when the wave vector occurs in the same azimuthal plane as that of the magnetic field.
![Comparison of RF-predicted (solid lines) and calculated (dotted lines) wave travel distances in the reference frame of the magnetic background ([*left*]{}) and the flux tube ([*right*]{}). Cases are presented for field-aligned waves propagating at the Alfvén ([*top*]{}) and slow-mode tube speeds ([*bottom*]{}). The RF-predicted vertical height separations have been converted into path length along the propagation direction.[]{data-label="fig:b_ali_hei_vel_com"}](7330fi08.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Taking these considerations into account, the vertical height separations obtained in Sect. \[subsec:hgt\_sep\] are converted into path lengths along the direction of propagation. Probability distribution functions of RF-predicted path lengths from every space-time pixel are presented in Figs. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\] to \[fig:iso\_hei\_vel\_com\_60\] as solid curves, with values calculated by combining time delays, wave speeds and propagation angle to the field given as dotted (and in the case of non-vertical fast-mode waves also dashed) curves. The difference between COG values of the predicted and calculated distributions are given in Table \[tab:cog\_dif\_val\] as a quantitative measure of the correspondence between the various PDFs.
A comparison between the RF-predicted and calculated path lengths of Alfvénic and slow-mode waves is presented in Fig. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\], where better correspondence is observed for the case of Alfvénic waves over that of slow modes in the MB reference frame. In the FT reference frame, however, effectively no correspondence is observed between the predicted and calculated PDFs due to the large values of field inclination. The PDF comparison for these two wave modes does not change for the differing values of originating $p$-mode propagation angle shown in Table \[tab:cog\_dif\_val\] as the Alfvénic and slow modes remain directed along the magnetic field. The isotropic nature of acoustic and fast-mode waves expected in the sampled region of the atmosphere means that almost any angle of propagation could be adopted. An initial consideration of vertical propagation is provided in Fig. \[fig:iso\_hei\_vel\_com\_0\], which shows that acoustic waves yield a slightly better correspondence over fast modes, although neither can be considered successful.
![As for Fig. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\], but for acoustic ([*top*]{}) and fast-mode waves ([*bottom*]{}) propagating vertically.[]{data-label="fig:iso_hei_vel_com_0"}](7330fi09.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![As for Fig. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\], but for acoustic ([*top*]{}) and fast-mode waves ([*bottom*]{}) propagating at 40 to the vertical.[]{data-label="fig:iso_hei_vel_com_40"}](7330fi10.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
However, more appropriate values of 40, 50, and 60 from the vertical are presented based on the previous discussion of $p$-mode behaviour. The case of propagation at 40 to the vertical is shown in Fig. \[fig:iso\_hei\_vel\_com\_40\], where it is unclear if acoustic or fast-mode waves yield better overlap between predicted and calculated PDFs. The distributions given in Fig. \[fig:iso\_hei\_vel\_com\_50\] are arrived at when considering propagation at 50 to the vertical. In this scenario fast-mode waves appear to give better correspondence than acoustic waves in both the MB and FT reference frames, with the case of ingressing fast modes providing an improvement over that of egressing fast modes. In the final case studied, for waves propagating at 60 to the vertical, all of the PDFs in Fig. \[fig:iso\_hei\_vel\_com\_60\] show very poor correspondence when compared to the cases of 40 and 50 presented above.
![As for Fig. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\], but for acoustic ([*top*]{}) and fast-mode waves ([*bottom*]{}) propagating at 50 to the vertical.[]{data-label="fig:iso_hei_vel_com_50"}](7330fi11.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![As for Fig. \[fig:b\_ali\_hei\_vel\_com\], but for acoustic ([*top*]{}) and fast-mode waves ([*bottom*]{}) propagating at 60 to the vertical.[]{data-label="fig:iso_hei_vel_com_60"}](7330fi12.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
Periodic LOS velocities retrieved from two atmospheric components in a sunspot penumbra have been studied to identify the form of wave mode present. The best correspondence between RF-predicted and calculated path lengths is observed for fast-mode waves propagating toward the sunspot (i.e., ingressing) at $\sim$50 to the vertical: this scenario has the smallest combination of differences between the COG separations of predicted and calculated distributions in the two reference frames (Table \[tab:cog\_dif\_val\]). The case for fast-mode ingression over egression is supported by the location of the sunspot being $\sim$27 from disk centre: egressing waves in the limb-side (and hence ingressing waves in the centre-side) penumbra will have a considerable component of their plasma motions directed perpendicular to our LOS and thus be difficult to observe; ingressing waves in the limb-side (and egressing waves in the centre-side) penumbra will be predominantly along our LOS. Further support is given by the horizontal wavelengths ($l \approx 870$, $\lambda \approx 5$ Mm or 7) of the $p$-modes responsible for their excitation in the limb-side penumbra: egressing waves will have traversed two or three “skips” through the sunspot, including regions beneath either one or both of the umbrae, increasing the likelihood of their absorption or disruption; ingressing waves will be on their first “skip” into the outer region beneath the spot, remaining relatively strong and coherent. Despite the centre-side penumbra lacking strong Stokes $Q$ variations like those seen in the limb-side (because of the differing magnetic geometries with respect to the LOS), less clearly periodic velocities of $\sim$5-min period are seen there – compatible with ingressing limb-side waves being disrupted after traversing the spot. Although these data may not fully validate results from local helioseismology, in regards to wave ingression and egression, this may be possible in the future using 2-D spectropolarimetric data – e.g., using TESOS in VIP mode – allowing direct comparison between time-distance analysis and this technique.
This is the first time that spectropolarimetric data have been used in this manner to identify a magneto-acoustic wave mode. The fact that a fast-mode wave best fits the observational data makes qualitative sense as the spectral lines used here sample a high-$\beta$ region of the deep photosphere where $p$-mode waves are expected to be modified into fast-mode waves by the presence of a magnetic field. As such, this further highlights the role that solar internal acoustic waves may play in dynamic phenomena both at and above the solar surface. It will be interesting to see if the detected form of magneto-acoustic wave changes from the case where the velocity response of a spectral line is formed below the $c_S = v_A$ (i.e., $\beta \approx 1$) surface to one where it is formed above this level. In particular, the ratio of wave amplitude, or energy content, observed both above and below the $c_S =
v_A$ level may help confirm the direction of the incident $p$-mode waves [c.f., @2006MNRAS.372..551S].
This paper illustrates the capability of Stokes spectropolarimetry for improved wave-mode identification over imaging studies, which require an assumption about the production of intensity variations as well as inferrence of the magnetic field geometry that are usually, if at all, provided by potential field extrapolations from LOS magnetograms. The benefits of the combined determination of plasma velocities and retrieval of the full magnetic vector appear to outweigh the reduction in spatial coverage caused by using a slit-based instrument.
Finally, we note that the interpretation may depend to some extent on the model employed when carrying out the inversions. We have restricted ourselves to the simplest such two-component model. The use of more sophisticated models could lead to further refinements in the results.
The German solar Vacuum Tower Telescope is operated on Tenerife by the Kiepenheuer Insitute in the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.
[34]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, S. D. & [O’Mara]{}, B. J. 1995, , 276, 859
, N. & [Leroy]{}, B. 1977, , 55, 239
, T. J., [Carlsson]{}, M., [Hansteen]{}, V. H., [et al.]{} 2003, , 599, 626
, J. M. & [Bellot Rubio]{}, L. R. 2002, , 385, 1056
, J. M., [Bellot Rubio]{}, L. R., [Barklem]{}, P. S., & [del Toro Iniesta]{}, J. C. 2003, , 404, 749
, J. M., [Lagg]{}, A., [Solanki]{}, S. K., & [Collados]{}, M. 2005, , 436, 333
, J. M., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [Bellot Rubio]{}, L. R., [Lagg]{}, A., & [Mathew]{}, S. K. 2004, , 422, 1093
, J. M., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [Lagg]{}, A., [Socas-Navarro]{}, H., & [Lites]{}, B. 2006, , 450, 383
, P. S. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 286
, M. V. 2003, in Polarimetry in Astronomy. Edited by Silvano Fineschi. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4843, pp. 55-65
, J. C. 2003, [Introduction to spectropolarimetry]{} (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
, C. 2000, PhD thesis, Institute of Astronomy, ETH Zürich (No. 13896), Switzerland
, C., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [Fligge]{}, M., & [Bruls]{}, J. H. M. J. 2000, , 358, 1109
, U., [Larsson]{}, B., & [Solanki]{}, S. K. 1988, , 204, 266
, T. J., [Schmidt]{}, W., [Sigwarth]{}, M., & [Uexkuell]{}, M. V. 1998, , 340, 569
, E. & [Collados]{}, M. 2006, , 653, 739
, J. M., [Rutten]{}, R. J., [Lites]{}, B. W., [et al.]{} 2001, , 379, 1052
, E. 1992, [Magnetic field measurements]{} (Solar Observations: Techniques and Interpretation), 71–+
, V., [Collados]{}, M., [S[á]{}nchez Almeida]{}, J., [et al.]{} 1999, in High Resolution Solar Physics: Theory, Observations, and Techniques
, D. A. N., [Schlichenmaier]{}, R., [Steiner]{}, O., & [Stix]{}, M. 2002, , 393, 305
, D. 1988, , 325, 480
, G., [Johansson]{}, S., [Learner]{}, R. C. M., [Thorne]{}, A. P., & [Brault]{}, J. W. 1994, , 94, 221
, S. R. O. & [Solanki]{}, S. K. 1997, , 325, 1199
, S. R. O. & [Solanki]{}, S. K. 1999, , 345, 986
, C. S., [Bogdan]{}, T. J., [Carlsson]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2002, , 564, 508
, I., [Solanki]{}, S. K., [Stenflo]{}, J. O., [Tarbell]{}, T., & [Scherrer]{}, P. H. 1998, , 335, L97
, R., [Jahn]{}, K., & [Schmidt]{}, H. U. 1998, , 337, 897
, H. & [Cally]{}, P. S. 2006, , 372, 551
, S. K. & [Montavon]{}, C. A. P. 1993, , 275, 283
, S. K. & [Roberts]{}, B. 1992, , 256, 13
, S. K., [Walther]{}, U., & [Livingston]{}, W. 1993, , 277, 639
, H. C. & [Scharmer]{}, G. B. 2006, , 447, 343
, A. M., [Frank]{}, Z. A., [Shine]{}, R. A., [et al.]{} 1993, , 403, 780
, A. R. & [Roberts]{}, B. 1980, , 68, 87
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present medium-resolution (R $\sim$ 700) near-infrared ($\lambda =
1 - 2.5$ ) spectra of a sample of planetary nebulae (PNe). A narrow slit was used which sampled discrete locations within the nebulae; observations were obtained at one or more positions in the 41 objects included in the survey. The PN spectra fall into one of four general categories: emission line-dominated PNe, and 2 emission line PNe, 2 emission line-dominated PNe, and continuum-dominated PNe. These categories correlate with morphological type, with the elliptical PNe falling into the first group, and the bipolar PNe primarily in the 2 and continuum emission groups. The categories also correlate with C/O ratio, with the O-rich objects generally falling into the first group and the C-rich objects in the other groups. Other spectral features were observed in all categories, such as continuum emission from the central star, C$_2$, CN, and CO emission, and warm dust continuum emission towards the long wavelength end of the spectra.
Molecular hydrogen was detected for the first time in four PNe. An excitation analysis was performed using the 2 line ratios for all of the PN spectra in the survey where a sufficient number of lines were observed. From the near-infrared spectrum, we determined an ortho-to-para ratio, the rotational and vibrational excitation temperatures, and the dominant excitation mechanism of the 2 for many objects surveyed. One unexpected result from this analysis is that the 2 is excited by absorption of ultraviolet photons in most of the PNe surveyed, although for several PNe in our survey collisional excitation in moderate velocity shocks plays an important role. The correlation between bipolar morphology and 2emission has been strengthened with the new detections of 2 in this survey. We discuss the role of winds and photons to the excitation of 2 in PNe, and consider some implications to the utility of 2 as a nebular diagnostic and to our understanding of PNe structure and evolution.
author:
- 'Joseph L. Hora'
- 'William B. Latter'
- 'Lynne K. Deutsch'
title: |
Investigating the Near-Infrared Properties of Planetary Nebulae\
II. Medium Resolution Spectra
---
2[H$_2$]{} 1[$v = 1 \to 0$ S(1)]{} [*H*]{} 30[BD+30$^{\circ}$3639]{} 10420[IRC+10$^{\circ}$420]{} 3[cm$^{-3}$]{} 3[[cm]{}\^3 [s]{}\^[-1]{}]{} 3[[cm]{}\^[-3]{}]{}
Introduction
============
This is the second of two papers describing the results of surveys examining the properties of planetary nebulae (PNe) as observed in the near-infrared ($\lambda = 1 - 2.5$ ). The first paper (Latter et al. 1995; hereafter Paper I) presented an infrared imaging survey; here we present the results of a near-infrared spectral survey.
There are several reasons why knowledge of the near-infrared (near-IR) characteristics of PNe is important, as described in Paper I. In order to interpret the imaging results and to learn more about the physical conditions in the nebulae, the spectra of these objects must be examined to understand the processes responsible for the emission. There are many emission lines present in the 1 – 2.5 spectral region, most notably those due to recombination lines of , and lines of vibrationally excited 2. Also present are atomic lines of and \[\], and emission from other molecular species such as CO and C$_2$. These lines can act as diagnostic tools to probe the physical conditions inside the nebula, sampling different regions and ranges of temperature, density, and excitation than is seen by observing the optical line emission. Some PNe also exhibit in the near-IR strong continuum emission from hot dust. This emission becomes significant longward of $\lambda = 2$ in many of the PNe, requiring near-IR spectroscopy to detect it and to differentiate between line and continuum emission sources. Finally, the lower optical depth of the PNe in the IR as compared to optical wavelengths allows us to potentially see into regions of the nebula that are obscured by dust.
There have been several previous surveys that have explored the properties of PNe in the infrared. Early spectroscopic and photometric surveys (e.g., Gillett, Merrill, & Stein 1972; Cohen & Barlow 1974) determined that there was an excess of IR emission over what was expected from reflected continuum emission from the central star. Other photometric surveys in the following years (Whitelock 1985; Persi et al. 1987) determined the primary sources of IR emission to be stellar continuum, thermal dust emission, and thermal & line emission from the nebula itself. The near-IR color characteristics of most PNe are unique and can be used to identify new PNe and post-AGB objects (Garcia-Lario et al. 1990).
Recently there have been more detailed spectral observations of PNe in the near-IR. Hrivnak, Kwok, & Geballe (1994) surveyed a set of proto-PNe in the H and K bands. In these objects the Brackett lines were observed in absorption, and most objects had CO absorption or emission, indicating recent mass loss events. Rudy et al. (1992, and references therein) and Kelly & Latter (1995) have surveyed several PNe and proto-PNe in the $\lambda = 0.5 - 1.3$ range. Dinerstein & Crawford (1998) have completed a survey of a set of PNe in the K-band, focusing on excitation of molecular hydrogen.
There are several unique aspects of the survey results presented here that were made possible by the KSPEC spectrograph (see the instrument description below). First, because of KSPEC’s high sensitivity and simultaneous sampling of the full near-infrared spectral range, we were able to obtain data on a comparatively large number of objects (41) in a short period of time. Using the relatively narrow and short slit of the spectrograph, we sampled different regions of the PNe to examine the emission throughout the nebula. In most of the other surveys described above, larger beams were used that included much or all of the object. Another aspect of the data presented here is because of the cross-dispersed design of the instrument, the entire $\lambda = 1.1 - 2.5$ range is obtained at once, eliminating the possibility of telescope pointing errors or other fluctuations affecting the relative line strengths in the spectra. Finally, the slit-viewing detector allowed precise positioning and guiding, so the region of the PN being observed was well known for each spectrum. The PNe observed in this survey were chosen to overlap with the near-IR imaging survey (Paper I), along with several other optically-bright PNe and unresolved objects that were not included in the imaging survey.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
The observations were performed on several runs during the period 1992 October through 1994 September at the University of Hawaii 2.2m telescope on Mauna Kea, using the near-IR KSPEC spectrograph (Hodapp et al. 1994). KSPEC is a $\lambda = 1 - 2.5$ cross-dispersed spectrograph that has a separate slit-viewing IR array for acquiring the source and guiding. The full spectral range is obtained in a single exposure, resulting in accurate relative line measurements and highly efficient data acquisition. The diffraction orders are well-matched to the atmospheric transmission windows, with the K band in 3rd order (1.9 – 2.5 ), H in 4th order (1.45 – 1.8 ) and J in 5th order (1.15 – 1.32 ), with a resolution R $\sim$ 700. The 1$\times$6 arcsecond slit provides a small aperture that was used to sample different spatial regions of the nebula to search for spectral variations.
Table 1 lists the nebulae observed and details of the observations. Integration times for each exposure ranged from a few seconds for the extremely bright sources to 5 minutes for faint sources. The off-axis guider was used to keep a consistent on-source slit position. Multiple “Fowler” sampling was used to reduce the read noise. The number of samples for a particular integration ranged from 4 to 16, with more samples used for the longer integration times. The spectra were reduced using IRAF; the extraction and processing of the spectral data were done using the functions in the noao.twodspec and noao.onedspec packages. Alternating source and sky integrations of the same length were taken and differenced to remove sky and telescope background flux. Dome flats were used to correct for pixel-to-pixel gain variations in the array. Stars of known spectral type (either G0 or A0) were observed at the same airmass as the nebulae immediately before and after the PNe observations and were used for correction of the instrumental response and sky transmission. Individual lines were removed from the stellar spectra, and then normalized using a blackbody function of T = 5920 K for the G0 stars and T = 10800 K for the A0 standards. The spectra were wavelength-calibrated using observations of an Argon reference lamp. The wavelength values used for lines greater than 1.1 are from Rao et al. (1966); for lines less than 1.1 , the wavelengths were taken from Wiese, Smith, & Miles (1969) and corrected to vacuum wavelengths. The average 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the measured wavelengths of the lines is about 5 Å.
Infrared photometric standard stars were observed in the same way as the PNe and used to flux calibrate the spectra. Absolute calibration is difficult with these spectra because not all of the flux from the star enters the narrow slit during a single integration, and the amount differs for each integration depending on how well the star is centered on the slit (the seeing at 2 during typical observations was 05 – 10). The amount of light lost was estimated by the following method: the full width at half maximum (FWHM) brightness of the standard star was measured along the spatial direction of the slit, in the spectrum with maximum flux for that star. It was then assumed that the point spread function (PSF) is well represented by a two-dimensional Gaussian distribution with the measured FWHM, and the amount of flux falling outside of the slit was then calculated. This was typically 20 – 30% of the total light for a single integration. The calibration for each star was corrected by this factor, along with corrections for airmass. Comparing results from different standard stars taken throughout the night indicated that this method is accurate to approximately 20%. For the observations of the PNe, no correction was applied for the slit width or length. The length along the slit of the extracted regions for the three bands were 20 (J), 35 (H), and 40 (K).
Results
========
The spectra are presented in Figures 1 – 32. One to three PNe spectra are plotted in each figure. Tables 2 through 7 list the line identifications and extracted fluxes with uncertainties for the spectra shown in the Figures. The PN in this section are listed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. There are a number of features not identified (indicated by question marks in the tables). These features tend to appear above the $\sim3\sigma$ level and must be considered real, though confirming spectra would be valuable. Our search for possible identifications for these lines has been careful, but perhaps not exhaustive. In addition to the relatively low S/N of these lines, the moderate wavelength resolution is not sufficient to differentiate between the several possible identifications for each line.
The PNe spectra are separated into four groups that share common characteristics. These are recombination line-dominated, recombination line + 2 emission, 2 – dominated, and continuum-dominated. A fifth group of objects is included that contains two objects that were at one time classified as PNe, but are now generally regarded as being regions (M 1–78 and K 4–45; Acker et al.1992). We do not discuss these objects further, but include them for comparison. Within each group, the NGC objects are listed first, followed by the remaining PNe in alphanumeric order. The morphological classifications are given according to Balick (1987), unless otherwise noted.
- line dominated
-----------------
The line emission in these PNe is dominated by lines of and . In the J-band, the Paschen $\beta$ () line is the most intense, with contributions from lines of , \[\], and . In the H band, the Brackett series of dominate, with emission at 1.7002 and \[\] emission at 1.6440 present in some PNe. In the K band, the brightest line is usually Brackett $\gamma$ (), with strong lines of at 2.058 and 2.112 . When the lines are strong enough, one begins to see the Pfund series lines starting near 2.35 where they are just beginning to be separated at this resolution. There are also two unidentified lines at 2.199 and 2.287 (Geballe et al. 1991) that appear in several PNe in this category. A few of the spectra shown here have contributions from central star continuum flux that is larger towards shorter wavelengths, or warm dust continuum which is stronger at longer wavelengths.
### NGC 1535
NGC 1535 is classified as early round, and its near-IR spectrum is dominated by emission lines of . It has a bright ionized shell of emission which is surrounded by a fainter halo (e.g., see Schwarz, Corradi, & Melnick 1992). Near-IR images were presented in Paper I. This PN has previously been observed to have 2 lines in absorption in the far-UV (Bowers et al. 1995). Recent observations by Luhman et al. (1997) failed to detect 2 in emission in the 1 line. They attributed the earlier detection of absorption at shorter wavelengths to the interstellar medium, or a region in the PN itself of a much smaller size than the ionized zone.
The spectrum of NGC 1535 shown in Figure 1 was obtained at a position centered on the brightest part of the ring directly west (W) of the central star. We also fail to detect the 2 emission in the 1 line, at a 1 $\sigma$ level of about $5\times10^{-17}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$. There is some indication of emission from 2 in the $v
= 1\to 0$ Q(1) and $v=1\to 0$ Q(3) lines at the long wavelength end of the spectrum. However, the spectrum is noisier in this region and there is confusion with the Pfund-series lines, therefore the 2lines are not detected above the 3 $\sigma$ level.
### NGC 2022
NGC 2022 is an early elliptical PN, but is morphologically very similar to NGC 1535 in optical images (e.g., Schwarz et al.1992). The main difference between the two is a different relative outer halo size as compared to the inner ring (the halo is relatively smaller in NGC 2022). Zhang & Kwok (1998) also find similar parameters with their morphological fits of these two PNe. Near-IR images of this PN were presented in Paper I.
NGC 2022 is also spectrally similar to NGC 1535, as seen in Figure 1. The spectrum of NGC 2022 was taken centered on the ring directly east (E) of the central star. The dominant emission lines are those of atomic hydrogen.
### NGC 2392
The PN NGC 2392 (the “Eskimo nebula”) is another double-shell nebula; however, this PN has a significant amount of structure in the inner ring and outer shell. Spectrophotometric (Barker 1991) and kinematic studies (Reay, Atherton, & Taylor 1983; O’Dell, Weiner, & Chu 1990) that have been carried out with optical imaging and spectroscopy have revealed the abundances and ionization states and velocities of the various components. Near-IR images of this PN were presented in Paper I.
The spectrum of NGC 2392 in Figure 1 was taken centered on the brightest part of the ring directly E of the central star. This third early-type round PN differs from the other two in Figure 1 primarily from the bright line at 2.058 , and the \[\] lines in the J and H bands of the spectrum.
### NGC 3242
NGC 3242 is an early elliptical with several interesting morphological features. In addition to the bright elliptical ring, there are several filaments and knots of emission in the central region, and two ansae that are placed roughly along the major axis of the elliptical emission. Also, there is a larger faint halo that envelopes the inner structure.
Spectra acquired at three different positions on the nebula are shown in Figure 2, on the SE knot (NGC 3242SE), on the E section of the bright ring (NGC 3242E), and on the SW halo (NGC 3242H). The spectra are similar in all locations; the bright lines are present in all positions, along with stellar continuum at the shorter wavelengths. One difference is that the line at 2.189 are much brighter in the E ring than in the SE knot or halo position.
### NGC 6210
NGC 6210 is a fairly compact PN with a core – halo morphology similar to other ellipticals. Phillips & Cuesta (1996) performed a visible wavelength spectroscopic study that revealed a complex velocity structure which suggests multiple shells and possibly “jets” at various position angles. The near-IR image presented in Paper I does not reveal much of the structure. This PN is one of several in which Geballe et al. (1991) detected unidentified emission at 2.286 (but not at 2.199 ).
Three spectra are presented for this PN, and shown in Figure 3. They were acquired with the slit centered on the core (Core), 1 east (E1), and 3 east (E3). The core position shows a contribution from stellar continuum in the $\lambda = 1 - 1.8$ region that decreases successively in the E1 and E3 positions. The unidentified feature at 2.287 is detected at the E1 position, but not the 2.199 line, similar to the findings of Geballe et al. (1991).
### NGC 6543
NGC 6543 (the “Cat’s Eye”) has a complex morphology, with a high degree of symmetry. Recent HST imaging (Harrington & Borkowski 1994) has shown more clearly the structure of rings, shock fronts, jets, and fast, low-ionization emission-line regions (FLIERS) present in this PN.
The spectrum shown in Figure 4 was taken at the position S of the central star and slightly E, where the two emission arcs cross and create a local emission maximum (see Paper I, Figure 6a). The spectra is similar to the other PN in the / - dominated class, and also show the unidentified lines at 2.199 and 2.286 .
### NGC 6572
This young PN has a bipolar morphology in the near-IR, with its major axis in the N-S direction, and a bright ring structure closer to the central star (Paper I). The near-IR spectrum from 0.77 to 1.33 was measured by Rudy et al. (1991), and the UV and optical spectrum was recently obtained by Hyung, Aller, & Feibelman (1994), who found evidence of variability.
Figure 5 shows two slit positions on the PN, one on the nebula center, and one on the brightest location in the E lobe of the PN. Both the core and E lobe spectra show a strong contribution from stellar continuum flux. There is strong and line emission, and relatively strong unidentified line emission at 2.199 and 2.286 .
### NGC 6790
This PN has been shown by radio continuum observations to be an elliptically-shaped nebula with a diameter of roughly an arcsecond (Aaquist & Kwok 1990). Aller, Hyung, & Feibelman (1996) obtained UV and optical spectra and suggest that NGC 6790 is a relatively young object, slightly more evolved than Hb 12. Kelly & Latter (1995) obtained a 0.9 – 1.3 spectrum and find similarities to Hb 12 and AFGL 618.
The spectrum of NGC 6790 in Figure 4 shows a stellar contribution because the slit was centered on the object, and includes the star as well as the nebular emission that is typical of this class of PN.
### NGC 6803
This compact elliptical PN has a uniformly bright disk with no apparent structure in the optical, and is surrounded by a fainter halo about twice the size of the bright shell (Schwarz et al. 1992). In the KSPEC imaging channel, however, the PN was seen to be double-lobed, with the lobes on the minor axis of the bright elliptical region. Spectra were obtained at two positions, one centered on the E lobe, and the other position 5 arcseconds NW in the halo region. The lobe spectrum shows bright and lines, with a stellar continuum contribution out to about 1.5 . There is also unidentified line emission at 2.286 . The halo spectrum is quite different, with weak and continuum emission, and is probably reflected star and nebular emission.
### NGC 6826
This elliptical PN is morphologically similar to NGC 3242, with a bright elliptical inner ionized ring, ansae along the major axis, and a fainter halo that envelopes the system (Balick 1987). The I-band image in Paper I shows evidence for a shell between the inner bright ring and the outer halo, and at the same radial distance as the ansae.
The spectra are shown in Figure 7. The bright core is dominated by stellar continuum emission. The other positions show strong line emission. The spectrum labeled SW Lobe was taken on the inner bright ring directly SW of the central star. The SW Halo position was taken in the halo midway between the bright ring and the outer edge of the PN. The lobe and halo emission is similar, except for relatively brighter lines of at 1.7002 in the lobe. There is also some continuum emission at the short wavelength end of the nebular positions, which is probably scattered light from the central star.
### NGC 7009
NGC 7009 (the “Saturn” nebula) is an elliptical with an interesting twisted symmetry in its shell and in the various filaments and knots of emission. Balick et al. (1998) recently published HST images that show the “microstructures” in this PN. The images show that the inner knots are actually groups of FLIERs, and jets in \[\] are seen that terminate at the tips of the nebula.
Two positions were sampled, one in the halo region on the W edge of the PN, and one in the N part of the nebula. Both positions show a stellar continuum emission contribution from the central star. The halo emission is similar to the spectrum taken on the north edge of the PN.
### NGC 7662
NGC 7662 is a triple-shell elliptical, with a bright inner ring, a fainter outer shell, and a very faint nearly circular halo (Hyung & Aller 1997). This PN also has a large number of complex microstructures, recently examined using HST imaging by Balick et al. (1998). They suggest that there is a prolate elliptical bubble around the central star aligned perpendicular to the bright ring. The bright ring is interpreted as a torus seen at roughly 30$^\circ$ inclination.
The spectrum shown in Figure 9 was taken on the bright ring directly SE of the central star. The N end of the slit was near the central star, so some stellar continuum is seen in the spectrum, which is otherwise dominated by and lines.
### IC 351
This compact PN has a double-lobed structure with a round halo (Hua & Grundseth 1986; Aaquist & Kwok 1990; Manchado et al.1996). Feibelman, Hyung, & Aller (1996) obtained UV and visible light spectra of IC 351 that show it to be a high excitation nebula, but without the presence of the usual silicon lines, and suggest that the silicon atoms could be locked up in grains.
Our spectrum (Figure 9) taken centered on the PN suffers somewhat from an incomplete subtraction of OH airglow lines, due to the sky frames not being taken properly for the on-source images. The OH lines show up in emission mainly in the H and K-band portions of the spectrum. However, the major features of and emission lines can be seen.
### IC 418
The spectrum of this well-studied young, low-excitation PN was previously shown to be dominated by lines of and in the near-IR, with a hot dust continuum (Willner et al. 1979; Zhang & Kwok 1992; Hodapp et al. 1994). Hora et al. (1993) and Paper I showed broad- and narrow-band near-IR images of the PN, showing the elliptical, double-lobed structure in the IR.
Three positions in the nebula were observed to determine the spectral variations across the object. The positions observed were on the central star, the peak of the E lobe, and in the E halo region outside of the bright ring (Figure 10). In the central position, stellar continuum is visible, rising towards shorter wavelengths. The nebular lines are similar in the central and lobe positions. The halo emission is almost devoid of lines; there is some faint present as well as . This is possibly reflected from the bright lobes. The main component of the halo emission is a weak continuum that rises toward longer wavelengths.
### IC 2149
This peculiar PN has a bright core and a roughly bipolar nebula extending approximately E-W, but does not show the usual 2 signature of bipolar PN. The two spectra shown in Figure 11 were taken centered on the bright central star, and on the E lobe. The core spectrum shows strong stellar continuum, with the nebular lines superimposed. The E lobe emission is primarily from lines of and , in addition to weak continuum emission which is probably reflected from the central star.
### IC 3568
This round PN consists of spherical shells, an inner bright one and a outer halo. Balick et al. (1987) showed that the structure was consistent with simple hydrodynamic models of PN that are shaped by interior stellar winds. The spectrum taken on the N edge of the PN is shown in Figure 12. The predominant features are and emission lines, and low level continuum emission which is probably reflected from the central star.
### IC 4593
Bohigas & Olguin (1996) obtained spectroscopy and imaging of this PN which has two inner shells surrounded by an outer highly excited halo. IC 4593 is unusual in that the condensations outside of the inner region are located asymmetrically in the SW region.
Two spectra were taken on this PN, one positioned on the central star, and the other at a position 3 E (Figure 12). The core shows bright stellar continuum, with nebular lines superimposed, and absorption. The E spectrum has the typical and emission lines. The sky subtraction was not of high quality for this spectrum, which resulted in OH airglow lines showing up in emission in the H and K spectral regions.
### J 320
Images of J 320 (Balick 1987) show it to have a central region that is elongated roughly E-W, but the low level flux has a N-S elongation indicating a shell or streamer extending in this direction. Three spectra for J 320 are shown in Figure 13, centered on the core (C), offset 1 N, and offset 15 N. The core has a stronger contribution from stellar continuum, but otherwise the spectra are similar. We therefore detect no spectral differences between the N extension and the nebula near the core.
### M 4–18
This young, low-excitation PN was recently imaged with HST by Dayal et al. (1997) and shows a toroidal shell surrounding the central star. There is strong mid-IR emission from warm ($\sim$ 200 K) dust that has a similar morphology but the position angle of the dust emission maxima is orthogonal to those shown in H$\alpha$ emission. The spectrum of the core of this PN shown in Figure 14 has strong stellar continuum, as well as and line emission. The slit was positioned N-S across the compact ring of the PN, so the ionized regions of the nebula are included in this spectrum.
- line and 2 emission
----------------------
The emission lines present in the spectra of this PNe group contain those mentioned in the previous section plus lines of molecular hydrogen. The 2 lines are strongest in the K band, although in some objects there are lines visible in the H and J bands as well. In the objects where more than one slit position was measured, there is often a large change in the relative line strength of versus 2 emission, indicating that the emission is being produced in different regions of the nebula. In general, the 2 emission is more likely to be in the outer regions of the PNe, whereas the emission lines more closely trace the ionized regions and has similar morphology to the visible appearance. The PNe in this group all have some bipolar symmetry in their shape, most being of the “butterfly” morphology characterized by narrow equatorial regions and large bipolar lobes (e.g., M 2–9, Hb 12). However, some are classified as elliptical based on the shape of the brightest components. Tables 5 and 6 list the line identifications and extracted fluxes for the PNe in this section.
### Molecular hydrogen excitation in PNe
A near-infrared 2 emission line spectrum can occur through slow electric quadrupole vibration-rotation transitions in the ground electronic state. Because the allowed transitions are such that $T_{\rm
ex} \gtrsim 1000$ K is required to produce a detectable near-IR 2 spectrum, special excitation conditions must exist when the near-IR spectrum is present. In Paper I we discussed mechanisms of 2excitation in PNe; see also Kastner et al. (1996). If detected in sufficient number, the observed 2 line ratios are an excellent diagnostic for determining the relative importance of shocks and UV photons in a photodissociation region (PDR) for the excitation of the 2emission. Even if the excitation mechanism cannot be determined, the presence of 2 emission is important to understanding the conditions in PNe and how they evolve through wind interactions and photodissociation.
An analysis of near-IR 2 emission can determine an ortho-to-para (O/P) ratio, the rotational excitation temperature $T_{ex}(J)$, and the vibrational excitation temperature $T_{ex}(v)$ of the molecules. If the rotational and vibrational excitation temperatures differ, then UV excitation is indicated. This is most readily determined by comparing the column densities in the upper state vibration-rotation levels with the upper state energy (in temperature units; see Hora & Latter 1994, 1996 for a full discussion; see also Black & van Dishoeck 1987; Sternberg & Dalgarno 1989). When many 2 lines are detected, especially those from highly excited levels that fall in the J band, a much stronger case can be made for the importance of UV excitation than does the traditional $v = 2\to 1$ S(1) to 1 line ratio (e.g. Hora & Latter 1994, 1996). The comparison of the column densities to the upper state energy levels has been done for the PNe with detected 2 emission and the results are summarized in Table 8. Only the rotational excitation temperatures are listed. For collisionally- (shock-) excited spectra, the rotational and vibrational excitation temperatures are coupled and the same. For UV excited spectra, the vibrational temperature is the result of a cascade through levels and not a thermal process. The rotational levels are easily thermalized by collisions. The observed O/P ratio is in general rather uncertain, especially if only $v = 1$ lines are detected. We did not attempt to determine the O/P ratio for objects without sufficient line detections. An observed O/P ratio lower than 3 indicates that the 2 emission is not thermally excited. A subthermal O/P ratio as determined from near-IR spectra is not caused by the UV excitation process itself, but is a function of chemistry and density in the PDR (Hora & Latter 1996; Black & van Dishoeck 1987), and might not be indicative of the “true” O/P abundance ratio of the 2 (see Sternberg & Neufeld 1999). Selected excitation diagrams for several objects that are discussed below are shown in Figure 33.
### NGC 40
The morphological classification of NGC 40 is middle elliptical (Balick 1987), which seems to contradict the previously observed strong correlation between bipolar morphology and 2 detection. However, if one examines the low-level emission in the N and S regions of this PN (see Paper I), one can see material that has broken through and expanded beyond the elliptical shell defined by the E and W bright lobes. Mellema (1995) has found the morphology consistent with models of “barrel”-shaped PNe, which have roughly cylindrical emission regions slightly bowed outwards at the equatorial plane, and less dense polar regions. Higher resolution and more sensitive optical imaging has recently been carried out by Meaburn et al. (1996) show gas escaping from the polar regions of the PN, with other filamentary structure in the outer halo.
This is the first reported detection of 2 in NGC 40. The spectrum was taken centered on the W lobe, and the 2 lines are relatively weak compared to the and lines from the ionized gas in this region. The 2 emission was not detected in the narrowband imaging surveys of Paper I or Kastner et al. (1996), so the molecular emission must be confined to a region near the bright ionized gas that dominates the spectrum. The data suggest that the 2 is shock-excited. However, insufficient line detections make this result less than firm.
### NGC 2440
NGC 2440 is a bipolar PN with complex morphological and spectral structure. In the optical, the nebula is bipolar with the major axis in roughly the E-W direction for the large outer lobes (Balick 1987; Schwartz 1992). However, there are two bright lobes near the core that are positioned along an axis roughly perpendicular to the major axis of the outer lobes. There are two fainter knots that are also along a roughly E-W axis, but not aligned with the outer lobes. There are filaments and knots throughout the lobes. Lopez et al. (1998) finds up to three outflowing bipolar structures in the lobes, and find from their kinematic study that the inner bright lobes (their lobes “A” and “B”) are the emission maxima from a radially-expanding toroid viewed nearly in the plane of the sky.
In the near-IR, the inner pairs of lobes are also prominent, but the large E-W lobes are not visible (see Paper I). Instead, there is a circular outer halo visible in 2 that is not quite centered on the inner lobe structure. Also visible are faint 2 “spikes” that extend from the center to the circular outer halo, roughly in the equatorial plane of the large optical E-W lobes (Latter & Hora 1998).
The spectra shown in Figures 15 and 16 were taken at three different positions in the PN: on the N lobe (of the innermost bright pair of lobes), on the fainter E knot, and on a clump of 2 emission located on the NE edge of the outer circular halo (see Paper I, Figure 4a; it is the clump visible at the upper left corner of the “2 sub” image). The N lobe exhibits and lines from the ionized gas in this region, but also has significant 2 emission. There is also strong \[\] emission at 1.64 and 1.257 . The E knot also displays similar , , \[\], and 2 emission, although fainter. In contrast to the inner regions, the NE clump spectrum in Figure 16 is dominated by 2 emission, with the only lines detected being and . There is strong \[\] emission at 1.64 and 1.257 in this region as well. The excitation analysis for the three positions observed showed that they are UV-excited, except for the E knot position for which there is insufficient data. The low value of the observed O/P ratio is suggestive of the 2 emission arising from a PDR at this location as well.
Since the inner region of NGC 2440 is morphologically complex and any line of sight through the PN is likely to intersect several distinct regions, it is probably the case that the ionized and molecular zones are not mixed as the spectra might seem to indicate, but that the slit simply includes several nebular components, or is looking through a PDR and is sampling both the molecular and the recently ionized gas.
### NGC 6720
NGC 6720 (the “Ring Nebula”) is probably the best-known PN, and is the archetype for the ring or elliptical morphology that characterizes the brightest part of the nebula. The emission is not consistent with a uniform prolate shell, however, since the ratio of flux between the edge and center of the ring is higher than expected from a limb-brightened shell (Lame & Pogge 1994). Balick et al. (1992) have suggested that NGC 6720 is actually a bipolar PN viewed along the polar axis, based on narrow-band imaging and high-resolution spectroscopic observations. This view is supported by the presence of 2 in the nebula and halo, which correlates strongly with bipolar morphology. Guerrero, Manchado, & Chu (1997) draw different conclusions, however, based on their chemical abundance and kinematic study of the nebula. They argue that the Ring has a prolate ellipsoid structure, with a halo of remnant red giant wind.
Our spectra of the Ring (Figure 17) were obtained at two positions, one on the bright ring directly N of the central star, and the second position several arcseconds further north, off the bright ring but on a moderately bright (in 2) position in the halo. Both positions show bright 2emission, with the lobe position also showing contributions from emission lines of and from the ionized gas, as one would expect based on the visible wavelength and IR images showing the distribution of the line emission. The ring spectrum is strongly UV excited, indicating it is the PDR interface to the outer molecular shell.
### NGC 7026
The late elliptical PN NGC 7026 has two bright lobes on either side (E-W) of the central star, with fainter bipolar emission extending roughly N-S from the core. Cuesta, Phillips, & Mampaso (1996) obtained optical spectra and imaging of this object and found kinematically complex structure, with several separate outflows at the outer edge of an inner spherical shell, and suggested that the primary shell may be undergoing breakup in transition to a more typical bipolar outflow structure.
Two positions were sampled in NGC 7026, shown in Figure 18, centered on the E and W bright lobes near the central star. The lobe spectra are nearly identical, as one might expect from the symmetry in this PN. The 2 emission in this PN is fairly weak at these positions. This might be due to the 2 being concentrated in other regions of the PN, and not in the bright ionized lobes that were sampled by the spectra presented here. We are unable to determine the excitation mechanism.
### NGC 7027
NGC 7027 is one of the most highly studied PN at all wavelengths, particularly in the infrared because of its brightness and wealth of spectral features. Treffers et al. (1976) obtained a spectrum for $\lambda = 0.9 - 2.7$ with a beam that included the entire nebula. They identified the major near-IR spectral components, including the first detection of 2 lines in a PN, and the first detection of the unidentified line at 2.29 . Since then, several near-IR spectra have been published, including Scrimger et al. (1978), Smith, Larson, & Fink (1981), Rudy et al. (1992), and Kelly & Latter (1995).
The spectra shown in Figure 19, one taken centered on the W bright lobe, and the other at the brightest position in 2 of the NW lobe (see Paper I). Both show and 2 emission; the 2 is relatively stronger in the NW position than in the bright lobe. Narrowband imaging has shown that the and emission is primarily in the bright inner ring of the nebula, and the 2 emission is in what appears to be bipolar lobes outside of this shell (Graham et al. 1993a,b; Paper I; Latter et al. 1998). It has been argued before based on morphology that the 2 is in a PDR (Graham et al. 1993a). Our data clearly demonstrate this to be the case, with the 2 showing a strongly UV excited spectrum in a relatively high density medium (see Figure 33b).
### 30
The young PN 30 is well-studied in the infrared, and is remarkable primarily because of its large IR emission excess. It has many similarities to NGC 7027, including its IR morphology and the presence of 2 in the near-IR and unidentified IR (UIR) emission features in the mid-IR spectrum, which are usually attributed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Rudy et al. (1991) obtained a $\lambda = 0.46 -
1.3$ spectrum of 30; high-resolution visible and near-IR images were recently obtained by Harrington et al. (1997) and Latter et al. (1998), and ground-based near- and mid-IR images have been presented by Hora et al. (1993), Paper I, and Shupe et al. (1998).
Three positions in 30 were sampled in the spectra presented in Figure 20; the emission peak on the N lobe of the ring, the E side of the ring, and on the 2 emission region located approximately 3 E of the ring. These spectra show a steady progression of decreasing emission from the ionized gas and increasing molecular emission as one moves east. As for NGC 7027, the 2 emission in 30 is UV excited (Figure 33a) and defines the PDR (see also Shupe 1998).
### Hubble 12
Hubble 12 (Hb 12) has been notable primarily because it represents one of the clearest cases known of UV excited near-IR fluorescent 2 emission (Dinerstein et al. 1988; Ramsay et al. 1993). Our Hb 12 results from this survey and our imaging survey were presented in a previous paper (Hora & Latter 1996); the spectra are reproduced here for comparison with the rest of the survey.
Dinerstein et al. had mapped the inner structure and found it to be elliptical surrounding the central star; our deep 2 images showed the emission to be tracing the edges of a cylindrical shell around the star, with faint bipolar lobes extending N-S. We also detected \[\] line emission at 1.64 in a position along the edge of the shell. The 2 line ratios observed were in excellent agreement with predictions by theoretical 2 fluorescence calculations, and no significant differences were found between the excitation in the two positions of the nebula that were sampled (see also Luhman & Rieke 1996).
### IC 2003
IC 2003 is a round, high-excitation PN that has a ring of emission, with a bright knot on the S edge (Manchado et al. 1996; Zhang & Kwok 1998). Feibelman (1997) obtained IUE spectra of this PN that shows a wealth of nebular and stellar lines. The IR spectra presented in Figure 22 taken in the center of the PN shows that there is little continuum from the nebula; the emission is primarily from lines of in the J, H, and K bands. There is strong unidentified emission at 2.286 but none detected at 2.199 . 2 emission is tentatively detected in the K-band, in the 1, $v=3\to 2$ S(1), and $v=1\to 0$ Q(1) lines. Each of the lines are detected at roughly a 2$\sigma$ level. The line fluxes are not reliable or numerous enough to allow fitting of the line ratios.
### IRAS 21282+5050
The young, carbon-rich PN IRAS 21282+5050 has been identified as having an 07(f)-\[WC11\] nucleus (Cohen & Jones 1987) with possibly a binary at its center. Strong $^{12}$CO has been detected in a clumpy expanding shell (Likkel et al. 1988) with elongated emission N-S. Shibata et al. (1989) believe the elongated emission suggests the presence of a dust torus in the E-W direction; however, Meixner et al.(1993) was evidence for a clumpy, expanding elliptical envelope. The elongated structure is also seen in the visible (Kwok et al. 1993). Weak continuum flux at 2 and 6 cm suggests a young PN just beginning to be ionized (Likkel et al. 1994; Meixner et al. 1993). Kwok et al. (1993) believe there has been a recent sharp drop in luminosity based on the measured CO/FIR ratio. Weak HCO$^+$ and $^{13}$CO are present (Likkel et al. 1988).
Two positions were sampled on IRAS 21282+5050, centered on the bright core, and offset approximately 3 N and 3 W. The spectrum of the offset position is shown in Figure 22. The core is dominated by continuum emission from the central star. Also present are both emission lines from the ionized gas, and 2 features in the K-band. The nebula is compact, about 4 in diameter at K (Paper I). The slit therefore samples a slice through the entire nebula, and as a result this spectrum does not necessarily imply that the molecular and ionized gas is mixed. The Lobe spectrum shows primarily lines of 2 (with the OH night sky lines showing up in absorption because of imperfect sky subtraction in this spectrum). The lack of emission lines due to and in the Lobe spectrum indicates that the 2 emission is predominantly in the outer regions of the PN. The data are suggestive of shock excitation, but this should be considered tentative.
### M 1–16
M 1–16 is a PN with a near-IR bright central region and bipolar lobes with fast winds extending at least 35 from the core (Schwartz et al.1992; Aspin et al. 1993; Sahai et al. 1994). Several spectra were obtained in this PN scanning across the central region; the two positions shown in Figure 23 are on the core position and 1 S of the core. Both positions show 2 emission; the S position is slightly brighter in both 2 and the ionized nebular lines. Our data reveal that the 2 is UV excited in both regions observed. This had be suggested earlier by Aspin (1993). The core shows a slight rise towards long wavelengths indicating emission from warm dust continuum.
### M 1–92
M 1–92 (“Minkowski’s Footprint”) is a bipolar proto-planetary nebula similar in near-IR appearance to AFGL 618, and has evidence of highly collimated outflows along the bipolar axis (Paper I; Trammell & Goodrich 1996 and references therein). Two positions were sampled in M 1–92, one in the core and one on the NW bipolar lobe. There are problems with the sky background subtraction in both spectra, which are most prominent in the $\lambda = 1.9 - 2.1$ region of the spectrum, but also contribute to a lower signal to noise ratio (S/N) over the whole dataset. Nevertheless, the primary characteristics are apparent. The core region is dominated by strong warm dust continuum emission. There is also weak and emission, but the other most other and lines are too weak to be detected. The lobe position shows weak 2 emission. The emission appears to be shock-excited, but the low excitation suggested by our data is suggestive of UV excitation. Data of higher S/N are required to discern the dominant excitation mechanism. There might also be 2 emission near the core that is being masked by the strong continuum emission. In both positions, there also seems to be CO bandhead emission at $\lambda = 2.3 - 2.5$ although the S/N is not high in these regions.
### M 2–9
M 2–9 (the “Butterfly”) is a highly symmetric bipolar nebula, with lobes extending from opposite sides of a bright central core, nearly in the plane of the sky. Bright knots of emission are visible in the lobes at the N and S ends. Our results for M 2–9 from this survey were previously presented in Hora & Latter (1994), and some of the spectra are reproduced in Figures 25 and 26 for comparison. High-resolution imaging in several near-IR lines indicated that the lobes had a double-shell structure, with the inner shell dominated by and line emission from ionized gas and continuum emission scattered from the central source, and the outer shell (the “Lobe O” spectrum in Figure 25) of the lobes showing strong 2 emission which exhibit a spectrum consistent with UV excitation in a PDR. The core region shows a strong dust continuum component, as well as emission lines of , , , \[\] and . The N knot has strong \[\] emission, with relatively weaker , , and 2 emission.
### Vy 2–2
Vy 2–2 is a compact PN, so very little is known about its morphology. The spectrum obtained in this survey was taken centered on the bright core and the slit sampled most or all of the emission from this object. The spectrum contains stellar continuum, lines of and emission from the nebula, and weak 2 emission. This detection confirms the indication of 2 emission as reported by Dinerstein et al. (1986). The spectrum shown in Figure 26 is similar to others in this category, such as 30 and NGC 2440, where several nebular components are superimposed because of the position and size of the slit. As for those objects, the 2 spectrum in Vy 2–2 is also UV excited.
2 dominated
-----------
The PNe in this group have spectra that primarily contain emission lines of 2. These objects all have bipolar morphology, and most are young or proto-PNe (PPNe). The PPNe also have warm continuum dust emission or stellar continuum that is strongest in the core. Table 7 lists the line identifications and fluxes for the PNe in this section.
### NGC 2346
NGC 2346 is a PN with faint bipolar lobes seen clearly in 2 emission (Paper I). The brightest part of the nebula is in the “equatorial” region near the central star where the bipolar lobes meet. Walsh, Meaburn, & Whitehead (1991) performed deep imaging and spectroscopy that showed the full extent of the lobes, and they model the PN as two ellipsoidal shells that are joined near the central star. The distribution of the 2 emission is similar to the optical (Zuckerman & Gatley 1988; Kastner et al. 1994; Paper I).
The near-IR spectrum of NGC 2346 in Figure 27 is dominated by UV-excited 2 emission, as shown in Figure 33d. The spectrum was obtained with the slit positioned on the bright condensation to the W of the central star. There is also weak and emission seen, which is possibly reflected from near the central star.
### J 900
The PN J 900 is a bipolar nebula with an unusual “jet”-like structure and an outer shell structure that is seen primarily in 2 emission (Shupe et al. 1995; Paper I). The spectrum of J 900 shown in Figure 27 was obtained at a position N of the brighter lobe just NW of the central star, centered on the “jet” of emission. Problems with sky-subtraction caused the J and H-band portions of the spectrum continuum to be slightly negative. There is no detected continuum in any part of the spectrum. The 2 spectrum is shock-excited in a moderate velocity wind (Figure 33e).
### AFGL 618
AFGL 618 is a carbon-rich, bipolar reflection nebula with a relatively hot central star ($\approx 30,000$ K), similar spectra in the two lobes, and the eastern lobe is significantly brighter than the other. In this as in other ways, the object bears a great resemblance to AFGL 2688 (see below), despite the fact that their central star temperatures differ by about a factor of 5. The visible spectrum shows numerous emission lines characteristic of ionized gas (Westbrook et al. 1975; Schmidt & Cohen 1981) which are scattered by dust into the line of sight, with a small region surrounding the central object (Carsenty & Solf 1982; Kelly, Latter, & Rieke 1992). The near-IR spectrum of AFGL 618 is also dominated by rotation-vibration lines of 2 (Thronson 1981, 1983; Latter 1992; Paper I).
AFGL 618 exhibits a rich spectrum of molecular line emission (Lo and Bechis 1976; Knapp et al. 1982; Cernicharo et al. 1989; Kahane et al.1992; Martin-Pintado & Bachiller 1992; Bachiller et al. 1997; Young 1997). The lines detected include $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, C$^{17}$O, C$^{18}$O, CS, NH$_3$, HCN, HCO$^+$, CN, and .
Two of the positions sampled are presented here in Figure 28 – the core spectrum and one taken 24 E of the core. Both spectra show strong 2 emission, along with \[\] and weak and . In addition, the core has a warm dust continuum that is apparent throughout the spectrum, and clear CO bandhead features in the 2.3 – 2.4 region. The CO features are also present but at lower levels in the 24 E spectrum position. Our analysis of the 2 spectrum confirms the earlier results by Latter (1992) – the spectrum is dominated by a shock-heated component, but a UV excited component is clearly present as well (Figure 33c).
### AFGL 2688
AFGL 2688 (the “Egg Nebula”) is a bipolar reflection nebula (Ney et al.1975) at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. It has a central star that exhibits the spectrum of a carbon-rich supergiant (Crampton 1975; Lo & Bechis 1976). Similar in visible appearance to AFGL 915, each lobe shows two “jets” or “horns” extending away from the central region (Crampton et al. 1975; Latter 1993; Sahai 1998a). The lobes have identical spectra at visible wavelengths, but their brightness differs significantly (Cohen & Kuhi 1977). The near-IR spectrum is dominated by 2 rotation-vibration lines (Thronson 1982; Beckwith 1984; Latter et al. 1993). A central source is seen in the mid-IR and longer wavelengths, with fainter extended emission along the axis of the nebula (Hora et al. 1996). There is an enigmatic equatorial region seen in 2emission and might be traced by other molecular species, such as HCN (Latter 1993; Bieging & Ngyuen-Quang-Rieu 1996; Sahai 1998b).
Similar to AFGL 618, this object also has a rich molecular content. SiC$_2$ is seen in absorption (Cohen & Kuhi 1977); this feature is usually found in stars of the highest carbon abundance. Strong absorption features of C$_3$ and emission in C$_2$ (Crampton et al. 1975) are present, while C$_2$ is also seen in absorption in reflected light from the lobes (Bakker et al. 1997). The CO $J = 1 \to 0$ line shows three distinct velocity structures (Kawabe et al. 1987; Young et al. 1992).
Our results for this object from this survey were previously presented in Hora & Latter (1994, 1995) and our narrowband imaging in Latter et al.(1993). The spectra are reproduced here for comparison with the rest of the survey. Spectra were obtained at several positions in the nebula, including positions along the N lobe, and in the equatorial region (see Hora & Latter 1994 for details). The emission is segregated; the core is dominated by continuum emission, there are emission lines of C$_2$ and CN further from the core along the lobes, and the 2 emission is confined to the ends of the lobes and in the equatorial region in what appears to be a ring or toroidal structure (Latter 1993; Sahai 1998b). Our analysis of the 2 line ratios showed that the emission is collisionally excited in shocks, with no discernible difference between the emission in the lobes and the equatorial region.
Continuum - dominated
---------------------
These are young PNe or PPNe that have strong warm dust continuum and little line emission. The strongest component is in general the core, with most of the emission from an unresolved point source. In some of the nebulae, emission structure extends a few arcseconds from the core region. Also, in objects such as AFGL 915, they are associated with larger optical nebulae that extend arcminutes from the core. In this survey, only the regions near the core were sampled.
### AFGL 915
AFGL 915 (the “Red Rectangle”) is a carbon-rich biconical reflection nebula with a metal-depleted spectroscopic binary at its center (Cohen et al. 1975). The nebula appears axially symmetric and shows spikes running tangent to the edge of the bicone. Surrounding the post-AGB star at its center is a circumbinary disk viewed edge-on (Jura, Balm, & Kahane 1995) which could be oxygen-rich (Waters et al. 1998).
C$_2$ and CN are not detected near the binary, though C$_2$ is present in emission in the reflection lobes. CH$^+$ (0,0) and (1,0) are detected in emission (Bakker et al. 1997; Balm & Jura 1992). CO is underabundant, with relatively weak emission and broad wings detected (Dayal & Bieging 1996; Greaves & Holland 1997; Loup et al. 1993; Bujarrabal et al.1992). Glinski et al. (1997) found CO and in the UV in both absorption and emission. They expect strong CO overtone emission in the IR based on their observations of hot CO emission and absorption in the UV. The object shows ERE (extended red emission) from about $\lambda =
5400$ to 7200 Å and a set of emission bands around 5800 Å (Schmidt, Cohen, & Margon 1980) whose carriers might be the same material as the carriers of the DIBs (diffuse interstellar bands). This object also shows strong emission in the PAH bands at 3.3, 7.7, and 11.2 (Cohen et al. 1975), which are located predominantly in the lobes and spikes of emission (Bregman et al. 1993; Hora et al. 1996).
Spectra taken at two different positions are shown, one centered on the core, and the other at 4 S of the core. Both show strong warm dust continuum, and the core also has strong CO bandhead emission features in the $\lambda = 2.3 - 2.4$ range.
### 10420
10420 is a highly evolved, OH/IR star that is thought to be in a post-red supergiant phase (Jones et al. 1993). The central star seems to have changed spectral type, transitioning recently to an early A type (Oudmaijer 1998). Oudmaijer et al. (1996) detected several of the hydrogen lines in absorption and emission in the near-IR, and Oudmaijer (1998) presented a high-resolution 0.38 – 1 spectrum showing a large number of emission and absorption lines. Recent HST imaging by Humphreys et al. (1997) shows that the circumstellar environment around this star is extremely complex, with spherical outer shells that extend to a diameter of 6 arcseconds, and several inner condensations. In the near- and mid-infrared, bipolar lobes are visible that extend $\sim 2$ arcseconds from the core.
The spectrum of 10420 shown in Figure 31 was taken centered on the object. The slit length includes the inner few arcseconds of the object, although it is dominated by the bright core. The observed spectrum shows a bright and relatively featureless continuum. Some lines, e.g., , are seen in absorption.
### M 2–56
The PPN M 2–56 is a bipolar nebula with a bright central core. It is similar in morphology to AFGL 618, although it seems to be at an earlier evolutionary stage since it does not appear to have an region (Trammell, Dinerstein, & Goodrich 1993; Goodrich 1991). The spectrum of M 2–56 shown in Figure 31 was taken centered on the core of this PPN. The dominant feature is a hot dust continuum that is most prominent in the K band region of the spectrum. There are some residual features in the spectrum from imperfect sky subtraction, mostly in the K band.
Discussion and Summary
======================
Spectral Categories
-------------------
The PNe spectra presented in this paper were grouped according to spectral characteristics as described above. The groups are an efficient way to present the data, but also can be seen to correlate strongly with other characteristics of the PN.
### Morphology
The group of - line dominated PNe is composed of primarily elliptical or round PNe, along with the peculiar or irregular nebulae of the sample. In general these PNe are well-known from optical studies, identified either by their morphology or their optical spectra. Many of the PNe in this group of the sample, however, do have IR “excess” continuum emission from warm dust, which in some cases prompted their inclusion in this sample.
The spectral groups with molecular and/or dust continuum emission are primarily bipolar. This classification includes objects such as NGC 6720 which have a ring morphology but are thought to be bipolar viewed pole-on; Hb 12 which is brightest in 2 in the equatorial region and along the outer edges of the lobes; M 2–9 which is brightest in 2 at the edges of the lobes with no equatorial emission other than at the core; and AFGL 2688 which is brightest along the axis of the bipolar lobes, with 2emission in the equatorial plane. Clearly this is a heterogeneous group with a wide range of emission and morphological differences that imply a range of evolutionary tracks and states.
### The Carbon-to-Oxygen Ratio
Carbon stars, although a small fraction of all AGB stars, return about half of the total mass injected into the ISM by all AGB stars, since they have on average much higher mass loss rates ($>10^{-4}\ {\rm
M}_{\sun}\ {\rm yr}^{-1}$) than do O-rich objects. The carbon-to-oxygen (C/O) abundance ratio in PNe has previously been shown to correlate with morphology (Zuckerman & Aller 1986), with bipolar PNe tending to be carbon-rich. It is therefore expected that the C/O ratio also correlates with the spectral classifications presented here. This is in general the case, with the - line dominated PNe having C/O ratios less than or about 1, whereas the remaining categories which are dominated by the bipolar PNe have C/O ratios $>$ 1, as reported by Zuckerman & Aller (1986) and Rola & Stasińska (1994). Rola & Stasińska discuss problems with previous determinations of the C/O ratio, and use different criteria that result in a slightly lower percentage of carbon-rich PNe (35%) than others. Their ratios are used in the discussion below.
The morphology of PN also has been shown to depend on the progenitor mass (see Corradi & Schwarz 1995), with the bipolar PN being more massive than other morphological types. This relationship, along with the link between carbon abundance and morphology, suggests that carbon stars are the progenitors of bipolar PN and those with a large amount of molecular material. The mechanisms that cause massive carbon-rich stars to preferentially form bipolar PN are still not understood.
There are some exceptions to the correlation of morphological type to C/O ratio; in particular, NGC 6543 has a much higher value (9.55) than the others in the class. In the other extreme, NGC 2346 stands out as having a low C/O ratio (0.35) compared to other bipolar PNe in the 2 - dominated group. This object is a much more evolved object than the others in its group (e.g., AFGL 2688), and exhibits weak emission, showing that the ionized gas is present although weak relative to the molecular emission in the nebula.
Spectral Sampling of Morphological Features
-------------------------------------------
This survey has differed from many previous investigations in that a short, narrow slit was used to obtain the data, rather than a large beam that could include most or all of the nebula. Because of this, one cannot easily use the spectra presented here to model the PNe in a global sense, if that requires a measurement of the total flux from the object. Also, if a complete census of emission lines were required, some might be missed if there were variations of emission characteristics across the nebula and certain regions were not sampled.
The spatial selectivity that prevents viewing the entire PN at once, however, has proven to be an advantage when trying to examine various aspects of the PN, including variations across the nebula, as a function of distance from the central star, or in examining certain morphological features. For example, in M 2–9 and NGC 2440, the emission of the lobe walls and emission knots were separately sampled, which showed the large spectral differences in these regions. This information is important for modeling the structure and formation of the PN. Another reason why the small aperture is useful is that if the emission from a group of lines such as 2 is to be modeled, it is important to compare the emission from a clump of material where the conditions do not vary greatly over its size. For example, the emission from 2 present very close to the central star in a strong UV field could be quite different from 2emission from the outer parts of the halo. Also, the small slit has aided in detecting weak 2 emission from several PNe such as NGC 40, where detection would have been difficult if the central star and the rest of the nebula could not be excluded from the measurement.
Summary of Molecular Hydrogen Emission in PNe
---------------------------------------------
A long-standing problem in the interpretation of 2 emission from interstellar and circumstellar environments is understanding the excitation mechanism. Three fundamental mechanisms are possible. One is excitation of a near-infrared fluorescence spectrum resulting from a rotational-vibrational cascade in the ground electronic state following electronic excitation by the absorption a UV photon in the Lyman and Werner bands (Black & van Dishoeck 1987). A second excitation mechanism is collisional excitation in a warm gas ($T_{\rm K} \gtrsim 1600$ K). While UV excitation in a low density gas produces an easily identifiable spectrum, the level populations can be driven to produce thermal line ratios when the UV flux is large and densities begin to exceed $10^4$ 3 (Sternberg & Dalgarno 1989). Detailed spectral and morphological analysis are often required to determine an origin of the near-IR spectrum. A third excitation mechanism is formation of 2 on the surfaces of dust grains and in the gas phase. While potentially important in isolated regions of certain objects, we do not consider this to be generally important in PNe and PPNe relative to the other two processes. This is because molecular formation in PNe is relatively slow compared to dissociation rates.
In PNe and PPNe, the situation can be complicated by both dominant excitation mechanisms being present simultaneously, and in different forms. Several ways of exciting near-IR 2 emission have been identified as possible: direct thermal excitation in warm gas created behind moderate velocity shocks, direct excitation by UV photons from the hot central star, somewhat indirectly by collisional excitation in warm gas created by rapid grain streaming (e.g. Jura & Kroto 1990), and excitation through absorption of photons (by an accidental resonances with the B$^1\Sigma_u^+ - {\rm X}^1\Sigma_g^+$ $v = 1 - 2$ P(5) and R(6) transitions of 2) which can be generated in a nearby strong shock (Black & van Dishoeck 1987).
The first two mechanisms have been identified in several PNe, such as thermal excitation in AFGL 2688 (Hora & Latter 1994; Sahai 1998a), pure UV excitation in a low density gas around Hb 12 (Dinerstein 1988; Hora & Latter 1996; Luhman & Rieke 1996), and UV excitation in a high density gas in M 2–9 (Hora & Latter 1994) and NGC 7027 (Graham 1993b; this paper). A combined spectrum was found from a detailed analysis of AFGL 618 (Latter 1992; this paper). While the form of the excitation might be apparent for these and other objects, it is not always evident what is the source of the warm gas or UV photons. Winds are present in AFGL 2688 which could directly heat the gas through shocks, but considerable grain streaming is likely taking place as well (see Jura & Kroto 1990).
Very fast winds and dissociating shocks are present in AFGL 618, M 2–9 (Kelly, Latter, & Hora 1998), and M 1–16 (Sahai 1994; Schwarz 1992), and all show clear evidence of UV excitation. In addition, the photon path to the 2 emitting regions is not in a direct line-of-sight to the central star, which for photons coming from the central star suggests scattering in what is a fairly low density medium. Alternatively, we are seeing in each of these objects excitation of 2 at the bipolar lobe walls by UV photons generated within strong shocks produced by the fast winds. This hypothesis was explored through detailed modeling by Latter (1992) of AFGL 618, but the high relative intensity of the thermally excited emission and poor spatial resolution limited this analysis. The presence of very fast winds in the lobes of each of these objects, and the presence of UV excited 2 emission at the lobe walls strongly suggests that indirect excitation of the 2 is occurring by interactions with photons generated by wind-produced shocks. Detailed modeling of sensitive, high spatial resolution spectra is required. It is also evident, in general, that without detailed spectra, 2 is a rather poor diagnostic of overall conditions in PNe and PPNe.
If we conclude that all of the ways to excite 2 in PNe and PPNe listed above are present and important, what does this imply for our understanding of these objects and the utility of 2 as a diagnostic? It is now well understood that the presence of molecular emission from PNe and PPNe is tied to the morphology of the objects such that if molecular emission is present, the object has a bipolar morphology (Zuckerman & Gatley 1988; Latter 1996; Kastner 1996, and references therein). We have argued that 2 emission is excited in multiple ways in PNe and PPNe. While special conditions are required for 2 emission to be seen in near-IR spectra, the conditions that drive the excitation are common in all PNe and PPNe and are not clearly dependent on morphological type. A conclusion that can be drawn from this argument alone is that molecular material is present in nebulae with a bipolar morphology and a significant amount of molecular material is $not$ present in other morphological types. Therefore, objects that have a bipolar morphology must have a dense, high mass envelope in which the molecular material can be shielded and survive dissociation for relatively long times – suggesting a high mass loss rate and a high mass progenitor star. A correlation between bipolar morphology and high mass progenitor stars has been found by others (Corradi & Schwarz 1995). It is apparent that the presence of 2 emission in a PN is not tied to directly to the morphology, but that the bipolar morphology is intimately related to the density and mass of the circumstellar envelope, and therefore the mass of the progenitor star. Why high mass, high mass loss rate asymptotic giant branch stars shed material in an axisymmetric, not spherical, way remains a mystery.
We thank Xander Tielens and David Hollenbach for useful discussions and encouragement. We acknowledge support from NASA grant 399-20-61 from the Long Term Space Astrophysics Program. WBL was supported during part of this study by a National Research Council Research Associateship.
Aaquist, O. B., & Kwok, S. 1990, , 84, 229 Acker, A., Marcout, J., Ochsenbein, F., Scholn, C., Stenholm, B., & Tylenda, R. 1992, The Strasbourg - ESO Catalogue of Galactic Planetary Nebulae (München: ESO) Aspin, C. et al. 1993, , 278, 255 Bachiller, R., Fuente, A., Bujarrabal, V., Colomer, F., Loup, C., Omont, A., & de Jong, T. 1997, , 319, 235 Bakker, E. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Shoenmaker, T. 1997, , 323, 469 Balick, B. 1987, AJ, 94, 671 Balick, B., Bignell, C. R., Hjellming, R. M., & Owen, R. 1987, , 94, 948 Balick, B., Gonzalez, G., Frank, A., & Jacoby, G. 1992, , 392, 582 Balick, B., Alexander, J., Hajian, A. R., Terzian, Y., Perinotto, M., & Patriarchi, P. 1998, , 116, 360 Barker, T. 1991, , 371, 217 Beckwith, S., Beck, S. C., & Gatley, I. 1984, , 280, 648 Bieging, J. H. & Ngyuen-Quang-Rieu 1996, , 112, 706 Black, J. H., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1987, , 322, 412 Bohigas, J., & Olguin, L. 1996, RMxAA, 32, 47 Bowers, C. W., Blair, W. P., Long, K. S., & Davidsen, A. F. 1995, , 444, 748 Bregman, J. D., Rank, D., Temi, P., Hudgins, D., & Kay, L. 1993, , 411, 794 Bujarrabal, V., Alcolea, J., & Planesas, P. 1992, , 257, 701 Carsenty, U., & Solf, J. 1982, , 106, 307 Cernicharo, J., Guelin, M., Martin-Pintado, J., Denalver, J.,& Maversberger, R. 1989, , 222, L1 Cohen, M., & Barlow, M. J. 1974, , 193, 401 Cohen, M. & Jones, B. F. 1987, , 321, L151 Cohen, M. & Kuhi, L. V. 1977, , 213, 79 Cohen, M., et al. 1975, , 196, 179 Corradi, R. L. M., & Schwarz, H. E. 1995, , 293, 871 Crampton, D., Cowley, A.P., & Humphreys, R. M. 1975, , 198, L135. Cuesta, L., Phillips, J. P., & Mampaso, A. 1996, , 313, 243 Dayal, A. & Bieging, J. H. 1996, , 472, 703 Dayal, A., Sahai, R., Trauger, J., Hora, J. L., Fazio, G. G., Hoffmann, W. F., Bieging, J. H., Deutsch, L. K., & Latter, W. B. 1997, , 191, 1509 Dinerstein, H. L., Carr, J. S., Harvey, P. M., & Lester, D. F. 1986, in Summer School on Interstellar Processes (Abstract book), p. 43 Dinerstein, H. L., Lester, D. F., Carr, J. S., & Harvey, P. M. 1988, , 327, L27 Dinerstein, H. L., & Crawford, J. 1998, in Proc. IAU Symp. 180, [*Planetary Nebulae*]{}, eds. H. J. Habing & H. J. G. L. M. Lamers (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 221 Feibelman, W. A., Hyung, S., & Aller, L. H. 1996, , 278, 625 Feibelman, W. A. 1997, , 109, 481 Garcia-Lario, P., Manchado, A., Suso, S. R., Pottasch, S. R., & Olling, R. 1990, , 82, 497 Geballe, T. R., Burton, M. G., & Isaacman, I. 1991, , 253, 75 Gillett, F. C., Merrill, K. M., & Stein, W. A. 1972, , 172, 367 Glinski, R. J., Lauroesch, J. T., Reese, M. D., & Sitko, M. L. 1997, , 490, 826 Goodrich, R. W. 1991, , 376, 654 Graham, J. R., Serabyn, E., Herbst, T. M., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., Soifer, B. T., Wilson, T. D., & Beckwith, S. 1993a, , 105, 250 Graham, J. R., Herbst, T. M., Matthews, K., Neugebauer, G., Soifer, T., Serabyn, E., & Beckwith, S. 1993b, , 408, L105 Greaves, J. S. & Holland, W. S. 1997, , 327, 342 Guerrero, M. A., Manchado, A., & Chu, Y.-H. 1997, , 487, 328 Harrington, J. P., & Borkowski, K. J. 1994, , 26, 1469 Harrington, J. P., Lame, N. J., White, S. M., & Borkowski, K. J. 1997, , 113, 2147 Hodapp, K.-W., Hora, J. L., Irwin, E., & Young, T. 1994, , 106, 87 Hora, J. L., Deutsch, L. K., Hoffmann, W. F., Fazio, G. G., & Shivanandan, K. 1993, , 413, 304 Hora, J. L., & Latter, W. B. 1994, , 437, 281 Hora, J. L., & Latter, W. B. 1995, , 449, 397 Hora, J. L., & Latter, W. B. 1996, , 461, 288 Hora, J. L., Deutsch, L. K., Hoffmann, W. F., & Fazio, G. G. 1996, , 112, 2064 Hrivnak, Kwok, S., & Geballe, T. R. 1994, , 420, 783 Hua, C. T., & Grundseth, B. 1986, , 92, 853 Humphreys, R. M., et al. 1997, , 114, 2778 Hyung, S., Aller, L. H., & Feibelman, W. A. 1994, , 269, 975 Hyung, S. & Aller, L. H. 1997, , 491, 242 Jones, T. J., et al. 1993, , 411, 323 Jura, M., & Kroto, H. 1991, , 351, 222 Jura, M., Balm, S. P., & Kahane, C. 1995, , 453, 721 Kahane, C., Cernicharo, J., Gomez-Gonzalez, J., & Guelin, M. 1992, , 256, 235 Kastner, J. H., Weintraub, D. A., Gatley, I., Merrill, K. M., & Probst, R. 1996, , 462, 777 Kawabe, R., Ishiguro, M., Kasuga, T., Morita, K. I., Ukita, N., Kobayashi, H., Okumura, S., Fomalont, E., & Kaifu, N. 1987, , 314, 322 Kelly, D. M., & Latter, W. B., & Rieke, G. H. 1992, , 395, 174 Kelly, D. M., & Latter, W. B. 1995, , 109, 1320 Kelly, D. M., Latter, W. B., & Hora 1998, in preparation Knapp, G. R., Phillips, T. G., Leighton, R. B., Lo, K. Y., Wannier, P. G., & Wooten, H. A. 1982, , 252, 616 Kwok, S., Hrivnak, B. J., & Langill, P. P. 1993, , 408, 586 Lame, N. J., & Pogge, R. W. 1994, , 108, 1860 Latter, W. B., Hora, J. L., Kelly, D. M., Deutsch, L. K., & Maloney, P. R. 1993, , 106, 260 Latter, W.B., Kelly, D. M., Hora, J. L., & Deutsch, L. K. 1995, , 100, 159 (Paper I) Latter, W. B., Maloney, P. R., Kelly, D. M., Black, J. H., Rieke, G. H., & Rieke, M. J. 1992, , 389, 347 Latter, W. B., Hora, J. L., Kelly, D. M., Dayal, A., Bieging, J. H., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Trammell, S., 1998, , 191, 1510 Latter, W. B., & Hora, J. L 1997, in IAU Symp. 180, [*Planetary Nebulae*]{}, eds. H. J. Habing & H. J. G. L. M. Lamers (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 254 Likkel, L., Forveille, T., Omont, A., & Morris, M. 1988, , 198, L1 Likkel, L., Morris, M., Kastner, J. H., & Forveille, T. 1994, , 282, 190. Lo, K. Y. & Bechis, K. P. 1976, , 205, L21 Lopez, J. A., Meaburn, J., Bryce, M., & Holloway, A. J. 1998, , 493, 803 Loup, C., Forveille, T., Omont, A., & Paul, J. F. 1993, , 99, 291. Luhman, K., & Rieke, G. H. 1996, , 461, 298 Luhman, M. L., Luhman, K. L., Benedict, T., Jaffe, D. T., & Fischer, J. 1997, , 480, L133 Manchado, A., Guerrero, M. A., Stanghellini, L., & Serra- Ricart, M. 1996, The IAC Morphological Catalog of Northern Galactic Planetary Nebulae (Tenerife: Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias). Martin-Pintado, J. & Bachiller, R. 1992, , 391, L93 Meaburn, J., Lopez, J. A., Bryce, M., & Mellema, G. 1996, , 307, 579 Meixner, M., Skinner, C. J., Temi, P., Rank, D., Bregman, J., Ball, J. R., Keto, E., Arens, J. F., & Jernigan, J. G. 1993, , 411, 266 Mellema, G. 1995, , 277, 173 Ney, E. P., Merrill, K. M., Becklin, E. E., Neugebauer, G., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1975, , 198, L129 O’Dell, C. R., Weiner, L. D., & Chu, Y.-H. 1990, , 362, 226 Oudmaijer, R. D., Groenewegen, M., Matthews, N., Blommaert, J., & Sahu, K. 1996, , 280, 1062 Oudmaijer, R. D. 1998, , 129, 541 Persi, P., Preite Martinez, A., Ferrari-Toniolo, M., & Spinoglio, L. 1987, in Planetary and proto-planetary nebulae: From IRAS to ISO (Dordrecht, D. Reidel), 221 Phillips, J. P., & Cuesta, L. 1996, , 111, 1227 Ramsay, S. K., Chrysostomou, A., Geballe, T. R., Brand, P. W. J. L., & Mountain, M. 1993, , 263, 695 Rao, K. N., Humphreys, C. J., & Rank, D. H. 1966, Vacuum Wavelengths in the Infrared (New York: Academic Press, Inc.) Reay, N. K., Atherton, P. D., & Taylor, K. 1983, , 203, 1087 Rieke, G. H., & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, , 288, 618 Rola, C., & Stasińska, G. 1994, , 282, 199 Rudy, R. J., Rossano, G. S., Erwin, P. & Puetter, R. C. 1991, , 368, 468 Rudy, R. J., Erwin, P., Rossano, G. S., & Puetter, R. C. 1992, , 384, 536 Sahai, R., Wootten, A., Schwarz, H. E., & Wild, W. 1994, , 428, 237 Sahai, R., 1998a, , 493, 301 Sahai, R., 1998b, , 492, 163 Schmidt, G. D., Cohen, M., & Margon, B. 1980, , 239, L133 Schmidt, G. D., & Cohen, M. 1981, , 246, 444 Schwarz, H. E., Corradi, R. L. M., & Melnick, J. 1992, , 96, 23 Scrimger, M. J., Lowe, R. P., Moorhead, J. M., & Wehlau, W. H. 1978, , 90, 257 Shibata, K. M., Tamura, S., Deguchi, S., Hirano, N., Kameya, O., & Kasuga, T. 1989, , 345, L55 Shupe, D. L., Armus, L., Matthews, K., & Soifer, B. T. 1995, , 109, 1173 Shupe, D. L., Larkin, J. E., Knop, R. A., Armus, L., Matthews, K, & Soifer, B. T. 1998, , 498, 267 Smith, H. A., Larson, H. P., & Fink, U. 1981, , 244, 835 Sternberg, A., & Dalgarno, A. 1989, , 338, 197 Sternberg, A., & Neufeld, D. A. 1999, , in press Thronson, H. A. 1981, , 248, 984 Thronson, H. A. 1982, , 87, 1207 Thronson, H. A. 1983, , 264, 599 Trammell, S. R., & Goodrich, R. W. 1996, , 468, L107 Trammell, S. R., Dinerstein, H. L., & Goodrich, R. W. 1993, , 402, 249 Treffers, R. R., Fink, U., Larson, H. P., & Gautier III, T. N. 1976, , 209, 793 Walsh, J. R., Meaburn, J., & Whitehead, M. J. 1991, , 248, 613 Waters, L. B. F. M., et al. 1998, Nature 391, 868 Wiese, W. L., Smith, M. W., & Miles, B. M. 1969, Nat. Stand. Ref. Data Ser., Nat. Bur. Stand. (US), 22, 189 Willner, S. P., Jones, B., Puetter, R. C., Russell, R. W., & Soifer, B. T. 1979, , 234, 496 Westbrook, W. E., Becklin, E. E., Merrill, K. M., Neugebauer, G., Schmidt, M., Willner, S. P., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1975, , 202, 407 Whitelock, P. A. 1985, , 213, 59 Young, K., Serabyn, G., Phillips, T. G., Knapp, G. R., Gusten, R., & Schultz, A. 1992, , 385, 265 Young K. 1997, , 488, L157 Zhang, C. Y., & Kwok, S. 1992, , 385, 255 Zhang, C. Y., & Kwok, S. 1998, , 117, 341 Zuckerman, B., & Gatley, I. 1988, , 324, 501
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We formulate a simple model for a gas of extended hadrons at zero chemical potential by taking inspiration from the compressible bag model. We show that a crossover transition qualitatively similar to lattice QCD can be reproduced by such a system by including some appropriate additional dynamics. Under certain conditions, at high temperature, the system consists of a finite number of infinitely extended bags, which occupy the entire space. In this situation the system behaves as an ideal gas of quarks and gluons.'
address: 'Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, 94720'
author:
- 'L. Ferroni, V. Koch'
title: Study of the crossover transition of a gas of extended hadrons
---
The gas of compressible hadrons {#intro}
===============================
In this short note we will investigate a possible scenario for the crossover transition of a gas of hadrons at vanishing baryochemical potential (for a detailed description we suggest the reader to refer to [@Ferroni:2008ej]). Following the ideas proposed in [@Gorenstein:1998am], we adopt the philosophy that the same partition function should describe the system at both low and high temperature. To this end we describe hadrons as extended bags of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) in order to embody confined and deconfined phases from the very beginning. Accordingly (as derived in the simplest formulation of the MIT bag model [@Chodos:1974je]), we start by assuming a hadron mass spectrum of the Hagedorn’s type $\rho(m) \propto \exp(m/T_0)/m^\alpha$. To model the transition, however, we need to add some additional dynamics. We found that a qualitatively good agreement with lattice QCD (LQCD) can be obtained by simply taking into account the elastic interactions between hadrons together with excluded volume corrections. The elastic interactions give rise to a [*kinetic*]{} pressure $p_k$ that in turn tends to “squeeze” the bag-like hadrons, resulting in a generalized temperature-dependent mass spectrum. The stability condition for the existence of a bag is given by the pressure balance: $$p_r=B+p_k(V,T) \; ,
\label{simplass}$$ where $p_r$ is the internal pressure of the bag, B is the bag constant and $V$ and $T$ are the system volume and temperature, respectively. In our simple scheme, we adopt Boltzmann statistics and a non-relativistic framework, which is a good approximation in the vicinity of the transition region [@Ferroni:2008ej].
In order to calculate the partition function of the system, one needs to evaluate the internal bags pressure $p_r$ in Eq. (\[simplass\]) that depends on the kinetic pressure $p_k$. Because the pressure $p_k$ is thermally generated, it must be calculated from the partition function itself, resulting in a self-consistency relation.
The behavior of the system depends on the value of the parameter $\alpha$ of the mass spectrum. For $\alpha > 5/2$ it exhibits a first order phase transition, whereas for $\alpha \leq 5/2$ the transition becomes a sharp crossover. Here, we analyze in detail the case of a crossover transition, i.e. $\alpha \leq 5/2$. As an example we show the ratios $(\varepsilon-3p_k)/T^4$ (Fig. (\[isob2\]a)) and $s/T^3\equiv (\varepsilon+p_k)/T^4$ (Fig. (\[isob2\]b)), where $\varepsilon$ and $s$ are the energy and the entropy density, respectively. As one can see from (Fig. (\[isob2\]b)), for $\alpha=0$ and $1/2$, the curves grow with the temperature with larger slopes for smaller $\alpha$’s. Instead, for $1 \leq \alpha \leq 5/2$, they settle onto constant asymptotic values in a qualitatively good agreement with LQCD. As $\alpha$ changes from $1$ to $5/2$ the asymptotic value converges very fast to the Stefan-Boltzmann limit from above [^1].
![[]{data-label="isob2"}](./fig1.eps){width="70.00000%"}
In ref. [@Ferroni:2008ej], we also studied the ratios $p_k(\infty, T)/T^4$ and $\varepsilon/T^4$. Also these quantities exhibit a similar behavior. In the range $1 \leq \alpha \leq 5/2$, the model seems to produce a smooth crossover transition toward a new regime whose features are very similar to those of a gas of massless particles, even though no deconfined states are included in the partition function. We have also studied the (strong) dependence of the particle density $\langle n \rangle = \langle N \rangle/V$ (where $V \rightarrow \infty$) on $\alpha$. We have found that there exist a limiting value $\alpha_0$ between $2.12$ and $2.13$ such that for $\alpha_0<\alpha \leq5/2$ the particle density vanishes at high temperature. The system is then populated by one (or few) infinite bag(s) that occupies the entire volume. Conversely, for $\alpha < \alpha_0$, $\langle n \rangle$ grows with the temperature. In the range $1 \leq \alpha < \alpha_0$, the ideal gas behavior is mimicked by a number of heavy extended bags that saturate the phase space forming a dense system.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Divisions of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
[00]{} L. Ferroni and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 034905 (2009). M. I. Gorenstein, W. Greiner and S. N. Yang, J. Phys. G [**24**]{}, 725 (1998). A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 3471 (1974). M. Cheng [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 014511 (2008).
[^1]: In this work we ignored the $\sim 10 \%$ deviation of the LQCD result from the free gas (Stefan-Boltzmann) limit [@Cheng:2007jq].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In comparison to graphs, combinatorial methods for the isomorphism problem of finite groups are less developed than algebraic ones. To be able to investigate the descriptive complexity of finite groups and the group isomorphism problem, we define the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm for groups. In fact we define three versions of the algorithm. In contrast to graphs, where the three analogous versions readily agree, for groups the situation is more intricate. For groups, we show that their expressive power is linearly related. We also give descriptions in terms of counting logics and bijective pebble games for each of the versions.
In order to construct examples of groups, we devise an isomorphism and non-isomorphism preserving transformation from graphs to groups. Using graphs of high Weisfeiler-Leman dimension, we construct highly similar but non-isomorphic groups with equal $\Theta(\log n)$-subgroup-profiles, which nevertheless have Weisfeiler-Leman dimension 3. These groups are nilpotent groups of class 2 and exponent $p$, they agree in many combinatorial properties such as the combinatorics of their conjugacy classes and have highly similar commuting graphs.
The results indicate that the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm can be more effective in distinguishing groups than in distinguishing graphs based on similar combinatorial constructions.
author:
- |
Jendrik Brachter\
TU Kaiserslautern\
- |
Pascal Schweitzer\
TU Kaiserslautern\
bibliography:
- '../refs.bib'
title: 'On the Weisfeiler-Leman Dimension of Finite Groups'
---
Introduction
============
The notion of isomorphisms between finite groups remains one of the most basic concepts of group theory for which we do not have efficient algorithmic tools. The algorithmic Group Isomorphism Problem formalizes the task of deciding whether two given (finite) groups are isomorphic, but in fact, we do not understand its complexity. We have neither a polynomial time algorithm for testing isomorphism, nor complexity theoretic evidence indicating to us that the problem is not polynomial time solvable. Considering groups of order $n$, a simple approach, attributed to Tarjan in [@Mi78], is to pick a small generating set in one of the groups and to check for all possible images of the generators in the other group, whether the partial map extends to an isomorphism. This approach gives us a worst-case runtime of $n^{\log t+\mathcal{O}(1)}$ where $t$ is the size of the generating set. Since every group of order $n$ has a generating set of size at most $\log n$, this yields $n^{\log n+\mathcal{O}(1)}$ in the worst case. Despite decades of active research this bound has seen only slight improvements for the general case. In fact, Rosenbaum [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1304-3935] was able to improve it to $n^{1/2\log n+\mathcal{O}(1)}$. (See [@DBLP:journals/corr/Luks15] and [@DBLP:journals/tcs/RosenbaumW15] for related discussions on isomorphism of $p$-groups and solvable groups). For various classes of groups, better bounds are known (see further related work). However, even very limited classes of groups provide hard cases for isomorphism testing. One of the most prominent classes in this context is formed by the groups of prime exponent $p$ and nilpotency class $2$. Such groups possess a lot of extra structure, but despite this and despite a large body of research into this structure, even for this limited class, no better general bound has been proven. In fact, this class seems to be at the core of the problem. However, a formal reduction to this or a similar class is not known.
While there exists a vast collection of algebraic methods and heuristics for tackling the group isomorphism problem (see further related work), complexity theoretic and combinatorial aspects seem to be less developed. For example, in 2011, Timothy Gowers asked on Lipton’s blog [@gowers] whether there is an integer $m$ such that the isomorphism class of each finite group is determined by their $m$-subgroup-profile. Here the $m$-subgroup-profile (or $m$-profile) is the multiset of (isomorphism types of) $m$-generated subgroups. Glauberman and Grabowski gave a negative answer by constructing pairs of non-isomorphic groups with the same $\Theta(\sqrt{\log n})$-profiles [@GlaubermanGrabowski]. Subsequently, Wilson constructed many examples of exponent $p$ and nilpotency class $2$ groups which agree in various invariants. In particular they have the same $\Theta(\log n)$-profiles [@WilsonThreshold], which is best possible.
The observation that combinatorial aspects of the group isomorphism problem are less developed is surprising since, for the related graph isomorphism problem, historically, it has been the other way around. Indeed, for graph isomorphism testing, combinatorial approaches are well-developed and often successful, yet their limits have been firmly established. One of the most important tools in this scope is the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm. The $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm ($k$-WL) iteratively classifies $k$-tuples of vertices of a graph in terms of how they are related to other vertices in the graph. It provides an effective invariant for graph-non-isomorphism (see e.g. [@MR0543783; @DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]). Moreover, $k$-WL can be implemented to run in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{k+1}\log n)$ where $n$ is the number of vertices (see [@MR1060782; @1907.09582]). For fixed $k$, the algorithm is only a partial isomorphism test, in that it can distinguish certain pairs of non-isomorphic graphs, but not all of them. A graph is said to have WL-dimension at most $k$, if $k$-WL distinguishes the graph from every non-isomorphic graph. For many important classes of graphs the WL-dimension has been shown to be bounded; examples include planar graphs [@DBLP:conf/stoc/Grohe00; @DBLP:journals/jacm/KieferPS19] for which even $3$ suffices and more generally classes defined by forbidden minors [@MR3729479]. On the other hand, Cai, Fürer and Immerman constructed an infinite family of graphs, for which the WL-dimension is linear in the number of vertices, and thus unbounded [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]. Higher dimensional versions of $k$-WL also appear in Babai’s breakthrough result putting graph-isomorphism in quasi-polynomial time [@DBLP:conf/stoc/Babai16].
There is a deep and well-understood connection between $k$-WL and the expressiveness in the logic $\mathbf{C}^{k+1}$, the extension of the $(k+1)$-variable fragment of first order logic on graphs with counting quantifiers [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]. For example, two graphs can be distinguished by $k$-WL exactly if there is a formula in $\mathbf{C}^{k+1}$ that distinguishes the graphs. Therefore, in some well-defined sense, the $k$-WL algorithm is universal in that it simultaneously checks all combinatorial properties in an input graph expressible in the aforementioned logic.
**Contribution.** The first aim of this paper is to introduce Weisfeiler-Leman-type algorithms and the notion of a WL-dimension for groups analogous to the graph case. While at first sight it seems straightforward to do so, it turns out that various concepts that coincide when applied to graphs (potentially) disagree when applied to groups. Specifically, we define three natural but different versions of a Weisfeiler-Leman dimension. One of them is based on a natural logic for groups while another is natural when taking an algorithmic viewpoint. The third version comes from natural translation of groups into graphs in an isomorphism and non-isomorphism preserving manner. Still, we give descriptions in terms of counting logics and bijective pebble games for each of the versions. A core reason why the different versions arise is that the correspondence between the various concepts arising in this context (specifically logics, algorithms and pebble games) is not as clean as for graphs. However, we argue that the definition is robust after all: we prove that the Weisfeiler-Leman dimensions of the different versions are linearly related. Overall, we obtain a family of algorithms that is similarly universal in checking combinatorial properties as in the graph case. For example, it is easy to see that the $k$-WL algorithm implicitly computes the $k$-profile of groups. In particular, abelian groups are completely identified already by the least powerful of the algorithms.
The second aim of this paper is to understand when and how groups are characterized by their combinatorial properties. On the one hand this addresses the question whether combinatorial methods can solve the Group Isomorphism Problem. On the other hand it provides a way of quantifying similarity of non-isomorphic groups. Specifically, we construct pairs of arbitrarily large non-isomorphic groups that agree with respect to many isomorphism invariants but can still be distinguished with the $3$-dimensional WL-algorithm. More precisely these groups are of nilpotency class $2$ and prime exponent $p$. They are non-isomorphic but have the same $\Theta(\log n)$-profile. They also have highly similar commuting graphs.
For infinitely many $n$ there exist pairs of non-isomorphic groups order $n$ with bounded Weisfeiler-Leman dimension which
- have equal $\Theta(\log n)$-profiles,
- have commuting graphs that are indistinguishable for the $\mathcal{O}(\log(n))$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm (for graphs),
- are of exponent $p$ and nilpotency class $2$, and
- have equal sizes of conjugacy classes.
The theorem shows that the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm can be more effective in distinguishing groups than in distinguishing graphs even when they are based on similar combinatorial constructions. The proof that the WL-dimension is low intuitively indicates that the ability to fix products of elements appears to be related to the ability to fix sets of elements and how to exploit this.
In comparison to the previous constructions mentioned above, our construction has the advantage that it is of a purely combinatorial nature. It is therefore easy to analyze the groups, and many combinatorial properties of the resulting groups can be tuned. In fact, we can start with an arbitrary graph and encode it into a group while preserving isomorphisms. We should stress that even though we start with graphs of unbounded Weisfeiler-Leman dimension, the resulting groups have only dimension 3. This highlights the power of Weisfeiler-Leman-type algorithms to distinguish groups beyond the scope of traditional invariants.
Further related work
--------------------
Our work can be understood as studying the descriptive complexity of finite groups. We refer to Grohe’s monograph [@MR3729479] for extensive information on the descriptive complexity of graphs (rather than groups). A central result in [@MR3729479] shows graph classes with a forbidden minor have bounded WL-dimension. A recent paper relating first order logics and groups is [@MR3705849]. The descriptive complexity of finite abelian groups has been studied in [@DBLP:journals/ijac/Gomaa10]. However, descriptive complexity of groups has been investigated considerably less than that of graphs. In contrast to this, the research body on the algorithmic Group Isomorphism Problem is extensive. The results can generally be divided into research with a more practical and research with a more theoretical focus.
*On the practical side* the best algorithms for isomorphism testing are typically implemented in computer algebra systems such as SAGE, MAGMA, GAP. Classical algorithms include the one by Smith [@smith_1996] (for solvable groups), the one by Eick, Leedham-Green and O’Brien (for $p$-groups) [@MR1904637; @MR1283739], as well as a general algorithm by Cannon and Holt [@DBLP:journals/jsc/CannonH03]. Newer algorithms have been developed by Wilson [@WilsonThesis] with numerous improvements over time together with Brooksbank and Maglione [@MR3591162]. More recent work introduces ever stronger invariants to distinguish groups quickly. We refer to [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1905-02518] for an overview and the most recent techniques and an algorithm incorporating many of them. Dietrich and Wilson report that current isomorphism tests are already infeasible in practice on some groups with orders in the thousands [@1806.08872].
In any case, in our work we focus on the *theoretical side*. As mentioned before, the best bound for the general problem is by Rosenbaum [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1304-3935]. Polynomial time algorithms have been developed for various classes of groups [@DBLP:conf/soda/BabaiCGQ11; @DBLP:conf/icalp/BabaiCQ12; @DBLP:conf/stacs/BabaiQ12; @DBLP:conf/csr/DasS19; @DBLP:conf/stacs/Gall09; @DBLP:journals/siamcomp/GrochowQ17; @DBLP:journals/siamcomp/IvanyosQ19; @DBLP:journals/jcst/QiaoNT12]. There is an algorithm running in polynomial time for most orders [@1806.08872]. For the currently fastest isomorphism algorithm for permutation groups see [@DBLP:conf/soda/Wiebking20].
Recent efforts incorporate the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm into the group isomorphism context [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1905-02518; @DBLP:conf/focs/LiQ17]. However, there is a crucial difference to our work. Indeed, in these papers the authors use a combinatorial construction within the groups acting on vector spaces on which the (graph) WL-algorithm is executed. This is different to the general algorithm for all groups defined here. Thus, a priori the two algorithmic approaches are unrelated, warranting further study.
Preliminaries and notation
==========================
#### Groups.
Groups will be denoted by capital Latin characters. For a group $G$ and elements $g,h\in G$ we write their *commutator* as $[g,h]:=ghg^{-1}h^{-1}$ and we use $G'$ to refer to the subgroup of $G$ generated by all commutators. Then $G'$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G$ with abelian quotient. The *centralizer* of $x\in G$ is $C_G(x):=\{g\in G\mid [x,g]=1\}$ and then $Z(G):=\{g\in G\mid C_G(g)=G\}$ is the *center* of $G$. For a prime $p$, a group is called a $p$-group if $|G|=p^n$ is a power of $p$ (in particular, we assume $G$ to be finite here). The *exponent* of a group is the least common multiple of the orders of its elements. A $p$-group $G$ is *elementary abelian* if it is abelian and of prime exponent (i.e., $G\cong \mathbb{F}_p^n$ for some $n$). The *Frattini-subgroup* $\Phi(G)$ of a group $G$ is the intersection of all maximal subgroups. If $G$ is a $p$-group then $\Phi(G)$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G$ with elementary abelian quotient. The elements of $\Phi(G)$ are *non-generators* in $G$, that is, if $\{g_1,\dots,g_m\}$ generates $G$ then so does $\{g_1,\dots,g_m\}\setminus\Phi(G)$.
We define a $1$-fold commutator to be just a regular commutator and then a $c$-fold commutator is an element of the form $[x,z]$ with $x\in G$ and $z$ a $(c-1)$-fold commutator in $G$. A group $G$ is said to be *nilpotent* if there is some integer $c$ such that $c$-fold commutators are always trivial in $G$ and if this is the case then the *nilpotency class* of $G$ is the smallest such $c$. For example abelian groups are exactly the groups of nilpotency class $1$ and a group has nilpotency class $2$ if and only if it is non-abelian and every commutator is central.
A *group isomorphism* is a bijective map $\varphi\colon G\to H$ that preserves group multiplication. We collect all isomorphisms between $G$ and $H$ in a (possibly empty) set $\operatorname{Iso}(G,H)$ and set $\operatorname{Aut}(G):=\operatorname{Iso}(G,G)$. We write $\operatorname{Sub}(G)$ for the set of all subgroups of $G$.
We assume the term ’group’ to mean ’finite group’ and whenever we include infinite groups we do so explicitly.
#### Graphs.
All graphs will be finite simple undirected graphs and referred to with greek characters, primarily $\Gamma$, subject to suitable subscripts. That is, a graph $\Gamma$ consists of a finite set of vertices $V(\Gamma)$ and a set of edges $E(\Gamma)\subseteq{{V(\Gamma)}\choose{2}}:=\{M\subseteq V(\Gamma)\mid |M|=2 \}$. The *complement* of $\Gamma$ will always be the *simple* complement graph, namely $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma):=\left(V(\Gamma),{{V}\choose{2}}-E(\Gamma)\right)$. The set of *neighbors* of $v\in V(\Gamma)$ is $N(v):=\{w\in V(\Gamma)\mid \{v,w\}\in E\}$ and $N[v] := N(v)\cup\{v\}$ is the *closed neighborhood* of $v$. The *degree* of $v$ is $d(v):=|N(v)|$. A graph is *$d$-regular* if every vertex has degree $d$. For a set of vertices $M\subseteq V(\Gamma)$, the *induced subgraph* is $\Gamma[M]:=\left(M,E(\Gamma)\cap
{{M}\choose{2}}\right)$.
An *isomorphism* of graphs is a bijective map $\varphi\colon V(\Gamma_1)\to V(\Gamma_2)$ that simultaneously preserves edges and non-edges. The set of isomorphisms between $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ is $\operatorname{Iso}(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2)$ and define $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma_1):=\operatorname{Iso}(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_1)$.
The *commuting graph* of a group is the graph whose vertices are the group elements and two distinct elements $g,g'$ are adjacent if $[g,g']=1$.
The WL-algorithm for graphs
---------------------------
Before we explore how the WL-algorithm can be applied to groups, we briefly recapitulate its classic definition for graphs. Given a graph $\Gamma$, the $k$-dimensional version of the algorithm for positive $k\in \mathbb{N}$ repeatedly colors the $k$-tuples of vertices with abstract colors that encode how each tuple is situated within the graph. The initial coloring of each tuple $(g_1,\ldots,g_k)$ encodes the isomorphism type of the graph induced by $\{g_1,\ldots,g_k\}$, taking into account where the vertices occur in the tuple. Specifically, a coloring $\chi_0\colon V(\Gamma)^k\rightarrow S$ into some set of colors is defined so that $\chi_0(g_1,\ldots,g_k) = \chi_0(g'_1,\ldots,g'_k)$ holds exactly if there is an isomorphism from $\Gamma[\{g_1,\ldots,g_k\}]$ to $\Gamma[\{g'_1,\ldots,g'_k\}]$ which sends $g_i$ to $g'_i$ for all $i\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$.
The coloring is now iteratively refined as follows. For a tuple $\bar{g}=(g_1,\ldots,g_k)\in V(\Gamma)^k$ and $x\in V(\Gamma)$, define $\bar{g}_{|i\leftarrow x}$ to be the tuple $(g_1,\ldots,g_{i-1},x,g_{i+1},\ldots,g_k)$ obtained by replacing the $i$-th entry with $x$. Then we define for $k>1$ the coloring $\chi_i(\bar{g}):=$ $$\left( \chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}),{\{\!\!\{}
\newcommand{\rmulset}{\}\!\!\}}(\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|1\leftarrow x}),\dots,\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|k\leftarrow x}))\mid x\in V(\Gamma)\rmulset\right).$$
Here ${\{\!\!\{}
\newcommand{\rmulset}{\}\!\!\}}\cdots \rmulset$ denotes multisets. Thus the color of the next iteration consists of the color of the previous iteration and the multiset of colors obtained by replacing each entry in the tuple with another vertex from the graph. For $k=1$ the definition is slightly different, namely that for $\chi_i(\bar{v})$ the multiset is only taken over vertices $x$ in the neighborhood $N(v)$.
Adding the color of the previous iteration as first entry ensures that the partition induced on $V(\Gamma)$ by $\chi_i$ is finer than (or as fine as) the partition induced by $\chi_{i-1}$. Let $j$ be the least positive integer for which the partition induced by $\chi_{j-1}$ agrees with the partition induced by $\chi_j$, then we define the final coloring $\chi_{\infty}$ to be $\chi_{j-1}$. Since the domain of the $\chi_i$ has size $|V(\Gamma)|^k$, we know that $j\leq |V(\Gamma)|^k$. For fixed $k\in \mathbb{N}$, it is possible to compute the partition of $\chi_{\infty}$ in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{k+1}\log (n))$ [@MR1060782].
To distinguish two non-isomorphic graphs the algorithm is applied on the disjoint union. If in the final coloring the multiset of colors appearing in one graph is different than those appearing in the other graph, then the graphs are not isomorphic. The converse does not necessarily hold, as we explain next.
The CFI-graphs {#sec:CFI-graphs}
--------------
As mentioned previously, for each $k$ there is a pair of non-isomorphic graphs not distinguished by $k$-WL.
\[thm:cfi\] There is an infinite family of pairs of non-isomorphic 3-regular graphs on $\mathcal{O}(k)$ vertices not distinguished by the $k$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm.
=\[circle, draw\]
(a0) at (-1.5,5) ; (b0) at (-3.5,5) ;
(a2) at (1,9) ; (b2) at (-1,9) ;
(a1) at (4,5) ; (b1) at (2,5) ;
(v1) at (-3,7) ; (v2) at (-1,7) ; (v3) at (1,7) ; (v4) at (3,7) ;
(v1) edge (b0) (v1) edge (b2) (v1) edge (b1) (v2) edge (b0) (v2) edge (a2) (v2) edge (a1) (v3) edge (a0) (v3) edge (b2) (v3) edge (a1) (v4) edge (a0) (v4) edge (a2) (v4) edge (b1);
Since we intend to exploit the construction by transferring it to groups, we describe it next. We start with a connected base graph $\Gamma$. In this graph every vertex is replaced by a particular gadget and the gadgets are interconnected according to the edges of $\Gamma$ as follows. For a vertex $v$ of degree $d$ we use the gadget $F_d$, which is a graph whose vertex set consists of external vertices $O_d= \{a^v_1,b^v_1,a^v_2,b^v_2,\ldots,a^v_d,b^v_d\}$ and internal vertices $M_d$. The internal vertices form a copy of the set of those 0-1-strings of length $d$ that have an even number of entries equal to 1. For each $i$, each internal vertex $m$ is adjacent to exactly one vertex of $\{a^v_i,b^v_i\}$, namely it is adjacent to $a_i$ if the $i$-th bit of the string $m$ is 0 and to $b_i$ otherwise. An example of $F_3$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:cfi\]. It remains to explain how the different gadgets are interconnected. For this, for a vertex $v\in\Gamma$ of degree $d$ each edge is associated with one of the pairs $a^v_i,b^v_i$. For an edge $(u,v)\in E(\Gamma)$ assume $u$ is associated with the pair $(a^u_i,b^u_i)$ in the gadget corresponding to $u$ and $v$ is associated with the pair $(a^v_j,b^v_j)$ in the gadget corresponding to $v$. Then we insert (parallel) edges $\{a^u_i,a^v_j\}$ and $\{b^u_i,b^v_j\}$. Adding such parallel edges for each edge of the base graph we obtain the graph $\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma)$. The *twisted CFI-graph* $\widetilde{\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma)}$ is obtained by replacing one pair of (parallel) edges $\{a^u_i,a^v_j\}$ and $\{b^u_i,b^v_j\}$ with the (twisted) edges $\{a^u_i,b^v_j\}$ and $\{b^u_i,a^v_j\}$. It can be shown that for connected base graphs (up to isomorphism) it is irrelevant which edge is twisted [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]. For a subset of the edges of the base graph $E'\subseteq E(\Gamma)$, we can define the graph obtained by twisting exactly the edges in $E'$. The resulting graph is isomorphic to $\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma)$ if $|E'|$ is even and isomorphic to $\widetilde{\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma)}$ otherwise.
In the original construction the base graph is usually thought of as vertex colored with all vertices obtaining a different color. This makes all gadgets distinguishable. The colors can be removed by attaching gadgets retaining the property that the base graph is identified by 2-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman. We want to record here the observation that it is possible to choose the base graph of WL-dimension 2 while maintaining the property that it is 3-regular.
\[obs:base:graph:low:WL:dim\] The 3-regular base graph $\Gamma$ can be chosen to have Weisfeiler-Leman dimension at most 2.
This can be seen in two ways, by adding gadgets on edges or by observing that random expanders, usually used in the construction, have this property.
First order logic with counting {#subsec:first:order:logic:graphs}
-------------------------------
There is a close connection between the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm of dimension $k$ and the $(k+1)$-variable fragment of first order logic on graphs with counting quantifiers [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]. To obtain this logic we endow first order logic with counting quantifiers. The formula $\exists^{\geq i}x \varphi(x)$ expresses then the fact that there are at least $i$ distinct elements that satisfy the formula $\varphi$. For example the formula $\exists^{\geq 3} x \exists^{\geq 4} y E(x,y)$ would express that the graph contains at least 3 vertices of degree at least 4. The logic $\mathbf{C}^{k}$ is the fragment of said logic which allows formulas to only use $k$ distinct variables (that can however be reused an arbitrary number of times). We refer to [@MR1060782] for a more thorough introduction to these logics and a proof that two graphs can be distinguished by $k$-dimensional WL exactly if there is a formula in $\mathbf{C}^{k+1}$ that holds on the one graph but not on the other. Often such logics are endowed with a fixed-point operator, but since we will only apply the formulas to structures of fixed size, this will not be necessary for us (see [@DBLP:books/cu/O2017] for more information).
The pebble game {#subsec:pebble:game:graphs}
---------------
There is a third concept, the bijective pebble game [@DBLP:journals/iandc/Hella96], that has a deeper connection to the logic $\mathbf{C}^{k+1}$ and the $k$-WL. This game is often used to show that graphs cannot be distinguished by $k$-WL. The game is an Ehrenfeucht-Fra[ï]{}ss[é]{}-type game with two players Duplicator and Spoiler. Initially $k+1$ pairs of pebbles, each pair uniquely colored, are placed next to two given input graphs $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2$. Each round proceeds as follows: Spoiler picks up a pebble pair $(p_i; p_i')$ of pebbles of the same color. Then Duplicator chooses a bijection $\varphi$ from $V(\Gamma_1)$ to $V(\Gamma_2)$. Then Spoiler places pebble $p_i$ on a vertex $v\in V(\Gamma_1)$ and places $p_i'$ on $\varphi(v)$. Spoiler wins if at any point in time the graph induced by the vertices occupied by pebbles in $V(\Gamma_1)$ is not isomorphic to the graph induced by the vertices occupied by pebbles in $V(\Gamma_2)$ via a map that sends a pebble $p_i$ to its corresponding pebble of the same color $p_i'$ in the other graph. Spoiler also wins (in round 0) if $|V(\Gamma_1)|\neq |V(\Gamma_2)|$.
When using $k+1$ pebbles on two graphs, the game can be won by Spoiler exactly if $k$-WL distinguishes the graphs [@DBLP:journals/iandc/Hella96].
WL-type algorithms on groups
============================
As with graphs we would like to be able to study combinatorial properties of finite groups using WL-type algorithms. The natural approach is to adapt the methods from the last section to suit (finite) groups. However, depending on the interpretation of these methods, we will obtain several different choices for initial colorings and refinement strategies for finite groups. We will argue that different methods are all in some sense natural and interesting in their own right. However, the different concepts (possibly) lead to different notions of Weisfeiler-Leman dimension for groups. In contrast to this, for graphs, all notions are equivalent. While we are not able to precisely determine whether for groups the different methods are equally powerful at this point, we do however show that exchanging one method for another changes the dimension by at most a constant factor.
Weisfeiler-Leman algorithms for groups
--------------------------------------
The following algorithms define color-refinement procedures on $k$-tuples of group elements. Since groups are (essentially) ternary relational structures, we will usually require for the dimension that $k\geq 2$. In the following let $G$ be a group. We will define three versions of the WL-algorithm for groups.
#### Version I:
Define an initial coloring $\chi_0\colon G^k \rightarrow C$ on $k$-tuples of group elements so that $(g_1,\dots,g_k)$ and $(h_1,\dots,h_k)$ obtain the same color if and only if for all indices $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$ we have $g_i=g_j$ exactly if $h_i=h_j$ and for all indices $i,j,m\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$ we have $g_ig_j=g_m$ exactly if $h_ih_j=h_m$. We iteratively define the refinement $\chi_i$ in the classical way just like it is defined for graphs, that is for $\bar{g}:=(g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k$ we have $\chi_i(\bar{g}):=$ $$\left( \chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}),{\{\!\!\{}
\newcommand{\rmulset}{\}\!\!\}}(\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|1\leftarrow x}),\dots,\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|k\leftarrow x}))\mid x\in G\rmulset\right).$$
#### Version II:
In the definition for graphs, the initial coloring of a tuple takes into account the subgraph induced by the tuple. In analogy to this, one might argue that for groups the initial coloring needs to take into account the subgroup generated by the tuple. Thus, in Version II, we define an initial coloring $\chi_0$ on $k$-tuples of group elements such that $(g_1,\dots,g_k)$ and $(h_1,\dots,h_k)$ obtain the same color if and only if there is a map with $g_i\mapsto h_i$ which extends to an isomorphism from $\langle g_1,\ldots, g_k\rangle $ to $\langle h_1,\ldots, h_k \rangle$. In this case we will also say the tuples agree in their *marked isomorphism type*. The iterative refinement is again performed in the classical way.
#### Version III:
For Version III, we encode groups as graphs, execute the WL-algorithm for graphs and pull back the coloring. For this choose an isomorphism-preserving, invertible functor $\Gamma_{\bullet}$ that maps finite groups $G$ to finite (simple) graphs $\Gamma_G$. Our working example will be the following construction but other choices are certainly possible and many choices will lead to equivalent or at least related algorithms.
To obtain the graph $\Gamma_G$ (see Figure \[fig:mult:gadet\]), start with a set of isolated nodes corresponding to elements of the group $G$. For each pair of group elements $(g,h)$ add a multiplication gadget $M(g,h)$ by adding 4 nodes $a_{gh},b_{gh},c_{gh},d_{gh}$ and add the edges $E(M(g,h))=$ $$\{\{g,\!a_{gh}\},\{h_{gh},\!b_{gh}\},\{gh,\!d_{gh}\},\{a_{gh},\!b_{gh}\},\{b_{gh},\!c_{gh}\},\{c_{gh},\!d_{gh}\}\}.$$
We then use the classical $k$-dimensional WL-algorithm on the graph $\Gamma_G$ and pull back the colorings of $k$-tuples by simply restricting it to $G^k$.
By construction we have $|\Gamma_G|=\Theta(|G|^2)$ and due to vertex-degrees $G$ is a canonical subset of the vertices of $\Gamma_G$. Thus for two groups $G,H$ we have $\Gamma_G\cong \Gamma_H$ if and only if $G\cong H$.
Many other reductions of this form transforming groups to graphs are possible. However, some of them are artificial. For example, one could artificially ensure that the resulting graph has low WL-dimension by precomputing certain isomorphism-invariants not captured by the WL-algorithm. Thus, a unified treatment of all isomorphism-preserving constructions seems infeasible. However, it seems that for many ’well-behaved’ functors the WL-dimension of the constructed graphs differ by a constant factor only. On another note, it would be interesting to obtain efficiently computable subquadratic reductions from groups to graphs, but we are not aware of such a construction.
=\[draw,shape=circle, inner sep=0, minimum height= 0.6cm\] (-7.5,-1.5) node (p1) [$g$]{} (-7.5, 0) node (p2) [a]{} (-5.5,-1.5) node (p3) [$h$]{} (-5.5,0) node (p4) [b]{} (-4.5,0) node (p5) [c]{} (-3.5,0) node (p6) [d]{} (-3.5,-1.5) node (p7) [$gh$]{}; (p1) – (p2) (p2) – (p4) (p3) – (p4) (p2) – (p4) (p5) – (p4) (p5) – (p6) (p6) – (p7);
For fixed $k$, each version of the WL-algorithm gives rise to a polynomial-time (possibly) partial isomorphism test on pairs of finite groups. Indeed, marked isomorphism of $k$-tuples in a group $G$ can be checked in time $\mathcal{O}(|G|\log(|G|))$ so we can compute initial colors in time $\mathcal{O}(|G|^{k+1}\log(|G|))$ for Versions I and II. The refinement steps are the same as for graphs and thus we obtain the same $\mathcal{O}(|G|^{k+1}\log(|G|))$ bound for the rest of the computation. For Version III we have a quadratic blowup yielding time $\mathcal{O}(|G|^{2k+1}\log(|G|))$.
Groups $G$ and $H$ are equivalent with respect to $k$-WL in Version $J\in\{\text{{\textup{I}},{\textup{II}},{\textup{III}}}\}$, in symbols $G\equiv_{WL_k^J} H$, if there is a bijection $f\colon G^k\to H^k$ preserving final colors of the respective color-refinement procedure. Furthermore we write $WL_k^J\preceq WL_{k'}^{J'}$ if it holds that $G\equiv_{WL_{k'}^{J'}} H\Rightarrow G\equiv_{WL_k^J} H$, i.e., the distinguishing power of $WL_k^J$ is weaker than or equal to the distinguishing power of $WL_{k'}^{J'}$.
The main result of this section is that we can exchange one version for another when we multiply the dimension with a constant factor. When studying WL-type algorithms it is often useful to have equivalent pebble games at hand, so we first associate a pebble game to each of the variants above.
Bijective $k$-pebble games
--------------------------
We now define suitable pebble games for the different versions. Each of these games is played by two players Spoiler and Duplicator and in each case we will say that Duplicator wins the game if and only if there is a strategy for Duplicator to keep the game going on forever. The board consists of a pair of finite groups $G,H$ of equal order (or rather their elements) or a pair of corresponding graphs $\Gamma_G,\Gamma_H$ for Version III, respectively. There are $k$ pairs of pebbles $(p_1;p'_1), \ldots (p_k;p'_k)$. We think of pebbles in the same pair as having the same color, and pebbles from different pairs as having distinct colors. The pebbles can be placed beside the board or on the group elements (graph vertices in Version III), in which case we say a group element is pebbled. Pebbles $p_i$ are placed on elements of $G$ (vertices of $\Gamma_G$) and pebbles $p'_i$ on $H$ ($\Gamma_H$). At any point in time the pebbles $(p_1,\ldots,p_k)$ give us a pebbled tuple in $(G\cup \{\bot\})^k$ (or $(\Gamma_G\cup\{\bot\})^k$), where $\bot$ indicates that the pebble is placed besides the board.
#### Version I:
All $k$ pairs of pebbles are initially placed beside the board. A round of the game consists of these steps:
1. Spoiler picks up a pair of pebbles $(p_i;p_i')$.
2. Duplicator chooses a bijection $f\colon G\to H$.
3. Spoiler pebbles some element $g\in G$ with $p_i$, the corresponding pebble $p_i'$ is placed on $f(g)$.
The winning condition is always checked right after Step 1. At that moment, the pebbles not in Spoiler’s hand then pebble a $k$-tuple over $G\cup\{\bot\}$ and a corresponding $k$-tuple over $H\cup\{\bot\}$. Spoiler wins if the pebbled tuples differ with respect to the initial coloring of Version I. (This implies that no more pebbles are placed beside the graph.)
#### Version II:
Version II differs from Version I only in that the winning condition uses the initial coloring of Version II rather than Version I. That is, Spoiler wins if the map induced by pairs of pebbles does not extend to an isomorphism between the subgroups generated by the pebbled group elements, and the game continues otherwise.
#### Version III:
Version III is the (classical) bijective $k$-pebble game for graphs played on $\Gamma_G$ and $\Gamma_H$ (see Subsection \[subsec:pebble:game:graphs\]).
In the pebble games, when we say that “Duplicator has to do something”, we mean that otherwise Spoiler wins the game. We say that Duplicator respects a certain property of group elements if Duplicator always has to pebble pairs of groups elements which agree in whether they have the property. One can show that Duplicator must respect the partial mapping given by the pairs of pebbles that are currently on the board. Indeed, otherwise Spoiler can win in the next round by pebbling the location where this is violated.
For each game we can also use initial configurations of pebbled tuples instead of starting from empty configurations.
*Remark:* Color refinement and pebble games are not necessarily restricted to finite groups. While not clear that the results are computable, they still may be of theoretical interest. The same goes for the logics defined next.
Logics with counting
--------------------
As for graphs, the $k$-dimensional refinement on groups can also be interpreted in terms of first-order counting logic.
Recall the central aspects of first order logic. There is a countable set of variables $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots\}$. Formulas are inductively defined so that $x_i=x_j$ is a formula for all pairs of variables and if $\varphi$ is a formula then $\varphi\wedge \varphi$, $\varphi\vee \varphi$,$\neg \varphi$, $\exists x_i \varphi$ and $\forall x_i \varphi$ are formulas. The semantics are defined in the obvious way. First order logic with counting allows additionally formulas of the form $\exists^{\geq t}x_i \varphi(x_i)$ with the semantic meaning that there are at least $t$ distinct elements that satisfy $\varphi$.
To define logics on groups we need to additionally define a relation that relates to the group multiplication.
#### Version I:
In Version I we add a ternary relation $R$ with which we can create terms of the form $R(x_i,x_j,x_\ell)$. The semantic interpretation is that $R(x_i,x_j,x_\ell)$ holds if $x_i \cdot x_j = x_{\ell}$. We call $\mathcal{L}_{\textup{I}}$ the first order logic with counting on groups arising this way and let $\mathcal{L}^k_{\textup{I}}$ be its $k$-variable fragment.
#### Version II:
For $\mathcal{L}_{{\textup{II}}}$ we use a different relation to access multiplication: The relation $R(x_{i_1},x_{i_2},\ldots,x_{i_t};w)$ holds, where $w\in (\{x_{i_1},x_{i_2},\ldots,x_{i_t}\}\cup \{x_{i_1}^{-1},x_{i_2}^{-1},\ldots,x_{i_t}^{-1}\})^*$ is a word in the $x_{i_j}$, if multiplying the elements according to $w$ gives the trivial element. For example in an abelian group $G$ the relation $R(a,b;aba^{-1}b^{-1})$ would hold for all elements $a,b\in G$. The relation $R(a;aa)$ would only hold if $a$ is the trivial element. We let $\mathcal{L}^k_{{\textup{II}}}$ be the $k$-variable fragment of the logic. Note that for $\mathcal{L}^k_{{\textup{II}}}$ it actually suffices to use only $k+1$ entries in the relation.
#### Version III:
The natural choice of logic for Version III is of course the classical first order logic with counting $\mathbf{C}$ on graphs as discussed in the preliminaries (Subsection \[subsec:first:order:logic:graphs\]), where we have the relation $E(u,v)$ to encode edges. For notational consistency we define $\mathcal{L}^k_{{\textup{III}}} \coloneqq \mathbf{C}^{k}$ to be the $k$-variable fragment of this logic.
Equivalence between the different concepts {#subsec:equivalence:of:concepts}
------------------------------------------
For each of the versions we have defined, we sketch the arguments for equivalence of the expressive power between the WL-algorithm, the pebble game, and the corresponding logic. Let us fix groups $G$ and $H$ of the same order. The argument basically follows other well known arguments to show such equivalences (see e.g., [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92]).
\[thm:game:and:algo:agree\] Two groups $G$ and $H$ are distinguished by the $k$-WL-refinement (Version $J\in \{\text{{\textup{I}},{\textup{II}},{\textup{III}}}\}$) if and only if the same holds for the bijective $k+1$-pebble game (Version $J$).
*Remark:* Let us remark on a small detail where the group situation can differ from that of graphs. Note that in our definition of the game, the winning condition is only ever checked after Step 1. We could also check the winning condition when $k+1$ pebble pairs are situated on the group after a round is finished. For this we would need an initial coloring that works with $k+1$ tuples. For graphs this change does not make a difference, since the winning condition only ever depends on 2 pebble pairs. Similarly for Version I, where the winning condition occurs due to 3 pebble pairs, if $k>3$ then it is irrelevant when we check the winning condition. However, for Version II we are not so sure how the power of the game changes, when altering the moment at which the winning condition is checked.
\[thm:game:and:logic:agree\] $G\not\equiv_{WL_k^J}H$ if and only if there is a sentence in $\mathcal{L}^{k+1}_J$ that holds on one of the groups but not the other.
The rest of this section contains the proof of Theorems \[thm:game:and:algo:agree\] and \[thm:game:and:logic:agree\].
Suppose $\bar{g} := (g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k$ and $\bar{h} := (h_1,\dots,h_k)\in H^k$. If $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ obtain different colors in the $i$-th iteration of $k$-dimensional WL-refinement then Spoiler can win the $(k+1)$-pebble game in $i$ moves on initial configuration $(\bar{g},\bar{h})$. (Here we use the same version for WL-refinement and pebble game.)
*(Version I.)* For $i=0$ there is nothing to show. Assume now that $i>0$. By assumption $\chi_i(\bar{g})$ and $\chi_i(\bar{h})$ are different which means that either we already have $\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g})\neq\chi_{i-1}(\bar{h})$ or there is no color-preserving matching between the tuples $(\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|1\leftarrow x}),\dots,\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|k\leftarrow x}))$ for $x\in G$ and tuples $(\chi_{i-1}(\bar{h}_{|1\leftarrow y}),\dots,\chi_{i-1}(\bar{h}_{|k\leftarrow y}))$ for $y\in H$. In other words, no matter which bijection $f\colon G\to H$ with $f(g_j)=h_j$ Duplicator chooses there will be some $x\in G$ and some position $1\leq j\leq k$ such that $\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g}_{|j\leftarrow x})\neq \chi_{i-1}(\bar{h}_{|j\leftarrow f(x)})$ and Spoiler can make progress by changing the $j$-th pebble from $g_j$ to $x$. By induction, Spoiler now has a winning strategy with $i-1$ moves while having moved at most once.
*(Version II.)* If $i=0$ then $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ differ with respect to marked isomorphism, thus Spoiler can win without moving at all. For $i>0$ the argument is the same as before since the refinement steps are defined equally.
*(Version III.)* This is exactly the classical result for graphs, see [@DBLP:journals/iandc/Hella96; @DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92].
Suppose $\bar{g} := (g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k$ and $\bar{h} := (h_1,\dots,h_k)\in H^k$. If Spoiler can win the $(k+1)$-pebble game in $i$ moves on initial configuration $(\bar{g},\bar{h})$ then $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ obtain different colors in the $i$-th iteration of $k$-dimensional WL-refinement. (Again we use the same version for WL-refinement and pebble game.)
*(Version I.)* If $i=0$ then the initial configuration is already a winning one for Spoiler which is by definition the same as $k$-tuples getting different initial colors. By induction, for any bijection $f\colon G\to H$ Duplicator may choose, Spoiler can reach in one move a configuration $(\bar{g_1},\bar{h_1})$ where $\bar{g_1}=\bar{g}_{|j\leftarrow x}$ and $\bar{h_1}=\bar{h}_{|j\leftarrow f(x)}$ for some position $j$ and such that $\chi_{i-1}(\bar{g_1})\neq \chi_{i-1}(\bar{h_1})$. Since this is true for any possible bijection, the tuples $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ already have to differ with respect to $\chi_i$.
*(Version II.)* The argument is the same as for Version I.
*(Version III.)* This is again a classical result [@DBLP:journals/iandc/Hella96; @DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92].
Theorem \[thm:game:and:algo:agree\] follows immediately from the previous two lemmas.
It remains to argue the equivalences between the logic and the pebble game for each of the versions. This again basically follows from known techniques.
We first argue that for Version I and II the quantifier free formulas of the $k$-variable fragment of each version characterize the initial colorings.
\[lem:quantifier-free:formula:is:inital:col\] There is a quantifier free $k$-variable formula $\varphi(x_1,\dots,x_k)\in\mathcal{L}_J$ distinguishing $k$-tuples $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ if and only if these tuples differ in their initial coloring in version $J\in \{\text{{\textup{I}},{\textup{II}}}\}$.
If $J=1$ then $\varphi$ distinguishes the tuples $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ if and only if there is an atomic statement of the form $x_i=x_s$ or $R(x_i,x_j,x_s)$, interpreted as $x_i\cdot x_j = x_s$, with respect to which $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ differ. This is precisely the definition of the Version I initial coloring. For Version $J={\textup{II}}$, if some word over $\bar{g}$ is (non)trivial but the corresponding word over $\bar{h}$ is not then clearly mapping $\bar{g}$ to $\bar{h}$ does not extend to an isomorphism. Assume now that $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ have different marked isomorphism types and w.l.o.g. we have $ |\langle \bar{g}\rangle|\leq |\langle \bar{h}\rangle|$. By assumption every injective map between these groups extending $\bar{g}\mapsto\bar{h}$ is not multiplicative. This fact can be expressed in terms of a suitable word over $k$ symbols separating $\bar{g}$ from $\bar{h}$.
Suppose $\bar{g} := (g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k$ and $\bar{h} := (h_1,\dots,h_k)\in H^k$. For each Version $J\in \{\text{I,II,III}\}$, the tuples $\bar{g}$ and $\bar{h}$ are distinguished by $k$-WL if and only if there is a formula $\varphi(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ in $\mathcal{L}^{k+1}_J$ such that $\varphi(\bar{g})\nLeftrightarrow\varphi(\bar{h})$.
*(Version I.)* For Version I, due to Lemma \[lem:quantifier-free:formula:is:inital:col\], the expressive power of the initial coloring is precisely the expressive power of quantifier-free formulas. The distinguishing power of the WL-algorithm on groups is thus equal to distinguishing power of the classical algorithm executed on a structure that is already endowed with the initial coloring. The equivalence between the $(k+1)$-variable fragment of the logic and the $k$-WL algorithm for Version I on groups thus follows from the respective equivalence for graphs shown in [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92].
*(Version II.)* For Version II the argument is the same as for Version I except that we add the following observation: Since $G$ and $H$ are finite groups there is only a finite number of nonequivalent quantifier free formulas over $\mathcal{L}_2$. By Lemma \[lem:quantifier-free:formula:is:inital:col\] tuples can be distinguished exactly if they obtain different colors in the initial coloring of Version II.
*(Version III.)* This is again a classical result [@DBLP:journals/combinatorica/CaiFI92].
Theorem \[thm:game:and:logic:agree\] follows immediately from the previous two lemmas.
Relationship between the different WL-algorithm versions {#subsec:relationship:between:versions}
--------------------------------------------------------
Next, we want to relate different versions to each other and we will do so by exploiting the equivalence to pebble games.
Consider the $k$-pebble game on graphs $\Gamma_G$ and $\Gamma_H$ and assume that a pair of pebbles is placed on vertices corresponding to multiplication gadgets $M(g_1,g_2)$ and $M(h_1,h_2)$ (but not on vertices corresponding to group elements). Then the pairs $(g_1,h_1)$ and $(g_2,h_2)$ will be called *implicitly pebbled*. Note that implicit pebbles always induce a pairing of group elements.
Intuitively, pebbling a vertex in a multiplication gadget is as strong as pebbling two group elements simultaneously, hence the definition of implicit pebbles. It can be shown that Duplicator has to respect the gadget structure and in particular the multiplication structure of the implicitly pebbled elements.
\[thm:relationship:between:versions\] For all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $WL_k^{\textup{I}}\preceq WL_k^{\textup{II}}\preceq WL_{k/2+2}^{\textup{III}}\preceq WL_{k+5}^{\textup{I}}$.
The rest of this section spans the proof of this theorem.
\[graph pebble game lemma\] Consider the $k$-pebble game on graphs $\Gamma_G$ and $\Gamma_H$. If $k\geq 4$ and one of the following happens
1. Duplicator chooses a bijection $f\colon \Gamma_G\to\Gamma_H$ with $f(G)\neq H$,
2. after choosing a bijection, there is a pebble pair $(p,p')$, for which pebble $p$ is on some vertex of $M(g_1,g_2)$ (not on $g_1$, $g_2$ or $g_1g_2$) and $p'$ is on some vertex of $M(h_1,h_2)$ but $(f(g_1),f(g_2),f(g_1g_2))\neq (h_1,h_2,h_1h_2)$, or
3. the map induced on group elements pebbled or implicitly pebbled by $k-2$ pebbles does not extend to a group isomorphism between the corresponding generated subgroups
then Spoiler can win the game.
1. In $\Gamma_G$ vertices corresponding to group elements have degree $3|G|$ while other vertices have degree $2$ or $3$.
2. From now on always assume $f(G)=H$. Write $g_3:=g_1g_2$ and $h_3:=h_1h_2$. Let $f(g_i)\neq h_i$ for some $1\leq i\leq 3$ and put a pebble $q$ other than $p$ on $g_i$ and the corresponding one $q'$ on $f(g_i)$. If pebble $p$ is not on the same type of vertex (i.e., Type $a$, $b$, $c$ or $d$, see Figure \[fig:mult:gadet\]) as pebble $p'$ then Spoiler wins, since either the vertices have different degrees or their neighbors have different degrees.
Now the pebbled vertex in $M(g_1,g_2)$ is connected to $g_i$ directly or via a path of non-group element vertices and for $f(g_i)$ and $M(h_1,h_2)$ either this is not the case or the path uses different types of vertices. Using a third pebble pair Spoiler can explore this path and win on a configuration of three pebbles.
3. By assumption there are at most $m:=2(k-2)$ implicitely pebbled pairs of group elements corresponding to at most $k-2$ pebbles that are currently on the board. We may assume that there are exactly $m$ such pairs, $(g_1,h_1),\dots,(g_m,h_m)$ say. By the second part of this lemma Duplicator has to choose some bijection $f$ such that $\bar{g}:=(g_1,\dots,g_m)\mapsto \bar{h}:=(h_1,\dots,h_m)$ respecting the pairing induced by indirectly pebbled group elements. By assumption this correspondence does not extend to an isomorphism between $\langle\bar{g}\rangle$ and $\langle\bar{h}\rangle$ so there must be a smallest word $w:=g_{i_1}\dots g_{i_t}$ over $\bar{g}$ such that $$f(w)\neq f(g_{i_1})\dots f(g_{i_t}).$$ Spoiler can use an additional pair of pebbles to fix this image of $w$. Now Duplicator chooses a new bijection $f'$ on the remaining group elements. There is now either a smaller word over $\bar{g}$ with this property, in which case Spoiler moves the last pebble pair we just introduced to this new word and its image, or $w$ is still minimal with this property. The first case can only occur finitely many times and if $|w|=2$ Spoiler wins by part $2$. Thus assume that $w$ is still minimal. But then $$f'(g_{i_1})f'(g_{i_2}\dots g_{i_t})=f'(g_{i_1})f'(g_{i_2})\dots f'(g_{i_t})\neq f'(w)$$and using a second additional pair of pebbles (now a total of at most $k$ pairs of actual pebbles) Spoiler can also fix the image of $g_{i_2}\dots g_{i_t}$ to be $f'(g_{i_2}\dots g_{i_t})$ and clearly wins from this configuration in at most two further rounds.
If $G\not\equiv_{WL_k^{\textup{II}}} H$ then $G\not\equiv_{WL_{\lceil k/2\rceil +2}^{\textup{III}}} H$.
Assume that Spoiler wins the $(k+1)$-pebble game in Version II. The idea is to simultaneously play a Version II game on groups and a Version III game on graphs. For this purpose we have to be able to compare pebble-configurations from the different games. Let $(\bar{g},\bar{h})$ be a configuration of pebbled $r$-tuples on $G$ and $H$ and call a configuration on graphs *admissible* if it looks as follows: There is one pair of pebbles on the multiplication gadgets $M(g_1,g_2)$ and $M(h_1,h_2)$, another pair on $M(g_3,g_4)$ and $M(h_3,h_4)$ and so forth. If $r$ is odd then there is another pair of pebbles on vertices $g_r$ and $h_r$ and there are no other pebbles on the graphs. Note that the number of pebbles on each graph is $\lceil r/2\rceil$ and that implicit pebbles (together with the pebbles on $g_r,h_r$) correspond exactly to the pebbles on groups in Version II. Using Lemma \[graph pebble game lemma\] we can assume throughout the game that Duplicator chooses bijections on graphs that restrict to bijections on groups and that those restrictions respect implicit pebbles or otherwise Spoiler would win Version III right away. That means that given an admissible configuration, the bijection Duplicator chooses in Version III can be used as a Version II bijection as well. Spoiler will then move in Version II and we argue that Spoiler can win in Version III or force Duplicator into another admissible configuration. Since Spoiler can choose arbitrary moves in Version II, by assumption Spoiler will win in Version II at some point. Using Lemma \[graph pebble game lemma\] again, we see that Duplicator will eventually lose the Version III game on this configuration. It remains to argue that Spoiler can maintain admissible configurations. Assume Duplicator chose a bijection $f\colon \Gamma_G\to\Gamma_H$ as above. There are two cases: Spoiler moves a pebble or introduces a new one. Suppose Spoiler introduces a new pebble pair on $g_{r+1}$ and $h_{r+1}$ in the groups. If $r+1$ is even the new pebble on $g_{r+1}$ is grouped with the already existing pebble on $g_r$. In the graph, Spoiler will put a pebble on $M(g_r,g_{r+1})$. The corresponding pebble should be put on $M(h_r,h_{r+1})$ to obtain an admissible configuration. But since $g_{r+1}$ was not necessarily (implicitly) pebbled it may be the case that $f$ does not map $M(g_r,g_{r+1})$ to $M(h_r,h_{r+1})$. To fix this, Spoiler first pebbles $g_{r+1}$ and $h_{r+1}$ directly, using one additional pebble, and asks for another bijection. By Lemma \[graph pebble game lemma\] this bijection must now map $M(g_r,g_{r+1})$ to $M(h_r,h_{r+1})$ and Spoiler reaches an admissible configuration in Version III in two more moves, removing the additional pebble again. The case where a pebble is moved rather than newly introduced can be treated in the same way.
If $G\not\equiv_{WL_k^{\textup{III}}} H$ then $G\not\equiv_{WL_{2k+1}^{\textup{I}}} H$.
We now want to reverse the argument from the last lemma. Given a pebble-configuration on graphs $\Gamma_G$ and $\Gamma_H$ we call a pebble-configuration on groups *admissible* if the following holds: for each pair of pebbles on element-vertices the corresponding elements in $G$ and $H$ are pebbled as well and for each pair of pebbles on non-element vertices, that is, pebbles on gadgets $M(g_1,g_2)$ and $M(h_1,h_2)$, there are pairs of pebbles on $g_1$ and $h_1$, $g_2$ and $h_2$, respectively. Note that, w.l.o.g., (non-)element-vertices are only pebbled among each other by Lemma \[graph pebble game lemma\]. Also the number of pebbles on groups in an admissible configuration is at most twice the number of pebbles on graphs. Since Spoiler can move two implicit pebbles at once in Version III we will look at two consecutive rounds of the Version I game at once. Let Duplicator choose a bijection $\varphi\colon G\to H$ in the Version I game. For each possible Spoiler move introducing an additional pebble on $x$, Duplicator has to commit to one bijection $\varphi_{x}$ on the new configuration. We can force Duplicator to choose this bijection in the corresponding configuration from now on without changing the deterministic outcome of the game, because Duplicator is allowed to choose it freely once. This gives rise to a bijection between pairs of group elements mapping $(x,y)$ to $(\varphi(x),\varphi_x(y))$. Note that this happens without actually making moves, rather think of Duplicators strategy as being precomputable by Spoiler due to the deterministic nature of the game. The map on pairs can now be interpreted as a mapping between element vertices together with a mapping of corresponding multiplication gadgets and will be used as the next Duplicator move in the Version III game. If the Spoiler move in Version III moves two implicit pebbles at once, Spoiler can reach an admissible configuration in three rounds (one additional round for discarding the additional pebble) in the Version I game while Duplicator chooses bijections according to the precomputed strategy.
Finally, before Spoiler wins in Version III, Spoiler will win in Version I. More precisely, as long as the map on pebbles in the Version I game is multiplicative, the corresponding map induced on the pebbled subgraph will be a graph isomorphism, since multiplicativity on pebbles can be expressed equivalently in terms of mapping gadgets accordingly.
The first inclusion is clear. The other inclusions are the content of the previous lemmas.
We remark that the additive constants in the Theorem \[thm:relationship:between:versions\] could be improved for $k>2$ by reusing pebbles, but we do not worry about explicit constants at this point. It is also possible to show $WL_k^{\textup{II}}\preceq WL_{k+1}^{\textup{I}}$ directly.
Embedding graphs into finite groups {#sec:embed:graphs:to:groups}
===================================
Next, we describe a construction of finite groups from graphs such that structural properties of the resulting groups are primarily determined by the graphs. We will make this statement more precise in the following. From now on fix an odd prime $p$.
For each natural number $n$ there is a relatively free group of exponent $p\neq 2$ and (nilpotency) class $2$ generated by $n$ elements. It admits a finite presentation $$F_{n,p}=\langle x_1,\dots,x_n\mid R(p,n)\rangle$$where $R(p,n)$ consists of the following relations:
1. For all $1\leq i\leq n$ there is a relation $x_i^p=1$, and
2. for all $1\leq i,j,k\leq n$ there is a relation $[[x_i,\!x_j],\!x_k]=1$.
Thus, the group is generated by $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, each of these generators is an element of order $p$, and the commutator of two generators commutes with every generator and thus every element of the group. It follows from these properties that elements of $F_{n,p}$ can be uniquely written as $$x_1^{d_1}\cdot\ldots\cdot x_n^{d_n}
[x_1,x_2]^{d_{1,2}}[x_1,x_3]^{d_{1,3}}\cdot\ldots\cdot
[x_{n-1},x_n]^{d_{n-1,n}}$$ where exponents are defined modulo $p$. In particular, $|F_{n,p}|=p^{n+n(n-1)/2}$.
The main goal is to construct quotients of $F_{n,p}$ using graphs on vertex set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$ as templates in a way that translates combinatorial similarity of the graphs (with respect to Weisfeiler-Leman-refinement) to similar subgroup profiles. We will see that this affects other isomorphism invariants as well.
To each (simple, undirected) graph $\Gamma=\left(\{v_1,\dots,v_n\},E\right)$ and prime number $p$ we assign a finite exponent $p$ group of nilpotency class $2$ via $$G_\Gamma := \left\langle x_1,\dots,x_n\mid R(p,n),
[x_i,x_j]=1: \{v_i,v_j\}\in E \right\rangle.$$ Thus, in $G_\Gamma$ two generators $x_i,x_j$ commute, if the corresponding vertices form an edge in $\Gamma$. We usually identify $x_i$ with $v_i$ and use the latter to refer to the vertex as well as the respective element of $G_\Gamma$. We fix an order on generators $v_1,\dots,v_n$ and call these the *standard generators* for $G_\Gamma$. The particular presentation above is called the *presentation of $G_{\Gamma}$ from $\Gamma$*.
It turns out that this construction has also been used in other contexts. It is sometimes called *Mekler’s construction* in the literature (see [@mekler_1981] for Mekler’s original work) and has been primarily investigated for infinite graphs with respect to model theoretic properties. We first collect some possibly well known combinatorial and group theoretic properties.
\[lem:vertices:are:gen:set\] We have $\Phi(G_\Gamma)=G'_\Gamma$ and the vertices of $\Gamma$ form a generating set of $G_\Gamma$ of minimal cardinality.
By construction $G_\Gamma$ has exponent $p$ and thus $\Phi(G_\Gamma)=G'_\Gamma$ (since for $p$-groups the Frattini-subgroup is the minimal subgroup with elementary abelian quotient). The cardinality of a minimal generating set of $G_\Gamma$ is the dimension of the $\mathbb{F}_p$-space $G_\Gamma/\Phi(G_\Gamma)$ which is now equal to $G_\Gamma/G'_\Gamma$. We have $$G_\Gamma/G'_\Gamma\cong \left\langle V(\Gamma)\mid \text{exponent $p$, abelian}\right\rangle\cong \mathbb{F}_p^{|V(\Gamma)|}$$ showing the claim.
\[lem:non-edges:are:basis:of:commutator:subgroup\] Denote by $d$ the number of non-edges in $\Gamma$. Then $G'_\Gamma\cong\mathbb{F}_p^d$, i.e., the set of non-edges of $\Gamma$ forms a basis in $G'_\Gamma$.
We have $G'_\Gamma=(F_{n,p}/N)'$ for some normal subgroup $N\leq F_{n,p}'$ with $|N|=p^{|E(\Gamma)|}$ and since commutators are central in $F_{n,p}$ we have $(F_{n,p}/N)'=F_{n,p}'/N$ where $|F_{n,p}'|/|N|=p^{{{n}\choose{2}}-|E(\Gamma)|}=p^d$.
This also gives us normal forms for elements of $G_\Gamma$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a (simple) graph. Then we have $|G_\Gamma|=p^{|V(\Gamma)|+\left\vert{{V}\choose{2}}-E(\Gamma)\right\vert}$. In particular, every element of $G_\Gamma$ can be written in the form $$v_1^{d_1}\dots v_n^{d_n}c_1^{d_{n+1}}\dots c_k^{d_{n+k}}$$ where $\{c_1,\dots,c_k\}$ is the set of non-trivial commutators between generators (i.e., the non-edges of the graph $\Gamma$) and each $d_i$ is uniquely determined modulo $p$.
We will see that a lot of information on commutation and centralizers can be deduced from $\Gamma$ directly. We first need to recall some well known properties of commutators in (nilpotent) groups.
\[lem:commutator:rels\] Let $G$ be a group of nilpotency class $2$. Then for all $a,b,c\in G$ we have
1. $[a,b]=[b,a^{-1}]$ and
2. $[a,bc]=[a,b][a,c]$.
In particular for all $n,m\in \mathbb{N}$ we have $[a^m,b^n]=[a,b]^{mn}$.
Recall that nilpotency class $2$ means that all commutators are central in $G$. We thus have $[a,b]=aba^{-1}b^{-1}=aba^{-1}b^{-1}aa^{-1}=a[b,a^{-1}]a^{-1}=[b,a^{-1}]$ and we have that $[a,bc]=abca^{-1}c^{-1}b^{-1}=abca^{-1}c^{-1}aa^{-1}b^{-1}=ab[c,a^{-1}]a^{-1}b^{-1}=[a,b][c,a^{-1}]=[a,b][a,c].$ By induction $[a,b^n]=[a,b]^n$. Finally, $[a^m,b^n]=[a^m,b]^n=[b,a^{-m}]^n=[b,a]^{-mn}=[a,b]^{mn}.$
\[lem:structure:of:center\] We have $Z(G_\Gamma)=G'_\Gamma\times \langle v : N[v]=V(\Gamma)\rangle$. In particular, if no vertex of $\Gamma$ is adjacent to all other vertices then $Z(G_\Gamma)=G'_\Gamma$.
We can assume that no vertex in $\Gamma$ is adjacent to all other vertices. Now take an arbitrary element $x:=v_1^{d_1}\dots v_n^{d_n}c_1^{d_{n+1}}\dots c_k^{d_{n+k}}$ like above. If $d_i$ is non-trivial modulo $p$ for some $i\leq n$ then by assumption we find some vertex $v_j$ such that $[v_i,v_j]$ is non-trivial. By the counting argument above, commutators of different pairs of generators are linearly independent and using commutator relations we see that thus $[x,v_j]$ is non-trivial as well. So either $d_i\equiv_p 0$ for all $i\leq n$ and $x$ is a product of commutators, or $x$ is not central.
From now on let us fix a graph $\Gamma$ on vertex set $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$ and let $G := G_\Gamma$. We set $m := |\Phi(G)|
=|G'|$. Then $m$ is the number of non-edges in $\Gamma$ and $|G|=p^{m+n}$. Furthermore, fix an ordering of non-trivial commutators $c_1,\dots,c_m$ of pairs of standard generators $[v_i,v_j]\neq 1$ with $i<j$.
Let $x\in G_\Gamma$ be an element with normal form $$x := v_1^{d_1}\dots v_n^{d_n}c_1^{e_1}\dots c_m^{e_m}$$The **support** of $x$ is $\{ v_i\mid d_i\not\equiv_p 0\}$. For a subset of vertices $S\subseteq V(\Gamma)$ let $x_S$ be the subword $v_{i_1}^{d_{i_1}}\dots v_{i_s}^{d_{i_s}}$ where $S=\{ v_{i_1},\ldots,v_{i_s}\}$ with $i_1<\dots<i_s$.
Towards analyzing commutation in $G_\Gamma$ we consider an example.
\[example:centralizer\] Note that for two connected components $C_1,C_2$ of the complement graph $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma)$ and every group element $x\in G$ we always have $x_{C_1}x_{C_2}
=x_{C_2}x_{C_1}$. Consider the complete bipartite graph $\Gamma$ on parts $\{v_1,v_2\}$ and $\{v_3,v_4\}$ and its complement $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma)$ (see Figure \[fig:example:graph\]).
=\[draw,shape=circle\] (-1,-1) node (p1) [$v_1$]{} (-1,-2.5) node (p2) [$v_2$]{} (1,-2.5) node (p3) [$v_3$]{} (1,-1) node (p4) [$v_4$]{}; (p1) – (p3) (p1) – (p4) (p2) – (p3) (p2) – (p4);
=\[draw,shape=circle\] (-1,-1) node (p1) [$v_1$]{} (-1,-2.5) node (p2) [$v_2$]{} (1,-2.5) node (p3) [$v_3$]{} (1,-1) node (p4) [$v_4$]{}; (p1) – (p2) (p3) – (p4);
Then $$C_{G_\Gamma}(v_1v_2v_3v_4)=\langle v_1v_2\rangle
\langle v_3v_4\rangle
Z(G_\Gamma).$$
The following theorem states that the example essentially captures how commutation works in general.
\[CommutationInComponents\] For $x\in G_\Gamma$ let $C_1,\dots,C_s$ be the connected components of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)])$. Then $x=x_{C_1}\cdots x_{C_s}c$ with $c\in G'_\Gamma\leq Z(G_\Gamma)$ and $y\in G_\Gamma$ commutes with $x$ if and only if $y \in\langle x_{C_1}\rangle\cdots \langle x_{C_s}\rangle\cdot\langle w: [v,w]=1\text{ for all }v\in \operatorname{supp}(x)\rangle G'_\Gamma$.
By definition of $G_\Gamma$ for $i\neq j$ all elements belonging to $C_i$ commute with all elements from $C_j$, giving rise to a decomposition of $x$ into parts belonging to components of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma)$. Furthermore, it shows that commutation of group elements $x$ and $y$ is the same as simultaneous commutation with all of the respective parts. Consider now the case $x=x_{C_i}$ for some $i$. If $v\in \operatorname{supp}(x)\setminus \operatorname{supp}(y)$ then, due to commutators being independent, $[x,y]=1$ if and only if $v$ commutes with every element from $\operatorname{supp}(y)$ and the same holds after interchanging roles of $x$ and $y$. Thus, we can reduce to the case that $\operatorname{supp}(x)=\operatorname{supp}(y)$ and we will argue that $x$ and $y$ are powers of each other or trivial. For ease of notation assume that $x=v^{d_1}_1\dots v^{d_r}_r$ and $y=v^{f_1}_1\dots v^{f_r}_r$ where $d_i$ and $f_i$ are non-zero modulo $p$. Using commutator relations we obtain $$[x,y] = [v_1,v_2]^{d_2f_1-d_1f_2}\dots [v_{r-1},v_r]^{d_rf_{r-1}-d_{r-1}f_3}$$and for $[x,y]$ to vanish, all of these exponents have to be divisible by $p$. That is, modulo $p$, $f_2$ is uniquely determined by $d_1,d_2$ and $f_1$ or $[v_1,v_2]$ is trivial. Since all $v_i$ lie in one connected component of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)])$, there is a sequence of non-edges from $v_1$ to every $v_i$ within the component and it follows in an inductive fashion that the values of $d_1,\dots,d_r$ together with a choice of $f_1$ uniquely determine all other values of the $f_i$ (modulo $p$). Now clearly one admissible system of exponents is given by choosing $y$ as a power of $x$ and due to uniqueness these are the only possible configurations.
\[centralizer\] Let $x=v^{d_1}_{i_1}\dots v_{i_r}^{d_r}c$ with $i_1<i_2<\dots <i_r$, $c$ central in $G_\Gamma$ and $d_i \not\equiv_p 0$ for all $i$. Then $$C_{G_\Gamma}(x)=\langle x_{C_1}\rangle
\dots \langle x_{C_s}\rangle \left\langle
\{ v_m\mid [v_m,v_{i_j}]=1\text{ for all }j\}\right
\rangle G'_\Gamma.$$ Where, $C_1,\dots,C_s$ are the connected components of the complement graph $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)])$.
This (almost) distinguishes single support vertices.
\[lem:centralizerComparison\] For $x\in G_\Gamma$ and $v\in \operatorname{supp}(x)$ we have that $|C_{G_\Gamma}(x)|\leq |C_{G_\Gamma}(v)|$. Set $M(x):=\{w\in V(\Gamma)\mid [w,y]=1\text{ for all }y\in \operatorname{supp}(x)\}$. Then if $|C_{G_\Gamma}(x)|=|C_{G_\Gamma}(v)|$ either $M(x)=M(v)$ in which case $\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)]$ is a complete graph, or $M(x)=M(v)\setminus\{v\}$ and in both cases all components of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)])$ not containing $v$ are singletons.
Write $x=v^{d_1}_{i_1}\dots v_{i_r}^{d_r}c$ and $$C_{G_\Gamma}(x)=\langle x_{C_1}\rangle
\dots \langle x_{C_s}\rangle \left\langle
\{ v_m\mid [v_m,v_{i_j}]=1\text{ for all }j\}\right
\rangle G'_\Gamma$$as above. Assume, w.l.o.g., that $v$ is contained in the component $C_1$ of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(x)])$. Then clearly $x_{C_2},\dots,x_{C_s}\in C_{G_\Gamma}(v)$ and whenever $[v_m,v_{i_j}]=1\text{ for all }j$ then $[v_m,v]=1$ in particular. Both $C_{G_\Gamma}(x)$ and $C_{G_\Gamma}(v)$ contain $G'_\Gamma\leq Z(G_\Gamma)$ and form $\mathbb{F}_p$-spaces modulo $G'_\Gamma$. Thus $|C_{G_\Gamma}(x)|\leq |C_{G_\Gamma}(v)|$ is equivalent to $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(C_{G_\Gamma}(x)/G'_\Gamma)\leq \dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(C_{G_\Gamma}(v)/G'_\Gamma)$.
Now $C_1,\dots,C_s$ partition $\operatorname{supp}(x)\subseteq V(\Gamma)$ and $V(\Gamma)$ is linearly independent modulo $G'_\Gamma$ by definition of $G_\Gamma$. Assume $w\in M(x)\cap C_i$ for some $i$ then $w$ commutes with all vertices from $\operatorname{supp}(x)$ and this is equivalent to $C_i=\{w\}$. So $C_{G_\Gamma}(x)/G'_\Gamma$ has a basis of the form $\{x_{C_i}G'_\Gamma\mid |C_i|>1\}\cup\{wG'_\Gamma\mid w\in M(x)\}$ and these sets are disjoint. Now we always have $M(x)\subseteq M(v)$ and for $i>1$ it holds $C_i\subseteq M(v)$ (so in particular $x_{C_i}\in M(v)$ as well). If $|C_1|=1$ (so $C_1=\{v\}$) then $\{x_{C_i}G'_\Gamma\mid |C_i|>1\}\cup\{wG'_\Gamma\mid w\in M(x)\}$ is completely contained in $C_{G_\Gamma}(v)$. If $|C_1|>1$ then $v\notin M(x)$ and by the argument above $\{x_{C_i}G'_\Gamma\mid i>1,|C_i|>1\}\cup\{wG'_\Gamma\mid w\in M(x)\}\cup\{vG'_\Gamma\}$ is a union of disjoint sets which is linearly independent modulo $G'_\Gamma$. In both cases $|C_{G_\Gamma}(x)|\leq |C_{G_\Gamma}(v)|$ and if $|C_i|>1$ for some $i>1$ then actually we get a proper inequality (all elements from $C_i$ contribute to $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(C_{G_\Gamma}(v)/G'_\Gamma)$ separately). So if equality holds then $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(C_{G_\Gamma}(x)/G'_\Gamma)\leq M(x)+1$ (since all $C_i$ apart from maybe $C_1$ are covered by $M(x)$) and assuming $M(x)\neq M(v)$ we additionally must have $|M(v)|=|M(x)|+1$ showing that in this case $|C_1|>1$ and $v\notin M(x)$.
This means that elements of the form $vz$ with $v\in V(\Gamma)$ and $z\in G'_\Gamma$ are almost canonical in $G_\Gamma$ in the following sense: Define a set $\mathcal{C}$ as the union of all minimal generating sets $\{g_1,\dots,g_n\}$ of $G_\Gamma$ (so $n=|V(\Gamma)|$) for which the value of $\sum_i |C_{G_\Gamma}(g_i)|$ is maximal among minimal generating sets of $G_\Gamma$. Then $\mathcal{C}$ contains $V(\Gamma)$ since $V(\Gamma)$ is such a generating set itself. Furthermore $\mathcal{C}$ is canonical in $G_\Gamma$ (invariant under all automorphisms) and we can use it to analyze isomorphisms.
In the following part we want to compare different groups presented on graphs. Let us fix graphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ on the vertex set $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$ with edges given by $E_1$ and $E_2$ and corresponding groups $G_i:=G_{\Gamma_i}$. The standard generators on which the $G_i$ are presented will again be called $(v_j)_{1\leq j\leq n}$.
It holds that $\Gamma_1\cong \Gamma_2$ if and only if $G_1\cong G_2$.
Let $\varphi\colon\Gamma_1\to \Gamma_2$ be a graph isomorphism. Then $\varphi$ induces an automorphism of $F_{n,p}$ by permuting generators and we have $G_{\Gamma_i}=F_{n,p}/N_i$ where $N_i$ is the central subgroup generated by edges of $\Gamma_i$. Thus, as a group automorphism, $\varphi$ maps $N_1$ to $N_2$ giving an isomorphism of the corresponding quotients.
For the other direction consider a group isomorphism $\varphi:G_1\to G_2$. From Lemma \[lem:centralizerComparison\] we see that for $x\in G_i$ and $v\in \operatorname{supp}(x)$ we have $$\circledast:\ |C_{G_i}(x)|\leq |C_{G_i}(v)|.$$ As in the last lemma let $M(x):=\{v\in V(\Gamma_i)\mid [v,w]=1\text{ for all }w\in \operatorname{supp}(x)\}$ for $x\in G$ be the set of standard generators commuting with the entire support of $x$. In fact $M(x)= \bigcap_{w\in \operatorname{supp}(x)} N[w]$.
Our strategy is now to alter the group isomorphism $\varphi:G_1\to G_2$ until we can extract sufficiently much information on the graphs. We do so by redefining the images $y_i=\varphi(v_i)$ and double checking that the new map is still a homomorphism onto a generating set and thus an isomorphism.
Consider the case that $y:=y_j$ is supported in $G_2$ by more than one vertex for some index $j\leq n$. There must be some vertex $v\in \operatorname{supp}(y)$ such that replacing $y$ with $v$ still leaves us with a generating set for $G_2$. Indeed, this is true in the elementary abelian group $G_2/(G_2)'$ and commutators are non-generators in $G_2$. Furthermore, from $\circledast$ it follows that $(v_1,\dots,v_n)$ is a generating set of $G_1$ which maximizes the sum of centralizer orders $\sum_i |C_{G_1}(v_i)|$ among minimal generating sets and since $\varphi$ is an isomorphism, the same must be true for $(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ in $G_2$. For $i>1$, consider $y_i$ such that $[y,y_i]=1$. From Corollary \[centralizer\] we see that (up to multiplication with commutators which can be ignored) $y_i=y_{C_1}^{t_1}\dots y_{C_s}^{t_s} v^{e_1}_{i_1}\dots v^{e_k}_{i_k}$ for some vertices $v_{i_j}\in M(y)$ and where $C_1,\dots C_s$ are the components of $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma[\operatorname{supp}(y)])$ and we also get that $[y_i,v]=[y_{C_1}^{t_1},v]$ where we, w.l.o.g., assume that $v\in C_1$. The last Corollary furthermore shows that $|C_i|=1$ for $i>1$, so actually we can write $y_i=y_{C_1}^{t_1}v^{e_1}_{i_1}\dots v^{e_k}_{i_{k'}}$ for $v_{i_j}\in M(y)$. Using the same argument as for $y$ and $v$ there is some $w\in \operatorname{supp}(y_i)$ such that $y_i$ can be replaced with $w$ while still keeping a generating set and for this $w$ we again have $|C_{G_2}(y_i)|=|C_{G_2}(w)|$. Also note that if $|C_1|=1$ then $[v,y_i]=1$ which is what we want to show. Similarly we are done if $t_1\equiv_p 0$, so assume otherwise. If $|C_1|>1$ there is some $v'\in C_1$ such that $[v,v']\neq 1$ and in particular $v,v'\notin M(y_i)$ implying that $v,v'\in\operatorname{supp}(y_i)$ from the expression for $y_i$ above. Now $w$ can be chosen such that $w\notin C_1$ (since the exponents of $y$ and $y_i$ over elements of $C_i$ agree this follows from rank considerations and the fact that $(y_1G'_2,\dots,y_nG'_2)$ forms a basis of $G_2/G'_2$). Thus $M(y_i)\subseteq M(w)\setminus\{v,v'\}$ contradicting the previous Corollary.
In conclusion, $[y,y_i]=1$ implies $[v,y_i]=1$ (And we even see that this only happens if $\operatorname{supp}(y)$ induces a complete graph or if $\operatorname{supp}(y_i)\cap C_1=\emptyset$). Hence exchanging $y$ for $v$ gives us a generating set which is still a valid image of $(v_1,\dots,v_n)$. We can iterate this process to obtain an isomorphism mapping vertices to elements supported by single vertices as well which gives rise to a bijection between vertices. The fact that the isomorphism respects commutators then translates to respecting edges of the graphs and we conclude that $\Gamma_1\cong\Gamma_2$.
It is not always the case that the original vertices $V(\Gamma)$ of the graph form a canonical subset of $G_\Gamma$. However, we can precisely describe the conditions under which they do.
\[lem:char:when:iso:pres:red\]Assume $\Gamma_1\cong\Gamma_2$. There is a bijection between $\operatorname{Iso}(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2)$ and $\operatorname{Iso}(G_1,G_2)$, that is, $\Gamma_i$ is canonical in $G_i$, if and only if in $\Gamma_1$ (and thus $\Gamma_2$) there is no pair of distinct vertices $v,w$ with $N(v)\subseteq N[w]$.
Following the last proof we see that elements with single-vertex support are canonical in $G_1$ and $G_2$ under the condition above. Assume the condition does not hold in $\Gamma_1$ and for distinct vertices $v\neq w$ we have $N(v)\subseteq N[w]$. Then mapping $v$ to $vw$ and fixing other generators extends to an automorphism of $G_1$ via the given presentation of $G$ from $\Gamma$.
Constructing groups with equal $k$-profiles
===========================================
In this section we want to apply the construction from above to specific graphs. The idea is to start with a family of $3$-regular base graphs such that the CFI-construction gives us two non-isomorphic graphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ for each of the base graphs which can be distinguished by $k$-WL only for $k$ scaling linearly with the size of the CFI-graphs. We will then show that the resulting groups $G_i:=G_{\Gamma_i}$ have equal $\Theta(k)$-profiles.
For a group $G$, a tuple $(g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k$ is *minimal* if $\langle g_1,\dots,g_k\rangle$ is not generated by $k-1$ elements.
When working with $F := F_{n,p}$ we will fix a standard basis for $Z(F)=\Phi(F)\cong\mathbb{F}_p^{{n}\choose{2}}$. If $F$ is presented on generators $v_1,\dots,v_n$ we choose $$([v_1,v_2],[v_1,v_3],\dots,[v_1,v_n],[v_2,v_3],\dots,[v_{n-1},v_n])$$ as our fixed basis for the center of $F$. We call these commutators the *standard commutators*.
Let $\bar{g}:=(g_1,\dots,g_k)\in F_{n,p}^k$. We define two $\mathbb{F}_p$-matrices. In the $(k\times n)$-matrix $B_1(\bar{g})$ the $i$-th row corresponds to (the exponents of) $g_i$ expressed in normal form in terms of standard generators. In the $\left(\binom{k}{2}\times \binom{n}{2}\right)$-matrix $B_2(\bar{g})$ the rows correspond to $[g_1,g_2],[g_1,g_3],\dots,[g_{k-1},g_k]$ expressed in terms of standard commutators in this order. We will sometimes refer to their columns by these labels, i.e., the column belonging to $[v_i,v_j]$ will be referenced as $B_2(\bar{g})([v_i,v_j])$.
For example assume $n=3$ and $k=2$ and assume $\bar{g}:=(g_1,g_2)$ with $g_1=v_1v_2^5v_3$ and $g_2= v_1^2v_2[v_1,v_2]$. Then $[g_1,g_2]=$ $$[v_3,v_1^2][v_2^5,v_1^2][v_3,v_2][v_1,v_2]\!=\![v_1,v_2]^{-9}[v_1,v_3]^{-2}[v_2,v_3]^{-1}.$$
In this case $B_1(\bar{g}) = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 5 &1 \\
2 & 1 &0\\\end{pmatrix}$ and $B_2(\bar{g}) = (-9, -2,-1)$
where entries are to be read modulo $p$.
\[ExtPower\] Let $\bar{g}:=(g_1,\dots,g_t)\in (F_{n,p})^t$. Then $B_2(\bar{g})=B_1(\bar{g})\wedge B_1(\bar{g})$ where $\wedge$ describes the exterior product with respect to our chosen orderings for the standard bases.
Express the commutator $c_{i,j}:=[g_i,g_j]$ in terms of the standard commutators. Then $c_{i,j}=\left([v_k,v_\ell]^{m(k,\ell)}\right)_{k<\ell}$ where $m(k,\ell)={(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{i,k}{(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{j,\ell}-{(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{i,\ell}{(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{j,k}=$ $$\det\begin{pmatrix}
{(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{i,k} & {(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{i,\ell}\\ {(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{j,k} & {(B_1(\bar{g}))}_{j,\ell} \end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus, the row of $B_2(\bar{g})$ belonging to $c_{i,j}$ corresponds to the row of $B_1(\bar{g})\wedge B_1(\bar{g})$ belonging to rows ${B_1(\bar{g})}_{i,-}$ and ${B_1(\bar{g})}_{j,-}$
In particular, this shows that subgroups of $F_{n,p}$ are direct products of relatively free groups and central groups. In the following we will use the fact that for $M\in\mathbb{F}_p^{k\times n}$ we have $\operatorname{rank}(M\wedge M)={{\operatorname{rank}(M)}\choose{2}}$, see for example [@MR1153019 Section 10.1].
Let $G\leq F_{n,p}$ be generated by $\bar{g}:=(g_1,\dots,g_t)$ and set $r:=\operatorname{rank}(B_1(\bar{g}))$. Then there are $r$ elements $g_{i_j}$ among $\{g_1,\dots,g_t\}$ and central elements $c_1,\dots,c_k\in Z(F_{n,p})$ for some $0\leq k\leq (n-r)$ such that $G=\langle g_{i_1},\dots,g_{i_r}\rangle\times\langle c_1,\dots,c_k\rangle$. Furthermore, $G'$ has $\mathbb{F}_p$-dimension ${{r}\choose{2}}$.
If $B_1(\bar{g})$ has rank $r$, we can choose $r$ linearly independent rows corresponding to certain generators $g_{i_j}$. Other rows can then be expressed via these chosen rows which by definition of $B_1(\bar{g})$ means that all other generators can be replaced by central elements $c_1,\dots,c_{n-r}$ without changing $G$. Set $G_r := \langle g_{i_1},\dots,g_{i_r}\rangle$. The corresponding rows in $B_1(\bar{g})$ are now independent meaning that no set of cardinality less than $r$ can generate $G_r$. Since all other generators are now central we have $[G,G]=[G_r,G_r]$ and the latter is of dimension $\operatorname{rank}(B_2(\bar{g}))={{r}\choose{2}}$. Choose a subset of $c_i$’s that is maximal with respect to the property $G_r\cap\langle c_{i_1},\dots,c_{i_k}\rangle=\emptyset$. Then $G=\langle G_r,c_{i_1},\dots,c_{i_k}\rangle$ as desired.
The following observation is elementary but will help us compare subgroups of $G_\Gamma$ for different values of $\Gamma$.
\[subgroupsModN1\] Let $H:=\langle g_1,\dots,g_t,z_1,\dots,z_r\rangle\leq G_\Gamma$ and $R:=\dim(\Phi(H))$. Assume that all $z_i$ are central in $G_\Gamma$, that $\langle g_1,\dots,g_t\rangle/Z(G_\Gamma)\cong \mathbb{F}_p^t$, and that $H$ is not generated by less than $t+r$ elements. Let $c_1,\dots,c_R$ be generators of $\Phi(H)$ of the form $c_i=[g_{i_1},g_{i_2}]$ and express all other commutators $c_{R+1},\dots,c_{{t}\choose{2}}$ between the $g_i$ as words $w_{R+1},\dots,w_{{t}\choose{2}}$ in the $c_i$. Then $$H\cong\langle g_1,\dots,g_t\mid \textup{exponent~$p$, class 2 },
w_{R+1},\dots,w_{{t}\choose{2}}\rangle\times C^r_p.$$
By assumption $|\langle g_1,\dots,g_t\rangle|=p^{t+R}$. Clearly the presentation above defines a group admitting an epimorphism onto $\langle g_1,\dots,g_t\rangle$. Due to the given relations its order is at most $p^{t+R}$. Since $(g_1,\dots,g_t,z_1,\dots,z_r)$ is assumed to be minimal, the central group $\langle z_1,\dots,z_r\rangle\cong C^r_p$ splits from $H$.
Let $\Gamma_0=(\{V_1,\dots,V_t\},E)$ be a $3$-regular graph with $N:=|E|$ edges and such that $\Gamma_1:=\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma_0)$ and $\Gamma_2:=\widetilde{\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma_0)}$ are not isomorphic (cf. Theorem \[thm:cfi\]). Let $n:=10t$ be the number of vertices of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$.
To improve readability, we use capital letters for the vertices of the base graph in the following.
We assume $\Gamma_0$ and $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma_0)$ to be connected and then the same holds for the corresponding CFI-graphs. Recall that the CFI-graphs are again $3$-regular. In the following we will call a pair of edges between two CFI-gadgets together with their adjacent vertices a *link* and *twisting* will be understood as replacing the edges in a link with their twisted version. Note that two gadgets or two links are always disjoint or equal and that links correspond bijectively to edges in the base graph $\Gamma_0$. As before we call vertices of links external (w.r.t. their gadget) and other vertices internal. We fix $F:=F(n,p)$, the relatively free group on vertices of the CFI-graphs above. We also fix normal subgroups $N_1,N_2\leq F$ corresponding to edges of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, respectively. Thus $G_i:=G_{\Gamma_i}=F/N_i$. Finally, let $e$ be any edge in the base graph and let $\mbox{}^{(e)}\colon F\to F$ be the following map: Say $e=(V,W)\in E(\Gamma_0)$ (so we actually chose an orientation). Then twisting along $e$ can be seen as swapping in all normal forms the standard commutators $[a^V_i,a^W_j]$ and $[a^V_i,b^W_j]$ and also swapping all occurrences of $[b^V_i,b^W_j]$ and $[b^V_i,a^W_j]$. This is of course not a group isomorphism but it induces an automorphism $\varphi\colon Z(F)\to Z(F)$. If $x\in F$ has a normal form that factors as $vc$ where $v$ is the part of $x$ in standard generators and $c$ is the product of standard commutators then $x^{(e)}:=v\varphi(c)$ and this defines a bijection of $F$ into itself.
A group $H\leq F$ is called *essentially $k$-generated* if
1. $F'=Z(F)\leq H$ and
2. $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(H/F')=k$.
Intuitively this means that the group is $k$ generated modulo the center. Define $\mathcal{H}_k\subseteq \operatorname{Sub}(F)$ to be the set of all essentially $k$-generated subgroups of $F$.
\[lem:all;in:unique:essent:k:gen\] For every subgroup $S\leq G_i=F/N_i$ for which $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(S/G'_i)=k$ there is a unique essentially $k$-generated subgroup $H\leq F$ such that $S\leq H/N_i$.
Let $\nu:F\to F/N_i$ be the natural epimorphism then $H$ can be uniquely defined as $\nu^{-1}(S)F'$.
Set $\mathcal{H}_k^{N_i}:=\{ H/N_i\mid H\in\mathcal{H}_k\}$. Our goal is for various $k$ to construct a bijection $$\mathcal{H}_k^{N_1}\to\mathcal{H}_k^{N_2}$$ that preserves isomorphism-types of groups. Since all $k$-generated subgroups have the property that $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(S/G'_i)=k$, the lemma above then gives an isomorphism-type preserving bijection between $k$-generated subgroups of $G_1$ and $G_2$. Note that $\mathcal{H}_k^{N_i}=\{ S\leq G_i\mid \dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}(S/G'_i)=k\text{ and }G'_i=Z(G_i)\leq S \}$.
\[TwistingSubgroups\] Let $1\leq k<N/10$ where $N$ is the number of edges in $\Gamma_0$. For $H\in\mathcal{H}_k$ there is some edge $e$ in the base graph such that $H/N_1\cong H/N_1^{(e)}$.
Let $H:=\langle f_1,\dots,f_\ell\rangle$ and for each $i$ set $g_i:=f_iN_1\in G_1$. We want to investigate the group $(H/N_1)'=H'/N_1$. Since it is generated by commutators between the $g_i$ its structure is mostly described by $B_2(\bar{f})=B_1(\bar{f})^{\wedge 2}$ after replacing columns indexed by elements of $N_1$ with zero-columns. Call this new matrix $B_2(\bar{g})$.
Twisting along edge $e=(V,W)\leq E(\Gamma_0)$ results in mapping $([a^V_i,a^W_j],[b^V_i,b^W_j])$ to $([a^V_i,b^W_j],[b^V_i,a^W_j])$ (and vice versa, see Section \[sec:CFI-graphs\]). This can also be interpreted in terms of the matrices from above as replacing the two zero-columns $B_2(\bar{g})([a^V_i,a^W_j])$ and $B_2(\bar{g})([b^V_i,b^W_j])$ by the original columns in $B_2(\bar{f})$ and replacing the columns corresponding to $[a^V_i,b^W_j]$ and $[b^V_i,a^W_j]$ with zero-columns instead. This defines a matrix $B_2(\bar{g}^{(e)})$ that describes linear dependencies between commutators among the $(f_1^{(e)}\dots,f_k^{(e)})$ modulo $N_1^{(e)}$.
We will now argue that $e$ can be chosen in such a way that $B_2(\bar{g})$ and $B_2(\bar{g}^{(e)})$ have the same column spaces. For this, we argue that we can fix a system of columns of rank $r$ in $B_2(\bar{g})$ that does not contain the columns affected by twisting along $e$, then for $e$ as above these columns also form a system of maximal rank in $B_2(\bar{g}^{(e)})$ and thus linear dependency relations for rows of the two matrices are exactly the same. Using Lemma \[subgroupsModN1\] we see that $H/N_1\cong H/N_1^{(e)}$ for this choice of $e$.
By assumption the rank of $B_1(\bar{f})$ is $k$ and $k<N$. We assume w.l.o.g. that the first $k$ columns of $B_1(\bar{f})$ are linearly independent. Then the same holds for the first ${{k}\choose{2}}$ columns in $B_2(\bar{f})=B_1(\bar{f})\wedge B_1(\bar{f})$. Now these columns may not contain a system of full rank anymore in $B_2(\bar{g})$ but they belong to commutators of the form $[i,j]$ for $1\leq i<j\leq k$. Since $\Gamma_i$ is $3$-regular, for a fixed $i$ at most three of these commutators are contained in $N_1$. Thus the rank of the first ${{k}\choose{2}}$ columns in $B_2(\bar{g})$ is at least ${{k}\choose{2}}-3k$ and we may choose $r'\leq 3k$ additional columns such that they contain a system of full rank together with the first ${{k}\choose{2}}$ columns. Now every such column belongs to a pair of vertices and the number of relevant vertices for the full rank system in total is smaller than $2r'+k\leq 7k < N$ and thus there are still links in $\Gamma_1$ that are not adjacent to any of these vertices. Let us say these links correspond at least to edges $e_1,\dots,e_{N-7k}$. For each of these links there are two zero-columns in $B_2(\bar{g})$ and two columns agreeing with $B_2(\bar{f})$ corresponding to the twisted/non-twisted version of this link. Due to the choice of the edges we can now replace all four of these columns by zero-columns without reducing the rank of the resulting matrix. We will argue that among the edges $e_1,\dots,e_{N-7k}$ there are some edges where twisting also does not change the rank.
For this, note that for vertices $v,w$, column $(B_2(\bar{f}))([v,w])$ is a linear combination of columns $(B_2(\bar{f}))([v,y])$ and also a linear combination of columns $(B_2(\bar{f}))([y,w])$ where $y$ runs through the first $k$ columns of $B_1(\bar{f})$ since we assumed the first $k$ columns of $B_1(\bar{f})$ to be linearly independent and since the entries of $B_2(\bar{f})$ are subdeterminants of $B_1(\bar{f})$. Say the first $k$ columns of $B_1(\bar{f})$ correspond to vertices $v_1,\dots,v_k$ in the CFI-graphs. We say that $1\leq i\leq k$ is *bad* for some link if $v_i$ is adjacent to this link. Since each index is bad for at most three links and $3k<N-7k$, there exist links over the edges $e_1,\dots,e_{N-7k}$ for which no index is bad. For such a link, belonging to edge $e$ say, all columns in the linear combination described above are still present in $B_2(\bar{g})$ and thus the rank of this matrix is the same as for $B_2(\bar{g}^{(e)})$.
Set $\mathcal{V}:=V(\Gamma_1)$ and identify $\operatorname{Sym}(\mathcal{V})$ as a subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(F)$ in the natural way. We set $A$ to be the group of permutations of $\operatorname{Sym}(\mathcal{V})$ that map each gadget to itself with an automorphism. (I.e., $A$ consists of the graph automorphisms after link edges have been removed.)
Note that the group $A$ is abelian. It is generated by the permutations of $\mathcal{V}$ twisting two incident links in $\Gamma_1$ while permuting the inner vertices of their common gadget accordingly to a graph automorphism of the gadget. In particular, $A$ stabilizes all links and gadgets setwise.
If $H\in\mathcal{H}_k$ then for any edge $e$ of $\Gamma_0$ we have $H^{(e)}=H$ (even if $\mbox{}^{(e)}$ is not a group isomorphism). Lemma \[TwistingSubgroups\] shows that for $H/N_1\leq G_1$ there is some edge $e$ of $\Gamma_0$ such that $H/N_1\cong H/N^{(e)}_1$ and by the properties of the CFI-construction the twist $\mbox{}^{(e)}$ can be altered to become the original twist via suitable elements from $A$. More precisely, in the situation above there is some $\sigma_e\in A$ (only depending on $e$) such that $H/N^{(e)}_1\cong\sigma_e(H_1)/N_2$. This defines an isomorphism-type preserving map $$\Phi:\mathcal{H}_k^{N_1}\to\mathcal{H}_k^{N_2},\ H/N_1\mapsto \sigma_e(H_1)/N_2,$$ where $e$ depends on $H$ and we will show that the edges can be chosen in a way that makes $\Phi$ bijective.
Let $i\in\{1,2\}$. We say that subgroups $H_1/N_i,H_2/N_i\in\mathcal{H}_k^{N_i}$ are of the same *type* if there is some $\sigma\in A$ such that $H_1=\sigma(H_2)$.
An inspection of Lemma \[TwistingSubgroups\]’s proof shows the choice of edge $e$ only depends on the type of the subgroups involved.
\[lem:same:edge:in:type\] If $k< N/10$, the edge $e$ in Lemma \[TwistingSubgroups\] can be chosen to be the same for all subgroups of a fixed type.
Since $A$ fixes links setwise, positions where twisting preserves the isomorphism type are the same for groups that get mapped to each other via elements from $A$.
For each edge $e$ compatible with Lemma \[TwistingSubgroups\], $\Phi$ maps subgroups of different types to subgroups of different types.
Assume that \[TwistingSubgroups\] gives edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ for groups $S,\tilde{S}\leq G_1$. Write $S=H/N_1$, $\tilde{S}=\tilde{H}/N_1$ and assume that $\sigma_{e_1}(H)/N_2$ and $\sigma_{e_2}(\tilde{H})/N_2$ have the same type. Then there is some $\sigma\in A$ with $(\sigma_{e_2}^{-1}\sigma\sigma_{e_1})(H)=\tilde{H}$ and thus $S$ and $\tilde{S}$ have the same type.
For a fixed type and a fixed edge $e$ (as in Lemma \[TwistingSubgroups\]), $\Phi$ is isomorphism-type preserving and injective.
Keep the notation from the last lemma but assume $S_1\neq S_2$ are of the same type. Then $H_1\neq H_2$. Thus $\sigma_e(H_1)\neq\sigma_e(H_2)$ which is equivalent to $\sigma_e(H_1)/N_2\neq\sigma_e(H_2)/N_2$ due to $\sigma_e(H_i)$ containing $Z(F)$ and in particular $N_2$.
All arguments also work for interchanged roles of $G_1$ and $G_2$. In particular this shows that $|\mathcal{H}_k^{N_1}|=|\mathcal{H}_k^{N_2}|$ for each $k$.
\[cor:equal:k-profiles\] $G_1,G_2$ have equal $k$-profiles for $k< N/10$.
Since bijection $\Phi$ is isomorphism-type preserving, the collection of subgroups in $\mathcal{H}_k^{N_1}$ is mapped bijectively and isomorphism-type preservingly to $\mathcal{H}_k^{N_2}$. Every $k$-generated subgroup is contained in a unique factor of an essentially $k$-generated subgroup (Lemma \[lem:all;in:unique:essent:k:gen\]) so this induces a bijection from $k$-generated subgroups to $k$-generated subgroups.
For the commuting graphs of $G_1$ and $G_2$, note that non-central elements in $G_1$ that are not powers of one another cannot commute if one of the elements has a support of 4 or larger. Whether the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm of a particular dimension distinguishes the graphs therefore does not change when restricting the commuting graphs to group elements with support size at most $3$. In particular, the commuting graphs cannot be distinguished by the $\mathcal{O}(\log(n))$-dimensional Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm.
The Weisfeiler-Leman Dimension of groups constructed from CFI-graphs is 3 {#sec:wl:dim:3}
=========================================================================
In the previous section we constructed groups $G_i:=G_{\Gamma_i}$ based on two CFI-graphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$. The groups agree in terms of traditional group theoretical invariants (such as exponent, nilpotency class, and the combinatorics of their conjugacy classes) and also with respect to their $k$ generated subgroups for large $k$. On first sight this might indicate that these groups should be hard to distinguish by combinatorial means but as we will see in this section their WL-dimension is only $3$. Throughout this section we exclusively use WL-algorithms and pebble games of Version II. The main theorem of this section is the following.
\[LowDimension\] Let $\Gamma_0$ be a 3-regular connected graph and let $\Gamma_1:=\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma_0)$ and $\Gamma_2:=\widetilde{\operatorname{CFI}(\Gamma_0)}$ be the corresponding CFI-graphs. The $3$-dimensional WL-algorithm distinguishes $G_1$ from $G_2$. If additionally $\Gamma_0$ has (graph) WL-dimension at most $3$ then $3$-dimensional WL-algorithm identifies $G_1$ as well as $G_2$.
Requiring that $\Gamma_0$ has WL-dimension at most 3 is not a severe restriction (Observation \[obs:base:graph:low:WL:dim\]). Towards proving the theorem we collect several observations on the pebble game that are particular to the groups arising from CFI-graphs.
\[lem:must:respect:support:1\] For each $k\geq 3$, throughout the $k$-pebble game on $G_1$ and $G_2$ Duplicator has to choose bijections that respect the set of elements with single-vertex support $\{x\mid |\operatorname{supp}(x)|=1\}$. Moreover $\operatorname{supp}(x)=\operatorname{supp}(y)$ and $|\operatorname{supp}(x)|= |\operatorname{supp}(y)|= 1$ must imply $\operatorname{supp}(f(x))=\operatorname{supp}(f(y))$.
To see this, it suffices to realize that centralizers of elements with single-vertex support have a different cardinality than other elements. Indeed, since the graphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are 3-regular, by Corollary \[centralizer\] each single support vertex has a centralizer of cardinality $p^4 |Z(G_i)|$. However, since $\operatorname{co}(\Gamma)$ is connected, has no triangles and no cycles of length 4, other elements have a centralizer of cardinality at most $p^3 |Z(G_i)|$.
To see the second part of the theorem, note the following: for two elements $x,y$ with $|\operatorname{supp}(x)|= |\operatorname{supp}(y)|= 1$ we have $\operatorname{supp}(x)= \operatorname{supp}(y)$ exactly if $C(x)=C(y)$. Since commutation and support sizes must be respected this shows the lemma.
\[ElementSupport\] If Duplicator does not respect support sizes at some point then Spoiler can win with three pebbles.
Assume Duplicator chooses a bijection $f\colon G_1\to G_2$ during the $k$-pebble game with $k\geq 4$ such that $|\operatorname{supp}(x)|\neq |\operatorname{supp}(f(x))|$ for some $x\in G_1$. We already discussed that Spoiler has a winning strategy in this situation in the case that one of the supports has cardinality at most $1$. Since the distribution of support sizes in $G_1$ and $G_2$ is the same there is some $x\in G_1$ with $|\operatorname{supp}(f(x))|>|\operatorname{supp}(x)|>1$. We can choose some $v_i\in V(\Gamma_1)$ and a natural number $m$ such that $x':=xv_i^m$ has strictly smaller support than $x$. Now $f(v_i^m)$ must also be supported by exactly one element, or otherwise Duplicator loses anyway. Using $4$ pebbles, Spoiler can force Duplicator to map $x'$ to $f(x)f(v_i^m)$. Thus, after three additional rounds, the support of $f(x')$ is still strictly bigger than $\operatorname{supp}(x')$ and the result follows by induction.
\[ElementType\] For each $k\geq 4$, throughout the $k$-pebble game on $G_1$ and $G_2$ Duplicator has to choose bijections respecting internal vertices and gadgets of the underlying CFI-graphs. Here, elements corresponding to a gadget vertex $v$ are all elements of $vZ(G_i)$. Moreover pairs of vertices lying in a common gadget have to be mapped to pairs in a common gadget.
By Lemma \[lem:must:respect:support:1\] the bijection chosen by Duplicator induces a permutation of the vertices $V(\Gamma_1)$. By Construction, the CFI-graphs $\Gamma_i$ have the property that every 6-cycle and every 8-cycle runs entirely within one gadget. Moreover every pair of vertices lying in a common gadget lies on a common 6-cycle or on a common 8-cycle. This implies that Duplicator has to map vertices $v,w$ in a common gadget to vertices in a common gadget (and vice versa). Indeed, otherwise Spoiler can show that $v$ and $w$ are contained in a small cycle but $f(v)$ and $f(w)$ are not (and vice versa). This in turn implies that Duplicator has to map internal vertices to internal vertices, because internal vertices are not adjacent to vertices in another gadget, but external vertices are.
Using these observation we can finally prove the theorem.
We first define a set $\mathcal{V}$ of special vertices in $\Gamma_1$: For each gadget put exactly one internal vertex in $\mathcal{V}$ and add all adjacent external vertices. Let $v\in G_1$ denote the ordered product of all vertices in $\mathcal{V}$. By Lemma \[ElementSupport\] Duplicator must choose a bijection for which $f(v)$ has the same support size as $v$. Spoiler puts a pebble on $v$. The Lemma furthermore shows that all future bijections have to map $\operatorname{supp}(v)$ to $\operatorname{supp}(f(v))$ or otherwise Spoiler can pebble some $v_i\in \operatorname{supp}(v)$ with $f(v_i)\notin \operatorname{supp}(f(v))$ and Duplicator will not be able to respect support sizes from here on. Using Lemma \[ElementType\] we see that $\operatorname{supp}(f(v))=:\mathcal{V}'$ has to be composed exactly as $\operatorname{supp}(v)=\mathcal{V}$, that is, $\mathcal{V}'$ can also be constructed by choosing set of internal vertices, one per gadget, and adding all their adjacent external vertices. The set $\mathcal{V}$ induces a subgraph of $\Gamma_1$ and similarly $\mathcal{V'}$ induces a subgraph of $\Gamma_2$. We argue these subgraphs have a different number of edges modulo $2$. For this observe the following: if we alter $\mathcal{V}$ by replacing one internal vertex with another one in the same gadget, this changes exactly two neighbors among the external vertices. The new induced subgraph differs then in exactly two locations of two different links. Thus the number of edges in the induced subgraph remains the same modulo $2$. By induction this is true for all possible choices of $\mathcal{V}$. We can thus assume that $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}'$. However, this implies that $\Gamma_1[\mathcal{V}]$ and $\Gamma_2[\mathcal{V}']$ disagree in exactly one edge, namely at the twisted link. This shows the graphs have a different number of edges modulo $2$.
However, we already argued that Duplicator has to map $\mathcal{V}$ to $\mathcal{V}'$. Since the number of edges of $\Gamma_1[\mathcal{V}]$ and $\Gamma_2[\mathcal{V}']$ disagree, for any suitable bijection some vertex is mapped to a vertex of incorrect degree, which can be exploited by Spoiler. This shows $G_1$ can be distinguished from $G_2$.
Assume now that additionally the base graph $\Gamma_0$ has Weisfeiler-Leman dimension at most 3. Suppose that $G$ is any group with $|G|=|G_1|$ that is indistinguishable from $G_1$. The vertices of $\Gamma_1$ form a canonical copy of $\Gamma_1$ inside of $G_1$ (up to central elements), so there must be a corresponding set in $G$ as well. If the induced commutation graph $\Gamma$ on this set is distinguishable from $\Gamma_1$ then $G_1$ is distinguishable from $G$. From the commutation graph, we can reconstruct a corresponding base graph $\Gamma$. Which must be indistinguishable by 3-WL from $\Gamma_0$. This means it is isomorphic to $\Gamma_0$ since its Weisfeiler-Leman dimension is at most 3. Thus $\Gamma$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma_1$ or $\Gamma_2$. This gives a presentation of $G$ isomorphic to a presentation of $G_1$ or $G_2$.
Conclusion
==========
We defined several versions of the Weisfeiler-Leman algorithm for groups and showed their dimension concepts are linearly related. We then gave a construction of groups from graphs that preserves isomorphism. We can recover combinatorics of the original graph by analyzing commutation in the groups. This allowed us to construct pairs of non-isomorphic groups with the same $k$-subgroup profiles for $k$ logarithmic in the order of the groups. These groups are nevertheless identified by the 3-dimensional Weisfeiler Leman algorithm.
The strategy in the pebble we employed to show this exploits that by pebbling products of standard generators Spoiler can essentially force Duplicator to fix an arbitrary set of standard generators simultaneously. Abstractly, on graphs or groups, one could define a new pebble game where pebbles can be placed on sets of vertices. Spoiler now additionally wins the game if the subset relations between pebbled sets disagree in the two structures. This game corresponds to a monadic second order logic where there is still a bound on the number of variables that may be used. While they seem to resemble each other, we are not sure what the precise relationship between this game and the pebble games on groups is. It also seems to be unknown what the expressive power of this game (or the corresponding logic) is.
On another note, it also remains a central open question whether $k$-WL solves the Group Isomorphism Problem for some constant dimension $k$. While a positive answer would place Group Isomorphism in polynomial time, a negative answer would prove the existence of groups of unbounded Weisfeiler-Leman dimension which would provide interesting examples of groups that are even harder to distinguish.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This expository paper is concerned with the properties of proper holomorphic mappings between domains in complex affine spaces. We discuss some of the main geometric methods of this theory, such as the Reflection Principle, the scaling method, and the Kobayashi-Royden metric. We sketch the proofs of certain principal results and discuss some recent achievements. Several open problems are also stated.'
author:
- 'Sergey Pinchuk, Rasul Shafikov and Alexandre Sukhov'
title: 'Some aspects of holomorphic mappings: a survey '
---
[^1]
\* Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, 831 E 3rd St. Rawles Hall, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
\*\* Department of Mathematics, the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada, e-mail: [email protected]. The author is partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\*\*\* Université de Lille (Sciences et Technologies), U.F.R. de Mathématiques, 59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq, Cedex, France, e-mail: [email protected]. The author is partially supported by Labex CEMPI.
Introduction
============
This expository paper is dedicated to geometric properties of holomorphic mappings between domains in complex affine spaces (in general of different dimensions). The first results in this direction (mainly in complex dimension 2) are due to H. Poincaré, E. Cartan and B. Segre. The rigidity of complex structures with boundary–one of the main phenomena of complex analysis in higher dimensions–was already discovered and studied in these classical works. The next major step in this theory was made in the 70-ties with intensive investigation of the geometry of strictly pseudoconvex domains. Further progress concerns more general classes of domains (weakly pseudoconvex or not pseudoconvex at all). In this survey paper we try to present some of the main ideas in the development of the theory. Our presentation is certainly incomplete, as, regrettably, many important topics and results were not included in the scope of the paper. An interested reader may become acquainted with them using other monographs and expository papers [@BaEbRo1; @BaEbRo2; @Bed2; @Ber6; @Ch3; @DiPi5; @For6; @For6b; @For8; @GKK; @Is; @IsKr; @Kr; @Me2; @Me3; @Pi10; @Si3; @Tu2; @Vi; @Vi2].
The authors are deeply grateful to referees for many corrections and suggestions.
Preliminaries
=============
Denote by $z = (z_1,...,z_n)$ the standard complex coordinates in ${\mathbb C}^n$. We often use the (vector) notation $z = x +iy$ for the real and imaginary parts. Denote by $\vert z \vert$ the euclidean norm of $z$ and by $(z,w) = \sum_j z_j \overline{w_j}$ the hermitian inner product. We also use the notation $\langle z, w \rangle = (z,\overline w)$.
As usual, a [*domain*]{} $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ is a connected open subset of ${\mathbb C}^n$. Denote by $\partial\Omega$ the boundary of $\Omega$. The unit ball of ${\mathbb C}^n$ is denoted by ${\mathbb{B}}^n = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^n : \vert z \vert < 1 \}$, while for $n = 1$ we use the notation ${\mathbb D}:= {\mathbb{B}}^1$ for the unit disc in ${\mathbb C}$. The ball $p+ r{\mathbb{B}}^n$ of radius $r > 0$ centred at a point $p \in {\mathbb C}^n$ will be denoted by ${\mathbb{B}}^n(p,r)$. Another basic example of a domain in $\mathbb C^n$ is the unit polydisc ${\mathbb D}^n$, or more generally, ${\mathbb D}^n(p,r):= p + r{\mathbb D}^n$. Finally, $$\label{e.H}
{\mathbb H}= \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^n: 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_n + \vert z_1 \vert^2 +...+ \vert z_{n-1} \vert^2 < 0 \}$$ is an unbounded realization of the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}^n$.
Classes of functions
--------------------
Denote by ${\mathcal O}(\Omega)$ the class of holomorphic functions in a domain $\Omega$. If $\Omega'$ is a domain in ${\mathbb C}^m$, we use the notation ${\mathcal O}(\Omega,\Omega')$ for the class of holomorphic mappings from $\Omega$ to $\Omega'$.
For a positive integer $k$, $C^k(\Omega)$ denotes the space of $C^k$-smooth complex-valued functions in $\Omega$. Also $C^k(\overline\Omega)$ denotes the class of functions whose partial derivatives up to order $k$ extend as continuous functions on $\overline\Omega$. If $s > 0$ is a real noninteger and $k$ is its integer part, $C^s(\Omega)$ denotes the space of functions of class $C^k(\Omega)$ such that their partial derivatives of order $k$ are (global) Hölder-continuous in $\Omega$ with the exponent $s-k$; these derivatives automatically satisfy the Hölder condition on $\overline\Omega$ so the notation $C^s(\overline\Omega)$ for the same space of functions is also appropriate. Finally, we denote by $PSH(\Omega)$ the class of plurisubharmonic functions on $\Omega$.
Let $\Omega$ be a domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $f:\Omega \to {\mathbb C}^N$ be a vector function (not necessarily holomorphic or smooth) on $\Omega$. Let $\gamma$ be a subset of the boundary $\partial\Omega$. The [*cluster set*]{} $C_\Omega(f;\gamma)$ of $f$ on $\gamma$ is defined as the set of all limit points of the sequences $\{f(z^k)\}$ in ${\mathbb C}^N$, where $\{z^k\}$ is any sequence in $\Omega$ converging to a point in $\gamma$. The cluster set $C_\Omega(f;\gamma)$ is empty if $\lim \vert f(z) \vert = +\infty$ when $z \to\gamma$. Note that a holomorphic map $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ between two domains is proper if and only if the cluster set $C_\Omega(f;\partial\Omega)$ does not intersect $\Omega'$. For bounded domains one can state this property in the equivalent form: $C_\Omega(f;\partial\Omega) \subset \partial\Omega'$.
Real submanifolds of complex spaces.
------------------------------------
A (closed) real submanifold $E$ of a domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ is of class $C^s$ (resp. real analytic) if for every point $p \in E$ there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ and a map $\rho: U \longrightarrow {\mathbb R}^d$ of the maximal rank $d<2n$ and of class $C^s$ (resp. real analytic) such that $E \cap U = \rho^{-1}(0)$; then $\rho$ is called a local defining (vector) function of $E$. The positive integer $d$ is the real codimension of $E$. In the fundamental special case $d=1$ we obtain the class of real hypersurfaces.
Let $J$ denote the standard complex structure of ${\mathbb C}^n$. In other words, $J$ acts on a vector $V$ by multiplication by $i$. For every $p \in E$ the [*holomorphic tangent space*]{} $H_pE:= T_pE \cap J(T_pE)$ is the maximal complex subspace of the tangent space $T_pE$ of $E$ at $p$. Clearly $H_pE = \{ V \in {\mathbb C}^n: \partial \rho(p) V = 0 \}$. The complex dimension of $H_pE$ is called the CR dimension of $E$ at $p$; a manifold $E$ is called a [*CR (Cauchy-Riemann) manifold*]{} if its CR dimension is independent of $p \in E$.
A real submanifold $E \subset \Omega$ is called [*generic*]{} (or generating) if the complex span of $T_pM$ coincides with ${\mathbb C}^n$ for all $p \in E$. Note that every generic manifold of real codimension $d$ is a CR manifold of CR dimension $n-d$. A function $\rho = (\rho_1,...,\rho_d)$ defines a generic manifold if $\partial\rho_1 \wedge ...\wedge \rho_d \neq 0$. Of special importance are the so-called [*totally real manifolds*]{}, i.e., submanifolds $E$ for which $H_pE = \{ 0 \}$ at every $p \in E$. A totally real manifold is generic if and only if its real dimension is equal to $n$; this is the maximal possible value for the dimension of a totally real manifold.
Let $E$ be a generic manifold of real codimension $d$ contained in the boundary $\partial\Omega$ of a domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Our considerations are local. Consider tangent vector fields $X_j$, $j = 1,...,n-d$, on $E$ (of type (1,0)) which form a basis in the space of local sections of the holomorphic tangent bundle $H(E)$ near $p$. A $C^1$-smooth function $f$ on $E$ is called a CR function if it satisfies the first order PDE system on $E$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tangentCR}
X_jf = 0, \,\, j=1,...,n-d. \end{aligned}$$ These are the [*tangential Cauchy-Riemann equations*]{}. By Stokes’ formula the equations (\[tangentCR\]) can be rewritten in the equivalent form $[E](f\overline\partial\phi) = 0$ for every test $(n,n-d)$ form $\phi$ on $E$; here $[E]$ denotes the current of integration over $E$. In this weak formulation the notion of a CR function can be extended to the class of continuous or locally integrable functions on $E$. If $E$ is a hypersurface ($d=1$) given by a defining function $\rho$ with $\partial \rho/\partial z_n \neq 0$, then we may choose $$X_j = \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial z_n}\frac{\partial }{\partial z_j} -\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial z_j}\frac{\partial }{\partial z_n}, \,\, j=1,...,n-1 .$$
The following approximation theorem is due to Baouendi - Trèves [@BaTr]:
\[BaTr\] Let $M$ be a smooth generic manifold in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $E \subset M$ be a smooth totally real manifold of dimension $n$. Then in a neighbourhood of any point $p \in E$, any CR function $f$ of class $C^s$, $s \ge 0$, on $M$ can be approximated in the $C^s$ norm on $M$ by the sequence of holomorphic functions $$({\bf 1}_E f) * \exp(-k\langle z, z \rangle), \ k = 1,2,...,$$ where ${\bf 1}_E$ denotes the characteristic function of $E$ and the asterisk $*$ denotes the convolution operator.
Pseudoconvex and strictly pseudoconvex domains
----------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Suppose that its boundary $\partial\Omega$ is a (compact) real hypersurface of class $C^s$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then there exists a $C^s$-smooth real function $\rho$ in a neighbourhood $U$ of the closure $\overline\Omega$ such that $\Omega = \{ \rho < 0 \}$ and $d\rho|_{\partial\Omega} \ne 0$. We call such a function $\rho$ a global defining function. If $s \ge 2$ one may consider [*the Levi form*]{} of $\rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Leviform}L(\rho,p,V) = \sum_{j,k = 1}^n \frac{\partial^2\rho}{\partial z_j\partial\overline{z}_k}(p)V_j \overline V_k.\end{aligned}$$ A bounded domain $\Omega$ with $C^2$ boundary is called [*pseudoconvex*]{} (resp. [*strictly pseudoconvex*]{}) if $L(\rho,p,V) \ge 0$ (resp. $> 0$) for every $V \in H_p(\partial\Omega)$ (resp. every nonzero $V \in H_p(\partial\Omega)$). This definition is equivalent to the general notion of pseudoconvexity in the sense of Grauert-Oka: $\Omega$ is pseudoconvex if and only if it can be exhausted by a sequence of strictly pseudoconvex domains. Every strictly pseudoconvex domain $\Omega$ admits a global defining function which is strictly plurisubharmonic on a neighbourhood $U$ of $\overline\Omega$. The analog of this property for pseudoconvex domains was established by Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo1];
\[t.df\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain with $C^s$-boundary, $s \ge 2$. Then there exist a $C^s$-smooth defining function $\rho$ in a neighbourhood $U$ of $\overline\Omega$ and a positive $\eta_0<1$ such that for any $0 < \eta < \eta_0$, the function $\hat\rho:=-(-\rho)^\eta$ is a strictly plurisubharmonic bounded exhaustion function for $\Omega$ (i.e., $\hat\rho:\Omega \to (0,a)$ is a proper map for some $a > 0$).
The famous example of the so-called “worm" domain due to the same authors [@DF0] shows that there exist smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domains without a plurisubharmonic defining function.
Let $\Gamma$ be a real hypersurface of class $C^2$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. One can view every holomorphic tangent space $H_p\Gamma$ as an element of the Grassmanian $G(n-1,n)$ of hyperplanes in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then the holomorphic tangent bundle $H(\Gamma)$ can be viewed as a real submanifold of dimension $2n-1$ of the complex manifold ${\mathbb C}^n \times G(n-1,n)$ of complex dimension $2n-1$. We call it the [*projectivization of the holomorphic tangent bundle*]{} and denote by ${\mathbb P}H(\Gamma)$. The following statement, due to Webster [@We3], is easy to check in local coordinates.
$\Gamma$ has a nondegenerate Levi form if and only if ${\mathbb P}H(\Gamma)$ is a totally real manifold in ${\mathbb C}^n \times G(n-1,n)$.
Kobayashi-Royden pseudometric
-----------------------------
Let $z$ be a point of a domain $\Omega$ and $V$ be a tangent vector at $z$. The infinitesimal Kobayashi-Royden pseudometric $F_\Omega(z,V)$ (the “length” of the vector $V$) is defined as $$F_\Omega(z,V) = \inf \left\{\lambda>0: \exists\, h \in \mathcal O (\mathbb D, \Omega) {\rm \ with \ }
h(0)=z,\ h'(0)=\frac{V}{\alpha} \right\} .$$ This is a nonnegative upper semicontinuous function on the tangent bundle of $\Omega$; its integrated form coincides with the usual Kobayashi distance. The Kobayashi-Royden metric is decreasing under holomorphic mappings: if $f: \Omega \to \Omega'$ is a holomorphic mapping between two domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and ${\mathbb C}^m$ respectively, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kob1}
F_{\Omega'}(f(z),df(z)V) \le F_\Omega(z,V) .\end{aligned}$$ In fact, this is the largest metric in the class of (properly normalized) infinitesimal metrics that are decreasing under holomorphic mappings. It is easy to obtain an upper bound on $F_\Omega$. Indeed, let ${\mathbb{B}}^n(z,R)$ with $R = {\rm dist\,}(z,\partial\Omega)$ be the ball contained in $\Omega$. It follows by the holomorphic decreasing property applied to the natural inclusion $\iota: {\mathbb{B}}^n(z,R) \to \Omega$ that the Kobayashi-Royden metric of this ball is bigger than $F_\Omega$. This gives the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kob2}
F_\Omega(z,V) \le \frac{C \vert V \vert}{{\rm dist\,} (z,\partial\Omega)} .\end{aligned}$$ Lower bounds require considerably more subtle analysis. Some general estimates can be obtained using plurisubharmonic functions. Sibony [@Si1] proposed the approach based on the following Schwarz-type lemma for subharmonic functions. For a domain $\Omega$ and $z\in \Omega$, denote by $S_z(\Omega)$ the class of functions $u: \Omega \to [0,1]$ such that $u(z) = 0$, $u$ is of class $C^2$ in a neighbourhood of $z$ and $\log u$ is a plurisubharmonic function in $\Omega$.
\[SiSch\] Let $u\in S_0({\mathbb D})$. Then
- $u(\zeta) \le \vert \zeta \vert^2$ for $\zeta \in {\mathbb D}$. The equality holds at some point different from $0$ iff $u(\zeta)$ is identically equal to $\vert \zeta \vert^2$.
- $\Delta u(0) \le 4$ with equality iff $u(\zeta) = \vert \zeta \vert^2$ for every $\zeta \in {\mathbb D}$.
Consider an infinitesimal pseudometric $P_\Omega$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kob3}
P_\Omega(z,V) = \sup \{ L(u,z,V)^{1/2}: u \in S_z(\Omega) \} .\end{aligned}$$ This pseudometric is locally bounded on the tangent bundle by Lemma \[SiSch\](a), and is decreasing under holomorphic mappings; hence $$P_\Omega \le F_\Omega.$$ To obtain the estimate from below for Sibony’s metric it suffices to construct a function $u \in S_z(\Omega)$ with controlled Levi form. For example, this leads to the following
\[KobProp1\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $\rho$ be a negative $C^2$-smooth plurisubharmonic function in $\Omega$. Suppose that the partial derivatives of $\rho$ are bounded on $\Omega$ and there exists a constant $C_1 > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kob4_1}
L(\rho,z,V) \ge C_1 \vert V \vert^2\end{aligned}$$ for all $z$ and $V$. Then there exists a constant $C_2 > 0$, depending only on the $C^2$-norm of $\rho$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kob4}
P_\Omega(z,V) \ge C_2 \left ( C_1^2\frac{\vert \langle \partial \rho(z), V \rangle \vert^2}{\vert \rho(z) \vert^2} + C_1\frac{\vert V \vert^2}{\vert \rho(z) \vert^2} \right ).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\rho$ is not assumed to be a defining function of $\Omega$, although this special case is particularly important in applications. The original argument of Sibony assumes that $\Omega$ is globally bounded but this condition can be dropped. In fact, the estimate (\[Kob4\]) holds on an open subset of $\Omega$ where (\[Kob4\_1\]) is satisfied. Therefore, it can be used in order to localize the Kobayashi-Royden metric. Note also that $\Omega$ is not assumed to be bounded or hyperbolic (see [@Ber1; @Ber2; @Su1; @Su2; @ChCoSu]). In particular, this leads to the following result (see [@ChCoSu]):
\[CCS\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^n$, $\rho$ be a plurisubharmonic function in $\Omega$ with $E = \rho^{-1}(0)$, and let $f:{\mathbb D}\longrightarrow \Omega^+ = \{ \rho \ge 0 \}$ be a bounded holomorphic mapping such that the cluster set $C_{\mathbb D}(f,\gamma)$ on an open arc $\gamma \subset \partial {\mathbb D}$ is contained in $E$. Assume that for a certain point $\zeta \in \gamma$ the cluster set $C_{\mathbb D}(f,\zeta)$ contains a point $p \in E$ such that, for some ${\varepsilon}> 0$, the function $\rho(z) - {\varepsilon}\vert z \vert^2$ is plurisubharmonic in a neighbourhood of $p$. Then $f$ extends to a Hölder $1/2$-continuous mapping in a neighbourhood of $\zeta$ in ${\mathbb D}\cup \gamma$.
The proof is based on the estimate (\[Kob4\]) in a tube neighbourhood of $E$ of the form $\rho < \delta$ with small $\delta > 0$. A special case useful for applications arises when $E$ is a totally real manifold: indeed, such a manifold can be represented as the zero locus of a nonnegative strictly plurisubharmonic function, see [@HW].
Some properties of holomorphic functions near real manifolds
------------------------------------------------------------
Analytic discs form an important special class of holomorphic mappings. Recall that an [*analytic (or holomorphic) disc*]{} in ${\mathbb C}^n$ is a holomorphic mapping $f:{\mathbb D}\to {\mathbb C}^n$. The most interesting case arises when analytic discs have some boundary regularity (at least, are continuous on $\overline{\mathbb D}$). The restriction $f:\partial{\mathbb D}\to {\mathbb C}^n$ is called the boundary of the analytic disc $f$. We say that a disc $f$ is attached or glued to a subset $K$ of ${\mathbb C}^n$ if $f(\partial{\mathbb D}) \subset K$.
Let $E$ be a generic submanifold in a domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ defined as $\{\rho = (\rho_1, ...,
\rho_d) = 0\}$. The [*wedge*]{} $W(\Omega,E)$ in $\Omega$ [*with the edge*]{} $E$ is the domain $$W(\Omega,E) = \{ z \in \Omega: \rho_j(z) < 0, j=1,...,d \} .$$ One can also consider a more general class of domains if we fix an open (convex) cone $K$ in ${\mathbb R}^d$ and define a wedge-type domain by the condition $\{ z \in \Omega: \rho(z) \in K \}$. However, in many cases the study of holomorphic functions on such domains can be reduced to that on the simpler wedges $W(\Omega,E)$. For $\delta > 0$ we also consider a $\delta$-“truncated" wedge $$W_\delta(\Omega,E) =\left\{ z \in \Omega: \rho_j(z) - \delta\sum_{k \neq j} \rho_k < 0, \ j= 1,...,d \right\} \subset W(\Omega,E).$$ The following result follows by the complexification of a real analytic parametrization of a totally real submanifold.
\[RealAnalytic\] Let $E$ be a real analytic totally real submanifold of dimension $n$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. For every point $p \in E$ there exists an open neighbourhood $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and a holomorphic embedding $\Phi:\Omega \to {\mathbb C}^n$ such that $\Phi(p) = 0$ and $\Phi(E \cap \Omega) = {\mathbb R}^n \cap \Phi(\Omega)$.
This proposition simplifies many aspects of complex analysis near real analytic totally real submanifolds of maximal dimension. If $E$ is merely smooth, then a more subtle result holds: there exists a diffeomorphism $\Phi$ which takes $E$ to ${\mathbb R}^n$ and such that $\overline\partial\Phi$ vanishes to infinite order on $E$.
In the study of totally real submanifolds the following [*gluing disc argument*]{} is often quite helpful. It was introduced in [@Pi1] and then used by many authors. Without loss of generality, we may assume that in a neighbourhood $\Omega$ of the origin a smooth totally real manifold $E$ is defined by the equation $x = r(x,y)$, where a smooth vector function $r = (r_1,...,r_n)$ satisfies the conditions $r_j(0) = 0$, $\nabla r_j(0) = 0$. Fix a positive noninteger $s$ and consider for a real function $u \in C^s(\partial{\mathbb D})$ the Hilbert transform $H: u \to H(u)$. It is uniquely defined by the conditions that the function $u + iH(u)$ is the trace of a function holomorphic on ${\mathbb D}$ and the integral average of $H(u)$ over the circle is equal to $0$. This is a classical linear singular integral operator; it is bounded on the space $C^s(\partial{\mathbb D})$. Let $S^+ = \{ e^{i\theta}: \theta \in [0,\pi] \}$ and $S^- = \{ e^{i\theta}: \theta \in ]\pi, 2 \pi[ \}$ be the semicircles. Fix a $C^\infty$-smooth real function $\psi_j$ on $\partial{\mathbb D}$ such that $\psi_j\vert S^+ = 0$ and $\psi_j\vert S^- < 0$, $j=1,...,n$. Set $\psi = (\psi_1,...,\psi_n)$. Consider the [*generalized Bishop equation*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Bishop1}
u(\zeta) = r(u(\zeta),H(u)(\zeta) + c) + t\psi(\zeta), \,\, \zeta \in \partial{\mathbb D},\end{aligned}$$ where $c \in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $t = (t_1,...,t_n)$, $t_j \ge 0$, are real parameters. It follows by the implicit function theorem that this equation admits a unique solution $u(c,t) \in C^s(\partial{\mathbb D})$ depending smoothly on the parameters $(c,t)$. Consider now the analytic discs $f(c,t)(\zeta) = P_{\mathbb D}(u(c,t)(\zeta) + iH(u(c,t))(\zeta))$, where $P_{\mathbb D}$ denotes the Poisson operator of harmonic extension to ${\mathbb D}$. The map $(c,t) \mapsto f(c,t)(0)$ (the centres of discs) is of class $C^s$. Every disc is attached to $E$ along the upper semicircle. It is easy to see that this family of discs fills the wedge $W_\delta(\Omega,E)$ when $\delta > 0$ and a neighbourhood $\Omega$ of the origin are chosen small enough. Indeed, this is immediate when the function $r$ vanishes identically (i.e., $E = i{\mathbb R}^n$), while the general case follows by a small perturbation argument.
This construction of gluing analytic discs is flexible enough and has several applications. As an example we prove a version of [*the edge-of-the-wedge theorem*]{} following [@Ai; @Tu1].
Consider the generic manifolds $E_j = \{ z \in \Omega: \rho_k(z) = 0, k \neq j, k = 1,...,n \}$ of dimension $n+1$. On the unit circle we consider the open arcs $S_j$, $j=1,...,n$, bounded by the points $\{e^{\frac{2\pi j}{n}i}$, $j = 0,...,n-1\}$. Let $\psi_j$ be $C^\infty$-smooth functions on $\partial{\mathbb D}$ such that $\psi_j \vert S_j < 0$ and $\psi_j \vert (\partial{\mathbb D}\setminus S_j) = 0$, $j=1,...,n$. The equation (\[Bishop1\]) admits a solution in $C^s(\partial{\mathbb D})$ smoothly depending on the parameters $(c,t)$ in a neighbourhood of the origin in ${\mathbb R}^{2n}$ (note that $t_j$ are not assumed to be positive here). Every analytic disc from the family $f(c,t)(\zeta)$ obtained as above has the boundary attached to the union $\cup_j E_j$. Furthermore, their centres $f(c,t)(0)$ fill a neighbourhood of the origin in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Indeed the map $(c,t) \mapsto f(c,t)(0)$ has the maximal rank $2n$ in a neighbourhood of the origin (this is obvious when $r = 0$ and hence remains true under small perturbations). In combination with the approximation result (Theorem \[BaTr\]) we obtain
Let $f$ be a continuous CR function on $\cup_j E_j$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of $E$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$.
Indeed, by the maximum principle (applied along every analytic disc) the approximating family of holomorphic functions converges in a neighbourhood of the origin.
As a corollary we obtain the edge-of-the-wedge theorem (for a more general result see [@Pi3]). Introduce the domains $\Omega^+ = \{ z \in \Omega: \rho_j > 0, j=1,...,n \}$ and $\Omega^- = \{ z \in \Omega^-: \rho_j(z) < 0, j=1,...,n \}$.
Let $f^+$ and $f^-$ be functions holomorphic on the wedges $\Omega^+$ and $\Omega^-$ respectively and continuous up to the edge $E$. If $f^+$ and $f^-$ coincide on $E$, then they extend to a holomorphic function in a neighbourhood of $E$.
In combination with Proposition \[RealAnalytic\] and the Schwarz Reflection Principle this immediately gives the following simple multidimensional version of this principle:
\[CR2\] Let $E$ and $E'$ be real analytic totally real manifolds of dimension $n$ and $N$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and ${\mathbb C}^N$ respectively. Suppose that $f:W(\Omega,E) \to {\mathbb C}^N$ is a holomorphic mapping continuous on $W_\delta(\Omega,E) \cup E$ for some $\delta > 0$ and such that $f(E) \subset E'$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of $E$.
A smooth version of this result also holds but requires some additional technical tools.
\[CR3\] Let $W(\Omega,E)$ be a wedge in ${\mathbb C}^n$ with a $C^\infty$-smooth totally real edge $E$ of dimension $n$. Suppose that $f:W(\Omega,E) \to {\mathbb C}^N$ is a holomorphic mapping such that the cluster set $C_{W(\Omega,E)}(f;E)$ is contained in a $C^\infty$-smooth totally real manifold $E'$ of dimension $N$. Then for every $\delta > 0$ the mapping $f$ extends to $W_\delta(\Omega;E) \cup E$ as a $C^\infty$-smooth mapping.
We sketch the proof based on the ideas of Pinchuk-Hasanov [@PiHa] (for details see [@CoSu1]). The first step is to establish the result for $n=1$, i.e., when $f$ is an analytic disc. This is a combination of Proposition \[CCS\] and Chirka’s boundary regularity theorem for analytic discs [@Ch2]. The second step is to apply the above construction of filling $W(\Omega,E)$ with analytic discs glued to $E$ along the upper semicircle. Since Hölder constants are uniform with respect to the parameters, this implies the Hölder continuity of $f$ up to $E$. In the last step we use the smooth version of Proposition \[RealAnalytic\]. Let $\Phi$ (resp. $\Psi$) be a (local) diffeomorphism which takes $E$ to ${\mathbb R}^n$ (resp. $E'$ to ${\mathbb R}^N$) and such that $\overline\partial\Phi$ and $\overline\partial\Psi$ vanish to infinite order on $E$ (resp. on $E'$). We can apply the usual Reflection Principle to the mapping $\Psi \circ f \circ \Phi^{-1}$. This gives two functions in the opposite wedges with the edge ${\mathbb R}^n$. The functions are continuous up to ${\mathbb R}^n$, coincide there, and have the property that the $\overline\partial$-part of their differential vanishes to a suitable order on ${\mathbb R}^n$. But then these functions are $C^\infty$ smooth up to the edge ${\mathbb R}^n$. This is a very special case of the general elliptic regularity of the $\overline\partial$-operator. In our case it can be directly proved by slicing with complex linear discs and using regularity of the Cauchy integral transform $f \mapsto (2\pi i)^{-1} f * (1/\zeta)$ on ${\mathbb D}$.
Geometry of real analytic hypersurfaces {#s.geom}
=======================================
Real hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n > 1$, have nontrivial geometry induced by the complex structure of the ambient space. This is the main reason for rigidity of holomorphic mappings between domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$. In this section we describe classical methods used in the investigation of rigidity properties of holomorphic mappings near boundaries of domains.
Complexification, Segre varieties, and differential equations
-------------------------------------------------------------
We first introduce an important family of local biholomorphic invariants of a Levi nondegenerate real analytic hypersurface $\Gamma$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n >1$. This is a family of complex hypersurfaces called [*Segre varieties*]{} of $\Gamma$. One can view them as (the graphs of) solutions of a holomorphic second order PDE system with a completely integrable prolongation to the space of 1-jets. When $n=2$ such a system becomes a second order holomorphic ODE and the Segre family consists of complex curves. The biholomorphic maps of $\Gamma$ are precisely Lie symmetries of its Segre family. Thus, the geometry of real analytic hypersurfaces is closely related to the geometry of holomorphic ODEs and PDEs. This fundamental correspondence, discovered by Segre [@Se1], inspired E. Cartan [@Car] to study the geometry of real hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^2$ in analogy with the geometry of a second order ODE developed by the school of S. Lie [@Tr]. The approach of E. Cartan is very different and is based on his equivalence method for Pfaffian systems.
All considerations of this section are local so the results should be understood in terms of the germs of the analytic objects involved. To simplify the notation, we will not use the language of germs, so the reader should keep in mind the locality assumption.
Let ${\Gamma}$ be a real analytic hypersurface in a neighbourhood of $0 \in {\Gamma}$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then ${\Gamma}= \{ z: \rho(z,\overline{z}) = 0 \}$, where $\rho$ is a local defining real analytic function. For $w$ close enough to the origin we consider the complex hypersurface $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre1}
Q_w = \{ z: \rho(z,\overline{w}) = 0 \} .\end{aligned}$$ This hypersurface is called [*the Segre variety*]{} of the point $w$ (associated with ${\Gamma}$). The collection of all Segre varieties is called [*the Segre family*]{} of ${\Gamma}$. More generally, if ${\Gamma}$ is any real analytic set defined as the zero set of the vector function $\rho$, its Segre varieties are complex analytic subsets of ${\mathbb C}^n$ also defined by (\[Segre1\]).
The following basic properties of the Segre family can be easily checked:
- $z \in Q_z$ if and only if $z \in {\Gamma}$.
- $z \in Q_w$ if and only if $w \in Q_z$.
- Let $F$ be a holomorphic mapping in a neighbourhood of the origin such that $F({\Gamma}) \subset {\Gamma}'$, where ${\Gamma}'$ is another real analytic hypersurface. Then $F(Q_w) \subset Q_{F(w)}'$, where $Q_\bullet'$ denotes the Segre family of ${\Gamma}'$.
Property (iii) means that the Segre family is invariant with respect to biholomorphic mappings. In the one-dimensional case Segre varieties are points and so (iii) becomes the classical Schwarz Reflection Principle. In higher dimensions this property leads to far reaching consequences. For applications it is convenient to state (iii) in a more general form.
\[SegreLemma\] Let $0\in \Gamma$ be a real analytic hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $0\in {\Gamma}'$ be a real analytic subset of ${\mathbb C}^N$. Let $F$ be a holomorphic mapping such that $F(0)=0$ and $F({\Gamma}) \subset {\Gamma}'$. Then $F(Q_w) \subset Q_{F(w)}'$, where $Q_\bullet'$ denotes the Segre family of ${\Gamma}'$.
For the proof let ${\Gamma}' = \{ z' \in {\mathbb C}^N: \phi_j(z',\overline{z}') = 0, j = 1,...,d \}$. Then $\phi_j(F(z),\overline{F(z)}) = 0$ whenever $\rho(z,\overline{z}) = 0$. Therefore, $\phi_j(F(z),\overline{F(z)}) = \lambda_j(z,\overline{z})\rho(z,\overline{z})$, where $\lambda_j$ is a real analytic function in a neighbourhood of the origin. It follows that $\phi_j(F(z),\overline{F(w)}) = \lambda_j(z,\overline{w})\rho(z,\overline{w})$ for $(z,w)$ close to the origin in ${\mathbb C}^n \times {\mathbb C}^N$. This proves the lemma.
We now draw a connection between the complex geometry of real analytic hypersurfaces and the geometry of analytic differential equations and projective connections. The main idea is that the Segre family is a general set of solutions of some second order PDE system (or a single second order ODE when $n=2$).
Let us discuss in some detail the case of dimension 2. We begin with the basic example of ${\Gamma}=\{z_2 + \overline{z}_2 + z_1 \overline{z}_1 = 0\}$, an unbounded realization of the unit sphere in $\mathbb C^2$. The Segre family has the form $Q_w= \{ z\in \mathbb C^2 : z_2 + \overline{w}_2 + z_1 \overline{w}_1 = 0 \}$ This is simply the family of all complex lines in ${\mathbb C}^2$ (except the “vertical" lines $z_1 = $const). We view every $Q_w$ as the graph of a complex affine function $z_2 = h(z_1)$ that depends on two complex parameters $w_1$ and $w_2$. We treat $z_1$ as an independent variable and $z_2$ as the dependent one. Then the Segre family is the set of graphs of all solutions of the ordinary differential equation $\ddot z_2 = 0$. In the general case we can assume that $M = \{ z: {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_2 = \phi(z_1,\overline{z}_1, {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Im}}}}z_2) \}$, where $\nabla \phi(0) = 0$. By the Implicit Function Theorem, $Q_w = \{z : z_2 = h(z_1,\overline{w}_1,\overline{w}_2) \}$ for some holomorphic function $h$. Again we view $z_2$ as the dependent variable and $z_1$ as the independent one. Applying the Chain Rule we obtain $d^jz_2/dz_1^j = (\partial^j h/\partial z_1^j)(z_1,\overline{w}_1,\overline{w}_2)$, $j=1,2$. By the Implicit Function Theorem we represent the parameters $(w_1,w_2)$ as the functions of $(z_1, z_2,\dot z_2)$ and obtain the holomorphic ODE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre7}
\ddot z_2 = F\left(z_1,z_2,\dot z_2\right) .\end{aligned}$$ The Segre family of the real hypersurface ${\Gamma}$ is precisely the set of the graphs of the solutions of (\[Segre7\]).
The invariance property (iii) of the Segre family means that a biholomorphism $f$ of ${\Gamma}$ sends the graph of a solution of (\[Segre7\]) to the graph of another solution. But this means precisely that $f$ is a (point) Lie symmetry of the equation (\[Segre7\]). Therefore, the classical theory of Lie symmetries can be applied in order to study biholomorphisms of real analytic hypersurfaces.
As an example, consider a holomorphic differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre8}
(S): \ddot u = F(x,u,\dot u) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ denotes an independent complex variable and $F$ is a holomorphic function. A [*symmetry group*]{} $Sym(S)$ of the equation $(S)$ is a (maximal) local (Lie) group $G$ acting on a domain in ${\mathbb C}^2$ such that the following holds: for every solution $u(x)$ of $(S)$ and every $g \in G$ the image (if defined) of the graph of $u$ by $g$ is the graph of some solution of $(S)$ which we denote by $g_*u$. A holomorphic vector field $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre9}
X = \theta\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \eta\frac{\partial}{\partial u}
\end{aligned}$$ is called an [*infinitesimal Lie symmetry*]{} of $(S)$ if it belongs to the Lie algebra of $Sym(S)$, i.e., generates a one-parameter group of point Lie symmetries of $(S)$. Denote by $j_x^m(u)$ the $m$-jet of $u$ at $x$. In the most important case $m=2$ we set $u_1 = u_x$ and $u_{11} = u_{xx}$. Then $j^2_x(u) = (x,u,u_1,u_{11})$, and so $(x,u,u_1,u_{11})$ are natural coordinates on this jet space.
Every point Lie symmetry $g$ canonically extends to $J^m(1,1)$ as a biholomorphic mapping $g^{(m)}$ defined as follows: $g^{(m)}$ associates to $J_x^m(u)$ the jet $j_{u(x)}^m(g_*u)$. In particular, a one-parameter group of symmetries generated by a vector field $X$ lifts to $J^m(1,1)$. A vector field $X^{(m)}$ on $J^m(1,1)$ which generates this lift is called the prolongation of order $m$ of $X$. The classical Lie theory gives powerful tools for the study of Lie symmetries which are particularly convenient in the infinitesimal case. For $m=2$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre10}
X^{(2)} = X + \eta_1\frac{\partial}{\partial u_1} + \eta_{11}\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{11}} .
\end{aligned}$$ The general Lie theory gives the following expressions for the coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre11}
\eta_1 = \eta_x + (\eta_u - \theta_x)u_1 - \theta_u(u_1)^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre12}
\eta_{11} = \eta_{xx} + (2\eta_{xu} - \theta_{xx})u_1 + (\eta_{uu} - 2\theta_{xu})(u_1)^2 - \theta_{uu}(u_1)^3 + (\eta_u - 2\theta_x)u_{11} - 3\theta_u u_1 u_{11} .\end{aligned}$$ Equation (S) of the form (\[Segre8\]) defines a complex hypersurface $(S_2)$ in $J^2(1,1)$ by the equation $u_{11} = F(x,u,u_1)$. The fundamental principle of the Lie theory states that $X$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of $(S)$ if and only if the vector field $X^{(2)}$ is tangent to $(S_2)$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre13}
X^{(2)}(u_{11} - F(x,u,u_1)) = 0 \,\,\, \mbox{for} \,\,\,(x,u,u_1,u_{11}) \in (S_2).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the expansion $F(x,u,u_1) = \sum_{\nu \ge 0} f_{\nu}(x,u)(u_1)^\nu$. Plugging it into (\[Segre13\]) and comparing the coefficients of the powers of $u_1$ we obtain a system of PDEs of the form $$\begin{aligned}
L D^2(\theta,\eta) = G(x,u,D^1(\theta,\eta)) .\end{aligned}$$ Here $D^j$ denotes the set of the partial derivatives of the map $(\theta,\eta)$ of order $j$, $G$ is an analytic function, and $L$ is a matrix with constant coefficients. Applying to this system the partial derivatives in $x$ and $u$, we obtain after a direct computation that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Segre14}
D^3(\theta,\eta) = H(x,u,D^1(\theta,\eta),D^2(\theta,\eta)) ,\end{aligned}$$ for some analytic function $H$. This implies that every infinitesimal Lie symmetry of $(S)$ is determined by its second order jet at a given point. In particular, $\dim Sym(S) \le 8$.
Consider again the equation (\[Segre7\]) describing the Segre family of ${\Gamma}$. The group of local biholomorphisms of ${\Gamma}$ is embedded into the symmetry group of (\[Segre7\]) as a totally real subgroup of maximal dimension (see more details in [@Su3]). As a consequence we obtain that the dimension of the real Lie group of biholomorphisms of ${\Gamma}$ is bounded above by 8.
In higher dimensions ($n > 2$) the Segre family of a Levi nondegenerate real analytic hypersurface $\Gamma$ is described by a PDE system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lie1}
u_{x_ix_j} = F_{ij}(x,u,u_x) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $x \in {\mathbb C}^{n-1}$ and $u_x$ denotes the set of the first order partial derivatives of the function $u = u(x)$. This system is completely integrable: its lift to the first order space of jets is a first order PDE system which satisfies the Frobenius integrability conditions. For more details we refer the reader to papers [@Me3; @Su3], which are devoted to the study of Lie symmetries of PDE systems and Segre families.
Equivalence problem for real hypersurfaces, I: Moser’s Approach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\Gamma}$ be a real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$ containing the origin. All consideration will be local. We use the notation $z = ('z,z_n)$, $'z \in {\mathbb C}^{n-1}$. By the Implicit Function Theorem (after a permutation of coordinates), ${\Gamma}$ can be written as the graph $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Moser1}
y_n = F('z,'\overline{z},x_n)\end{aligned}$$ of a real analytic function $F$. Given a point $p \in {\Gamma}$ consider a real analytic curve $\gamma$ in ${\Gamma}$ with a parametrization $z = z(\tau)$, $\tau \in (-\tau_0,\tau_0)$. Assume that $\gamma$ passes through $p$ in a noncomplex tangential direction, i.e., $z(0) = p$ and the vector $\dot z(0)$ is not in $H_p{\Gamma}$.
In a neighbourhood of $p$ there exists a biholomorphic map $z^* = h(z)$ taking the curve $\gamma$ to the real interval $'z = 0$, $z_n = \tau$ (we drop the asterisk for simplicity), that is, $h(z(\tau)) = ('0,\tau)$. Furthermore, in the new coordinates ${\Gamma}$ is given by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Moser3}
y_n = \vert 'z \vert^2 + \sum_{k,l \ge 2} F_{kl}('z,'\overline{z},x_n),\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{kl}$ are real homogeneous polynomials of degree $k$ in $'z$ and $l$ in $'\overline{z}$ with coefficients analytic in $x_n$.
Of course, such a change of coordinates is not unique. First of all this is due to the freedom in the choice of the curve $\gamma$ and its parametrization. Moreover, consider a transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Moser2}
('z,z_n) \mapsto (U(z_n)'z,z_n) .\end{aligned}$$ Here $z_n \mapsto U(z_n)$ is a $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ nondegenerate holomorphic matrix function in $z_n$ which is unitary for $z_n = \tau$. This transformation fixes $\gamma$ and preserves (\[Moser3\]).
Using tensor notation we write $$F_{kl} = \sum_{1 \le \alpha_\nu,\beta_\mu \le n-1} a_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k\beta_1...\beta_l}
z_{\alpha_1}...z_{\alpha_k}\overline{z}_{\beta_1}...\overline{z}_{\beta_l} .$$ Here we assume that the coefficients $a_{\alpha\beta}$ do not change under permutations of indices $\alpha_\nu$ and $\beta_\mu$. For $k,l \ge 1$, we put $$tr F_{kl} = \sum b_{\alpha_1...\alpha_{k-1}\beta_1...\beta_{l-1}}z_{\alpha_1}...z_{\alpha_{k-1}}
\overline{z}_{\beta_1}...\overline{z}_{\beta_{l-1}} ,$$ with $$b_{\alpha_1...\alpha_{k-1}\beta_1...\beta_{l-1}} = \sum_{\alpha_k = \alpha_l} a_{\alpha_1...\alpha_k\beta_1...\beta_l} .$$ Moser [@CM] proved that after a biholomorphic change of coordinates one can additionally achieve in (\[Moser3\]) the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Moser4}
tr F_{22} = (tr)^2 F_{32} = (tr)^3 F_{33} = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Representation (\[Moser3\]), (\[Moser4\]) is called [*the (Moser) normal form*]{} of ${\Gamma}$. A real analytic curve $\gamma$, which in the normal form has the equation $'z = 0$, $y_n = 0$, is called a [*chain*]{}.
Conditions (\[Moser4\]) may be viewed geometrically. First we note that for a given point $p \in \Gamma$ there exists a unique chain passing trough $p$ in a prescribed noncomplex tangential direction. Furthermore, if $\Gamma$ is given by (\[Moser3\]), then the line $'z = 0$, $y_n = 0$ is a chain iff $(tr)^2 F_{32} = 0$. Let now $A$ be a unitary $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ matrix. There exists a unique mapping (\[Moser3\]) such that $U(0) = A$ and in the new coordinates $tr F_{22} = 0$. This matrix $A$ can be viewed as a new choice of an orthonormal basis in $H_0\Gamma$. Finally, consider an admissible reparametrization $('z,z_n) \mapsto (\sqrt{\dot q(z_n)}'z,q(z_n))$ of $\gamma$. Here $q(0) = 0$ and $q(\overline{z}_n) = \overline{q(z_n)}$. Such a change of coordinates preserves (\[Moser3\]) and the conditions $tr F_{22} = 0$, $(tr)^2 F_{32} = 0$. If $q$ additionally satisfies a certain third order ODE then the condition $(tr)^3F_{33} = 0$ also holds. Since $q(0) = 0$, the solution to this equation is uniquely determined by its first and second order derivatives at the origin.
Thus, the normalization of $\Gamma$ depends on the following data:
- the point $p \in \Gamma$ corresponding to the origin in the normal form;
- a noncomplex tangential direction at $p$ defining the chain $\gamma$ which has the equation $'z = 0$, $y_n=0$ in the normal form;
- the choice of an orthonormal basis in $H_p{\Gamma}$;
- two real parameters fixing the parametrization of $\gamma$.
The main result of Moser’s theory can be stated as follows.
For each choice of the initial data (i)-(iv) there exists a unique biholomorphic mapping $h$ taking ${\Gamma}$ to the normal form.
The normal form of the sphere is $y_n = \vert 'z \vert^2$. Every choice of the initial condition (i)-(iv) determines a unique linear-fractional automorphism of the sphere. Therefore, by Moser’s theorem every local automorphism is global. We obtain the Poincaré-Alexander theorem, see the next section for a detailed discussion.
Many applications of Moser’s theory are contained in the expository papers by Vitushkin [@Vi; @Vi2].
Equivalence problem, II: the Cartan-Chern Approach
--------------------------------------------------
Cartan’s equivalence problem (in local form) can be stated as follows. Let $U$ and $V$ be open subsets in ${\mathbb R}^n$. Suppose that $\omega_U = (\omega_U^1,...,\omega_U^n)$ and $\Omega_V = (\Omega_V^1,...,\Omega_V^n)$ are co-frames (bases of 1-forms) on $U$ and $V$ respectively. Consider a prescribed linear group $G$. The problem is to determine all diffeomorphisms $$f: U \to V,$$ satisfying $$f^*\Omega_V = \omega_U\gamma_{UV} \,\,\,\mbox{with}\,\, \gamma_{UV} \in G.$$ In the original work of E. Cartan, the group $G$ is allowed to vary from point to point. Note that many natural equivalence problems in differential geometry (for Riemannian structures, differential equations, CR structures, etc.) can be represented in this form for an appropriate choice of co-frames and the group $G$.
The approach of E. Cartan to the solution of the above equivalence problem is based on the observation that the problem has a (relatively) simple solution in the case of the trivial group $G = \{ e \}$. Even then a complete solution of the equivalence problem is not quite explicit. In most cases this method provides a number of geometric invariants of the problem at hand (a common application of these invariants is to show that the equivalence problem does not admit any solution). The equivalence problem is considered to be solved if it is reduced to the problem with $G = \{ e \}$. The main idea of this reduction consists of introduction of a (finite) sequence of larger spaces reducing the group $G$ at every step.
The procedure proposed by E. Cartan comprises several iterated steps. First, the co-frames $\omega$ and $\Omega$ must be extended in an equivariant way to $U \times G$ and $V \times G$. There, the first structure equations for $d\omega$ and $d\Omega$ can be written. These equations contain the so-called torsion terms and the special procedure of absorption of these terms allows one to reduce the group. Note that this requires the expansion of the initial system to a higher bundle.
In the case of Levi nondegenerate hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$ (not necessarily real analytic but sufficiently smooth) this approach leads to a complete solution of the local equivalence problem. This was achieved by E. Cartan [@Car] for $n=2$ and by Chern [@CM] and Tanaka [@Ta] in all dimensions. The adjacent equivalence problem for systems (\[Lie1\]) was solved by Hachtroudi [@Hach] using Cartan’s method. This problem can be also viewed in terms of Cartan’s theory of the projective connections. This approach to the Segre geometry is developed by Chern [@C] and Burns-Shnider [@BuSh3].
Each of the methods described in this section gives useful information concerning local properties of biholomorphic mappings between strictly pseudoconvex or Levi nondegenerate hypersurfaces: precise bounds on the dimension of the automorphism group, efficient parametrization of biholomorphisms by their second order jets, etc. Notice that the methods of Moser and Cartan-Chern admit some generalizations to a wider class of real hypersurfaces (with special Levi degeneracies) or to real manifolds of higher codimension. However, in these cases the approach based on Segre varieties often turns out to be the most convenient and flexible. For example, the approach based on the dynamical description of the Segre family by an analytic ODE was recently extended to a wider class of hypersurfaces (with the degenerate Levi form) by Kossovskiy-Shafikov [@KoSha1; @KoSha2]. Using the technique of the local theory of analytic dynamical systems and meromorphic differential equations they studied the geometry of Levi degenerate hypersurfaces and their formal (i.e., with respect to maps given by formal power series) and analytic CR transformations. In particular, they proved in [@KoSha2] that formal and holomorphic equivalence of real analytic hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$ do not coincide (for Levi nondegenerate hypersurfaces they coincide by Moser’s theory). This is a consequence of the classical phenomenon of the local theory of analytic dynamical systems where the formal and analytic classifications are different. Further results in this direction are obtained recently by Kossovskiy-Lamel [@KoLa].
Holomorphic mappings of strictly pseudoconvex domains and scaling {#s.refl}
=================================================================
We begin with the special case of the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}^n \subset {\mathbb C}^n$, $n > 1$, and the Poincaré -Alexander rigidity phenomenon [@Po; @Al1]: let $U$, $V \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ be neighbourhoods of points $p, q \in \partial {\mathbb{B}}^n$ respectively, and $f: U \to V$, $f(p)=q$, be a biholomorphic (or even nonconstant holomorphic) map which takes $U \cap \partial{\mathbb{B}}^n$ to $V \cap \partial {\mathbb{B}}^n$; then $f$ extends to an automorphism of ${\mathbb{B}}^n$.
This result was used by Alexander [@Al2] and Rudin [@Ru1] to prove the following
\[AlRu\] Any proper holomorphic self-map of the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}^n$, $n>1$, is an automorphism of ${\mathbb{B}}^n$.
The Poincaré -Alexander phenomenon and Theorem \[AlRu\] illustrate a great difference between biholomorphic and proper holomorphic mappings in one and several complex variables. The following result obtained by C. Fefferman [@Fe] has been influential for the development of the theory of holomorphic mappings.
\[FefTheo\] Let $f: \Omega \to \Omega'$ be a biholomorphic mapping between two strictly pseudoconvex domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ with $C^\infty$-smooth boundaries. Then $f$ extends to $\overline\Omega$ as a mapping of class $C^\infty$.
The original proof of this theorem was long and complicated, but it stimulated intensive research on the boundary regularity of proper holomorphic mappings which led to the discovery of new methods and results. In this section we present the main steps of a different, more elementary approach to the proof of Theorem \[FefTheo\].
The Schwarz Reflection Principle.
----------------------------------
The following theorem may be considered as the Schwarz Reflection Principle in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n>1$.
\[SchwarzTheo1\] Let $\Omega$ be a one-sided neighbourhood of a strictly pseudoconvex real analytic hypersurface ${\Gamma}$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Let also ${\Gamma}'$ be a real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Suppose that $f: \Omega \to {\mathbb C}^n$ is a holomorphic mapping of class $C^1(\Omega \cup {\Gamma})$ such that $f({\Gamma}) \subset {\Gamma}'$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a full neighbourhood of ${\Gamma}$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$.
Let $\Omega$, $\Omega'$ be strictly pseudoconvex domains with real analytic boundaries and $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic map which extends to $\overline\Omega$ as a $C^1$ map. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of $\overline\Omega$.
We present here two different proofs of this theorem, both of which are local. The first one was obtained in [@Pi1] and [@Lewy].
Fix a point $p \in {\Gamma}$. Let $\rho$ and $\psi$ be strictly plurisubharmonic real analytic local defining functions of ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}'$ near $p$ and $f(p)$ respectively. As usual, we consider them as power series in $z$ and $\overline{z}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Schwarz1}
\psi(f(z),\overline{f(z)}) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ whenever $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Schwarz2}
\rho(z,\overline{z}) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Let $X_1,...,X_{n-1}$ be a basis in the space of tangential Cauchy-Riemann operators on ${\Gamma}$. Applying them to (\[Schwarz1\]) we obtain via the Chain Rule, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Schwarz3}
X_j \psi(f(z),\overline{f(z)}) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial w_k}(f(z),\overline{f(z)}) X_jf(z) = 0 , \,\, j = 1,...,n-1.\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to consider the case when $f$ is not constant. Since both hypersurfaces are strictly pseudoconvex we conclude that the tangent mapping $df(p)$ is nondegenerate. Together with the nondegeneracy of the Levi form of $\psi$ at $f(p)$, this allows us to apply the Implicit Function Theorem to the system (\[Schwarz1\]), (\[Schwarz3\]). We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Schwarz4}
\overline{f(z)} = H(f(z),X_1f(z),...,X_{n-1}f(z)), \,\,\,z \in {\Gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is a holomorphic function in all variables. Let ${\mathbb C}\ni \zeta \mapsto l_c(\zeta)$ be a family of parallel complex affine lines depending on a parameter $c \in {\mathbb C}^{n-1}$ that are transverse to ${\Gamma}$ near $p$. Then the intersection of every line with ${\Gamma}$ is a real analytic curve $\gamma_c$ in ${\mathbb C}$. Every coefficient of $X_j$ is a real analytic function and its restriction on $\gamma_c$ extends to a function holomorphic in a neighbourhood (whose size is independent of $c$) of $\gamma_c$. Replacing in (\[Schwarz4\]) these coefficients with such holomorphic extensions, we obtain by the one-dimensional Schwarz Reflection Principle that the restriction of $f$ on every linear section $\Omega \cap l_c$ extends holomorphically past ${\Gamma}$. Then the result follows by the Hartogs Lemma.
The second proof, due to Webster [@We3], is shorter. Since the hypersurfaces are strictly pseudoconvex, the projectivizations of their holomorphic tangent bundles ${\mathbb P}H({\Gamma})$ and ${\mathbb P}H({\Gamma}')$ are totally real submanifolds of maximal dimension $2n-1$. Then the mapping $z \mapsto (z,df(z))$ is holomorphic on a wedge type domain with the edge ${\mathbb P}H({\Gamma})$, is continuous up to the edge, and takes it to ${\mathbb P}H({\Gamma}')$. Hence, this mapping extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of the edge by the Reflection Principle (see Proposition \[CR2\]).
These two proofs of Theorem \[SchwarzTheo1\] represent two different types of the Reflection Principle: analytic and geometric. They both require additional assumptions on the regularity of $f$ on the hypersurface $\Gamma$. The analytic approach needs $C^1$ regularity, while the geometric one requires slightly weaker regularity, namely continuity of the lift of $f$ up to ${\mathbb P}H(\partial\Omega)$. Furthermore, the geometric Reflection Principle admits smooth generalizations. A $C^\infty$-smooth version of Theorem \[SchwarzTheo1\] was obtained by Nirenberg-Webster-Yang [@NiWeYa]: if the hypersurfaces ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}'$ are merely $C^\infty$-smooth, then $f$ necessarily is of class $C^\infty(\Omega \cup {\Gamma})$. The proof follows along the same lines with the application of Proposition \[CR3\].
Continuous extension
--------------------
We need the following version of the classical Hopf lemma.
\[Hopf\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain with $C^2$-smooth boundary in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and let $K$ be a compact subset of $\Omega$. For every constant $L > 0$ there exists a constant $C = C(K,L) > 0$ with the following property: if a function $u \in PSH(\Omega)$ is such that $u(z) < 0$ for every $z \in \Omega$ and $u(z) \le - L$ for all $z \in K$, then $\vert u(z) \vert \ge C dist(z,\partial\Omega)$ for each $z \in \Omega$.
One of the first results on the boundary behaviour of holomorphic mappings (see [@Kh; @Pi2]) is the following
\[ExtTheo1\] Let $f: \Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic mapping between two strictly pseudoconvex domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then $f$ extends to $\overline\Omega$ as a 1/2-Hölder-continuous mapping.
Let $\rho$ and $\psi$ be strictly plurisubharmonic global defining functions of $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ respectively. The functions $v(z) = \psi(f(z))$ and $u(p) = \sup\{ \rho(z): f(z) = p \}$ are plurisubharmonic in $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ respectively. Applying the Hopf Lemma to these functions we obtain that $C\rho(z) \le \psi(f(z)) \le C^{-1}\rho(z)$ for some constant $C > 0$. This is equivalent to the boundary distance preserving property $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ext1}
C {\,\rm dist}(z,\partial \Omega ) \le {\,\rm dist} (f(z), \partial \Omega') \le C^{-1} {\,\rm dist}(z,\partial\Omega) .\end{aligned}$$ From the decreasing property of the Kobayashi-Royden pseudometric and the estimates of this metric from above and below, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
C \vert df(z)V\vert {\,\rm dist}(f(z),\partial \Omega')^{-1/2} \le
F_{\Omega'}(f(z),df(z)V) \le F_{\Omega}(z,V) \le C^{-1}\vert V \vert {\,\rm dist}(z,\partial \Omega)^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ for every point $z \in \Omega$ and every tangent vector $V$. In view of (\[Ext1\]) this implies the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ext2}
\parallel df(z) \parallel \le C {\rm dist}(z,\partial \Omega)^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ for the operator norm of the differential. The theorem now follows by the classical integration argument of Hardy-Littlewood.
The same proof works with minor modifications when the domain $\Omega$ is merely pseudoconvex: instead of the defining function $\rho$ one can use the bounded exhaustion function of Diederich-Fornaess (Theorem \[t.df\]). The assumptions on $f$ and $\Omega'$ also can be weakened, see Proposition \[ExtTheo2\]. It was the idea of Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo3] to utilize the Kobayashi-Royden metric instead of the previously used Carathéodory metric.
Theorem \[ExtTheo1\] does not allow immediately to deduce Fefferman’s Theorem \[FefTheo\] from Theorem \[SchwarzTheo1\] and its smooth counterpart. However, it was used by Nirenberg-Webster-Yang [@NiWeYa] to prove continuity of the lift of $f$ up to ${\mathbb P}H(\partial\Omega)$. This was done with rather tricky and subtle arguments involving the Julia-Carathéodory lemma. The argument was later simplified by Forstnerič [@For5]. In the next subsection we present a more transparent proof using scaling.
The scaling method
------------------
Let $\Omega$ be a domain with a strictly pseudoconvex boundary of class $C^2$ and a defining function $\rho$ near a point $w^0 \in \partial\Omega$. There exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $w^0$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and a family of biholomorphic mapping $h_w:{\mathbb C}^n \to {\mathbb C}^n$, continuously depending on $w \in \partial\Omega \cap U$, so that the following conditions are satisfied:
- $h_w(w) = 0$.
- The defining function $\rho_w:= \rho \circ h_w^{-1}$ for the domain $h_w(\Omega)$ has the form $$\rho_w = 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_n + 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}Q_w(z) + H_w(z) + R_w(z) ,$$ where $R_w(z) = o(\vert z \vert^2)$, $Q_w(z) = \sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^n q_{\mu\nu}(w)z^{\mu}z^{\nu}$ and $H_w(z) = \sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^n h_{\mu,\nu}(w)z^{\mu}\overline{z}^{\nu}$. Furthermore, $Q_w(z) = 0$ and $H_w(z) = 0$ when $z_n = 0$.
- Each mapping $h_w$ sends the real normal of $\partial\Omega$ at the point $w$ to the real normal $\{ z_1=...=z_{n-1} = {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Im}}}}z_n = 0 \}$ of $\partial h_w(\Omega_w)$ at the origin.
In applications of this construction usually one can assume that $w^0=0$ and $\partial\Omega$ is already normalized near the origin; therefore, one can assume additionally that $h_{w^0}$ is the identity mapping.
As before, $'z = (z_1,...,z_{n-1})$ so that $z = ('z,z_{n-1})$. Consider a sequence of points $\{q^k\}$ in $\Omega$ converging to a point $q \in \partial \Omega$. Denote by $w^k \in \partial \Omega$ the point closest to $q_k$. Set $h^k:= h_{w^k}$ and $\rho_k := \rho_{w^k}$. Set $\delta_k = {\rm dist}(h^k(q^k),\partial h^k(\Omega^k))$. Then $h^k(q^k) = ('0,-\delta_k)$. Consider the dilations $$d^k:('z,z_n) \mapsto (\delta_k^{-1/2} {'z},\delta_k^{-1}z_n) .$$ Finally, define the biholomorphic mappings $D^k:= d^k \circ h^k$. Note that this sequence of biholomorphic mappings is determined by $\Omega$ and the sequence $\{q^k\}$. We call the sequence $\{D^k\}$ [*the scaling along a sequence $\{q^k\}$*]{}. Let $\Omega_k = D^k(\Omega) = \{ \delta_k^{-1}\rho_k \circ d_k^{-1} < 0 \}$. It is easy to see that the sequence of functions $\{\delta_k^{-1}\rho_k \circ d_k^{-1}\}$ converges uniformly on compact subsets of ${\mathbb C}^n$ to the function $2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_n + \vert z'\vert^2$ which defines the domain ${\mathbb H}$ given by . As a consequence, the sequence of domains $\{\Omega_k\}$ converges to ${\mathbb H}$ with respect to the Hausdorff distance.
Scaling along a sequence has many applications. As an example, we conclude the sketch of the proof of Fefferman’s mapping theorem using the arguments from [@PiHa]. It suffices to show that in the hypothesis of the theorem the lift $(z,df(z))$ of $f$ to the tangent bundle extends continuously to ${\mathbb P}H(\partial \Omega)$. Arguing by contradiction, assume that there exists a sequence of points $\{p^k\}$ in $\Omega$ converging to a boundary point $p$ such that their images $\{q^k\}$ converge to some point $q \in \partial\Omega'$, but the sequence $\{p^k,df(p^k)\}$ does not converge to ${\mathbb P}H(\partial\Omega')$. Let $\{G^k\}$ and $\{D^k\}$ be the scaling sequences along the sequences $\{p^k\}$ and $\{q^k\}$ respectively. Then one can show that the sequence $\{f^k = D^k \circ f \circ (G^k)^{-1}\}$ converges to a holomorphic mapping which is degenerate at some point. On the other hand, it is easy to see by the standard normal family argument that the limit map is a biholomorphism of the unit ball. This contradiction proves the theorem.
The idea of using almost holomorphic functions (i.e., functions with asymptotically vanishing $\overline\partial$-operator) and the Reflection Principle in Fefferman’s theorem is due to Nirenberg-Webster-Yang [@NiWeYa]. It was also used for hypersurfaces of class $C^m$ with noninteger $m> 2$ in [@PiHa] which proves that a biholomorphic mapping $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ between strictly pseudoconvex domains with boundaries of class $C^m$ extends to $\overline\Omega$ as a map of class $C^{m-1}(\overline\Omega)$. A similar result but by different methods was proved by Lempert [@Lem1]. Later Khurumov [@Hur] proved that, in fact, $f \in C^{m-1/2}(\overline\Omega)$. This result is sharp.
Proper and locally proper mappings
----------------------------------
The case when $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ is a proper mapping can be reduced to the biholomorphic case via the following generalization of Alexander’s theorem obtained in [@Pi6].
\[AlPinTheo\] Let $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic mapping between two strictly pseudoconvex domains with $C^2$-smooth boundaries. Then $df(z)$ is nondegenerate at every point $z \in \Omega$, i.e., $f$ is locally biholomorphic.
Arguing by contradiction, assume that the Jacobian determinant of $f$ vanishes on a complex hypersurface $H$ in $\Omega$. Let $\{p^k\}$ be a sequence of points in $H$ converging to a boundary point and set $q^k = f(p^k)$. Consider the scalings $\{G^k\}$ and $\{D^k\}$ along these sequences. Then the sequence $\{f^k = D^k \circ f \circ (G^k)^{-1}\}$ converges to a proper holomorphic mapping $F: {\mathbb H}\to {\mathbb H}$ which is a biholomorphism by Alexander’s theorem. On the other hand, it follows by the choice of $\{p^k\}$ that $dF$ vanishes at some interior point, which is a contradiction.
\[AlPinCor\] A proper holomorphic self-mapping of a strictly pseudoconvex domain with $C^2$-smooth boundary is a biholomorphism.
A similar idea allows one to establish the following rigidity phenomenon for CR mappings [@PiTs].
Let ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}'$ be strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Suppose that $U$ is a neighbourhood of a point $p \in {\Gamma}$ and $f: {\Gamma}\cap U \to {\Gamma}'$ is a continuous nonconstant CR mapping. Then there exist neighbourhoods $V$ and $V'$ of $p$ and $f(p)$ respectively such that $f: {\Gamma}\cap V \to {\Gamma}' \cap V'$ is a homeomorphism.
We can use the fact that $f$ extends holomorphically to the pseudoconvex one-sided neighbourhood of $p$. The difficulty is that a priori $f$ may be not a proper mapping there. The main idea of the proof is to show that the set $f^{-1}(f(p))$ is finite in a neighbourhood of $p$ on $\partial\Omega$. This will imply that $f$ is proper and will reduce the problem to the previous theorem. Arguing by contradiction suppose that this set contains a sequence converging to $p$ and apply again the scaling (see [@CoPiSu1] for a more general scaling result needed here). Then one can show that the limit map is an automorphism of the ball and at the same time is degenerate at some point, which is a contradiction.
Extension of germs of holomorphic mappings
==========================================
In this section we present the results which generalize and develop the rigidity phenomenon discovered by Poincaré and Alexander.
A real hypersurface $\Gamma = \rho^{-1}(0)$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ is called [*real algebraic*]{} if it is defined by a real polynomial $\rho$. For an open set $U\subset \mathbb C^n$, a holomorphic map $F: U \to \mathbb C^n$ is called algebraic if its graph is contained in an algebraic subvariety of $\mathbb C^{2n}$ of dimension $n$. The following result is due to Webster [@We1]:
\[GermsTheo1\] Let ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}'$ be Levi-nondegenerate real algebraic hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$ of degree $m$ and $m'$ respectively, and let $U$ be a neighbourhood in ${\mathbb C}^n$ of a point $p \in {\Gamma}$. Suppose that $f:U \to {\mathbb C}^n$ is a holomorphic mapping with a nondegenerate differential at $p$ and such that $f({\Gamma}) \subset {\Gamma}'$. Then $f$ extends to ${\mathbb C}^n$ as an algebraic mapping of degree bounded above by a constant depending only on $n$, $m$, and $m'$.
Applying complex conjugation, we rewrite the equation (\[Schwarz4\]) in the form $f(z) = G(z,\overline{z}, \overline{F(z)})$, where $F = (f,J_f)$. Here $G$ is an (holomorphic) algebraic function and $J_f$ denotes the Jacobian matrix of $f$ viewed as a ${\mathbb C}^{n^2}$-valued map. It follows that the mapping $F$ takes ${\Gamma}$ to the real algebraic set $M = \{ (z,\zeta,\omega) \in {\mathbb C}^n \times {\mathbb C}^n \times {\mathbb C}^{n^2}: \zeta = G(z,\overline{z},\overline{\omega})\}$. By Lemma \[SegreLemma\], $F(Q_w)$ is contained in $Q_{F(w)}'$ (the Segre variety defined by $M$), which implies that the restriction of $f$ to $Q_w$ is an algebraic map (of controlled degree). Consider $n$ families of transverse Segre varieties for $\Gamma$. After a local biholomorphic and algebraic change of coordinates one can transform them to families of parallel coordinate hyperplanes. Now the classical theorem on separate algebraicity [@BM] can be applied (see [@SharSu] for details).
We begin the discussion of the analytic case with the result of [@Pi5].
\[sphereTheo\] Let $\Gamma$ be a (connected) real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n > 1$, $U$ a neighbourhood of a point $p \in \Gamma$, $f: U \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^n$ a nonconstant holomorphic mapping and assume that $f(U \cap \Gamma) \subset \partial{\mathbb{B}}^n$. Then $f$ can be continued along any path on $\Gamma$ starting at $p$ as a locally biholomorphic mapping.
\[ExtSpherical\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded strictly pseudoconvex domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ ($n > 1$) with real analytic simply connected boundary. Assume that $f$ is a nonconstant holomorphic mapping in a neighbourhood $U$ of a point $p \in \partial\Omega$ such that $f(U \cap \partial\Omega) \subset \partial{\mathbb{B}}^n$. Then $f$ extends to a biholomorphic mapping between $\Omega$ and ${\mathbb{B}}^n$.
The proof uses the Reflection Principle. In our case the equation (\[Schwarz1\]) has the form $(f,f) - 1 = 0$. Hence, one can apply in (\[Schwarz3\]) the Cramer rule (instead of the Implicit Function Theorem). It follows that $H$ in (\[Schwarz4\]) is a rational function in $f$ and $X_jf$. This allows one to extend $f$ along the family $l_c$ of complex lines meromorphically but “far enough". With this the proof can be completed as follows. First we complexify $\partial\Omega$ near a given point $p$ by a biholomorphic change of coordinates. Then we cut off a piece of $\partial\Omega$ by a real hyperplane parallel to the tangent plane at $p$. Next we extend $f$ meromorphically along a family of complex lines parallel to this hyperplane. Repeating this procedure we obtain a global meromorphic extension of $f$. The last step is to prove that this extension is, in fact, holomorphic.
A real analytic hypersurface $\Gamma$ is called [*spherical*]{} at a point $p\in \Gamma$ if in a neighbourhood of $p$ it is locally biholomorphic to an open piece of the real sphere $\partial{\mathbb{B}}^n$. It follows from Theorem \[sphereTheo\] that if a connected $\Gamma$ is spherical at one point, then it is spherical at every point. Burns and Shnider [@BuSh1] constructed the following example. Let $\Gamma = \{z \in {\mathbb C}^2: y_2 = \vert z_1 \vert^2 \}$ (the unbounded sphere) and $\Gamma' = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: \sin \ln \vert z_2 \vert^2 = 0, e^{-\pi} \le \vert z_2 \vert \le 1 \}$. Then the mapping $f(z) = (z_1/\sqrt{z_2}, \exp(i\ln z_2))$ with a suitable choice of a branch of $\ln z_2$, maps $\Gamma \setminus \{ 0 \}$ into $\Gamma'$ but does not extend even continuously to $z=0$. In this example $\Gamma'$ is a compact real analytic spherical hypersurface which is not simply-connected.
A result similar to Theorem \[sphereTheo\] holds if the sphere in the target space is replaced with an algebraic hypersurface, see [@Sha1].
\[t.ac\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected essentially finite smooth real-analytic hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $p\in{\Gamma}$. Let $\Gamma'$ be a compact strictly pseudoconvex real-algebraic hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Let $f$ be a germ of a holomorphic mapping from $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$ defined at $p$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically along any path on $\Gamma$ with the extension sending ${\Gamma}$ to ${\Gamma}'$.
In this result the hypersurface ${\Gamma}$ is not assumed to be strictly pseudoconvex, although it follows from the proof that it is pseudoconvex, and that the set of weakly pseudoconvex points of ${\Gamma}$ consists precisely of the points where the extended map degenerates. The proof is based on the technique of Segre varieties. The hypersurface $\Gamma$ is called essentially finite if the map $z \to Q_z$ is locally finite near every point of ${\Gamma}$. The main idea is the holomorphic extension along Segre varieties: from the properties of Segre varieties (see Section \[s.geom\]) one may conclude that the inclusion $f(Q_z) \subset Q'_{f(z)}$ must hold not only for points in the domain of $f$ but also for points $z$ with the property that $Q_z$ has a nonempty intersection with the open set where $f$ is defined. This gives a holomorphic extension of $f$ to such points, which can be quite far away from the initial domain of $f$ no matter how small it is. An iterative procedure then gives extension of $f$ along any curve in $\Gamma$. In particular, this technique can be used to give an alternative independent proof of Theorem \[sphereTheo\]. In [@KoSha], this technique was further refined to show that the germ of a biholomorphic mapping $f: \Gamma \to \Gamma'$ extends also across complex hypersurfaces that might be present in $\Gamma$. Here ${\Gamma}'$ is either a sphere or, more generally, any nondegenerate hyperquadric in $\mathbb C^n$.
Consider now the case of a real analytic hypersurface in the target domain. It turns out that unlike the spherical case, for nonspherical strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces the phenomenon of analytic continuation holds without any additional topological restrictions. This follows from the following result.
\[t.cont2\] Let $\Gamma$, $\Gamma'$ be nonspherical real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$, ($n > 1$), and $U$ is a neighbourhood of a point $p \in \Gamma$, where the sets $\Gamma$, $\Gamma'$, $U$ and $\Gamma \cap U$ are connected and $\Gamma'$ is compact. Suppose that there exists a nonconstant holomorphic mapping $f:U \to {\mathbb C}^n$ such that $f(U \cap \Gamma) \subset \Gamma'$. Then $f$ continues analytically along any path in $\Gamma$ as a locally biholomorphic mapping.
In this form this theorem was proved in [@Pi55]. The proof is based on a careful analysis of the behaviour of Moser’s chains on a nonspherical strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface. Vitushkin -Ezhov-Kruzhilin [@VEK] obtained a different proof of this result in a more general setting when $\Gamma$, $\Gamma'$ are nonspherical real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in arbitrary $n$-dimensional complex manifolds, $n \ge 2$. We refer the reader to the surveys [@Vi; @Vi2] by Vitushkin for a comprehensive discussion and further results in this direction.
For nonalgebraic ${\Gamma}'$, the problem of analytic continuation remains open in the presence of weakly pseudoconvex points in $\Gamma$, for example, it is not known if the map $f$ in Theorem \[t.cont2\] extends to a neighbourhood of an isolated weakly pseudoconvex point that $\Gamma$ might have. The difficulty is that the results of Moser’s theory do not hold in general near points where the Levi form of ${\Gamma}$ degenerates, and it is also not clear how to generalize the technique of analytic continuation along Segre varieties for nonalgebraic target hypersurfaces.
We conclude this section with a result by Nemirovski-Shafikov [@NemSha1; @NemSha2] on uniformization of strictly pseudoconvex domains.
\[t.ns\] Let $\Omega$, $\Omega'$ be strictly pseudoconvex domains with real analytic boundaries. Then the universal coverings of $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ are biholomorphically equivalent if and only if the boundaries of these domains are locally biholomorphically equivalent.
If the boundaries of $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ are locally equivalent somewhere, then by Theorems \[sphereTheo\] and \[t.cont2\] the germ of the equivalence map extends as a locally biholomorphic map $f$ along any path in $\partial\Omega$, and hence along any path in a one-sided neighbourhood $V$ of $\partial\Omega$. This possibly multiple-valued map on $V$ extends to the envelope of holomorphy of $V$, which is $\Omega$ by Hartogs’ theorem. Kerner’s theorem [@Ker] states that the envelope of holomorphy of the universal covering $\widehat{V}$ of $V$ is the universal covering of the envelope of holomorphy of $V$. From this it follows that $f$ extends to a map $f: \widehat{\Omega} \to \Omega'$. In the nonspherical case, the final result can be deduced by repeating the argument for the inverse of the equivalence of $\partial \Omega$ and $\partial \Omega'$. In the spherical case an additional argument using invariant metrics in needed. The proof of Theorem \[t.ns\] in the other direction essentially follows the general scheme outlined in Section \[s.refl\]: the equivalence map $f: \hat\Omega \to \hat\Omega'$ is first extended smoothly to the boundary, and then the Reflections Principle (Theorem \[SchwarzTheo1\]) is applied.
Weakly pseudoconvex domains
===========================
Finite type and PSH peak functions.
------------------------------------
Consider a smooth real hypersurface $\Gamma = \rho^{-1}(0)$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$. The following notion of the type of ${\Gamma}$ at a point $p \in \Gamma$ is due to D’Angelo [@Dan1]. Denote by $O_p$ the space of germs of holomorphic mappings $h: ({\mathbb C},0) \to {\mathbb C}^n$, $h(0) = p$. Denote by $\nu(h)$ the order of vanishing of $h - h(0)$ at the origin. Let also $\nu(\rho \circ h)$ denote the order of vanishing of the function $\rho \circ h$ at the origin. Then the type of $\Gamma$ at $0$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{type1}
\tau(\Gamma,p) = \sup \{\nu(\rho \circ h)/\nu(h), h \in O_p \} .\end{aligned}$$ In general the function $p \mapsto \tau({\Gamma},p)$ is not upper semicontinuous. Nevertheless, D’Angelo proved the following. Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain and let $q \in \partial\Omega$. Then there exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $q$ such that for each $p \in U \cap \partial\Omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{type2}
\tau(\partial\Omega,p) \le \tau(\partial\Omega,q)^{n-1}/2^{n-2} .\end{aligned}$$ A real analytic hypersurface is of finite type iff it contains no germs of complex analytic sets of positive dimension. It is a result of Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo2] that a compact real analytic subset of $\mathbb C^n$ contains no nontrivial complex analytic subsets, and so every bounded domain with real analytic boundary in ${\mathbb C}^n$ is of finite type at every boundary point.
The following characterization of finite type is due to Fornaess-Sibony [@FoSi; @Si3]:
\[type3\] Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $p \in \partial\Omega$. Assume there exist a function $\phi_p \in C^0(\overline\Omega)$ plurisubharmonic in $\Omega$ and constants $C > 0$, $\lambda > 0$, $k > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{type4}
-C\vert z - p \vert^{\lambda} \le \phi(z) \le - \vert z \vert^{2k\lambda}, \ \ z \in \overline\Omega .\end{aligned}$$ Then $\partial\Omega$ is of type less than $2k$ at $p$.
The function $\phi_p$ above is called a plurisubharmonic [*barrier*]{} (at $p$). If $k=1$, the existence of a barrier is equivalent to strict pseudoconvexity at $p$ (see [@Si2]).
We say that a boundary point $q \in \partial\Omega$ satisfies [*the barrier property*]{} if there exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $q$ such that every point $p \in U \cap \partial\Omega$ admits a barrier function (with $k$ and $\lambda$ independent of $p$).
\[type5\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ with a smooth pseudoconvex boundary of finite type in a neighbourhood $V$ of a point $q \in \partial\Omega$. Then $q$ satisfies the barrier property.
When $n=2$ or when $V \cap \partial\Omega$ is convex, this result is due to Fornaess-Sibony [@FoSi]. The real analytic case is due to Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo4]. Finally, the general case was treated by Cho [@Cho].
Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo3] proposed the use of barrier functions in order to obtain lower bounds for the Kobayashi-Royden metric. This approach works for a wide class of domains. As an application we present the following result obtained in [@Su2].
\[ExtTheo2\] Let $\Omega$ and $\Omega'$ be domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ whose boundaries are $C^2$-smooth near some points $p \in \partial\Omega$ and $p' \in \partial\Omega'$ and satisfy the barrier property at these points. Let $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ be a holomorphic mapping such that for some neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ the cluster set $C_\Omega(f; U \cap \partial\Omega)$ doest not intersect $\Omega'$. Assume also that the cluster set $C_\Omega(f;p)$ contains the point $p'$. Then $f$ extends to a neighbourhood of $p$ in $\partial\Omega$ as a Hölder-continuous mapping.
Various results concerning continuous extension of holomorphic mappings are also obtained in [@Ber1; @Ber2; @DiFo3; @FoLow; @FoRo].
$\overline{\partial}$-approach to boundary regularity
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Consider the hermitian Hilbert space $L^2(\Omega)$ equipped with the standard hermitian product $(\bullet,\bullet)_{L^2(\Omega)}$. Then ${\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$ is a closed subspace in $L^2(\Omega)$ and hence is itself a Hilbert space. Fix a point $p \in \Omega$. The evaluation map $$l_p:{\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega) \to {\mathbb C}, \,\,\, l_p: h \mapsto h(p),$$ is a bounded linear functional on ${\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$. By the Riesz Representation Theorem there exists a unique element in ${\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$, which is denoted by $K_\Omega(\bullet,p)$, such that $$h(p) = l_p(h) = (h,K_\Omega(\bullet,p))_{L^2(\Omega)}$$ for all $h \in {\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$. The function $K_\Omega: \Omega \times\Omega \to {\mathbb C}$ is called the Bergman kernel for $\Omega$. By this definition the function $z \mapsto K_\Omega(z,p)$ is in $L^2(\Omega)$ for evey $p \in \Omega$. Furthermore, $K_\Omega(z,p) = \overline{K_\Omega(p,z)}$ and the function $(z,w) \mapsto K_\Omega(z,\overline{w})$ is holomorphic on $\Omega \times \Omega$. The orthogonal projection operator $$P_\Omega: L^2(\Omega) \to {\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$$ is called the Bergman projection. One has $P_\Omega(h) = (h,K_\Omega)_{L^2(\Omega)}$. The following transformation rules (see, for example, [@Ra]) play a key role in application of the Bergman kernel and the Bergman projection to holomorphic mappings.
\[Bergman1\] Let $f:\Omega_1 \to \Omega_2$ be a biholomorphic mapping between bounded domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& &K_{\Omega_1}(p,z) = J_f(p) K_{\Omega_2}(f(p),f(z))\overline{J_f(z)},\\
& &P_{\Omega_1}(J_f h \circ f) = J_f (P_{\Omega_2}(h) \circ f),\end{aligned}$$ for all $h \in L^2(\Omega_2)$. Here $J_f$ denotes the determinant of Jacobian matrix of $f$.
The above transformation rule for the Bergman projection (but not for the kernel) remains true also for proper holomorphic mappings.
A smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain $\Omega$ is said to satisfy [*Condition R*]{} if $$P_\Omega(C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})) \subset C^\infty(\overline{\Omega}).$$ The following result is due to Bell-Catlin [@BeCa1] and Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo].
\[Bergman2\] Let $f:\Omega_1 \to \Omega_2$, be a proper holomorphic mapping between smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domains. Suppose that $\Omega_1$ satisfies Condition R. Then $f$ extends as a $C^\infty$-smooth mapping on $\overline{\Omega_1}$.
A version of this theorem for $CR$ mappings between the boundaries of domains was obtained by Bell-Catlin [@BeCa2].
A general approach to verify Condition R for a prescribed class of domains relies on the $\overline\partial$-Neumann problem. Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Let $g$ be a $\overline\partial$-closed (0,1)-differential form with coefficients of class $L^2(\Omega)$, i.e., $g \in L^2_{(0,1)}(\Omega)$. The $\overline\partial$-Neumann problem consists of determining the regularity of the solution $u$ to the equation $\overline\partial u = g$ which is orthogonal to the kernel of the operator $\overline\partial$, that is, to the class ${\mathcal O}(\Omega) \cap L^2(\Omega)$. This solution is called the canonical solution. The operator $$N_\Omega: L^2_{(0,1)}(\Omega) \to L^2(\Omega), \,\,\, N_\Omega: g \mapsto u,$$ is called the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator on $\Omega$. The relation between the Bergman projection and the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator is given by Kohn’s formula [@Ko]: $$P_\Omega = Id - \overline\partial^* N_\Omega \overline\partial.$$ Thus, if the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator is globally regular, i.e., maps the space $C^\infty(\overline\Omega)$ to itself, then Condition R holds. Regularity of the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator has been an active area of research and lead to the development of many important technical tools, see Catlin [@Ca1; @Ca2; @Ca3]. In particular, it is known that the existence of plurisubharmonic barriers (\[type4\]) implies the regularity of the $\overline\partial$-problem (see [@Ca4; @Si3]).
A smoothly bounded domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ admits a defining function which is plurisubharmonic along the boundary if there exists a smooth defining function of $\Omega$ whose Levi form is positive semi-definite for all vectors at each boundary point (this condition is stronger than the pseudoconvexity which requires that the Levi form is positive semi-definite on the holomorphic tangent space). Boas and Straube [@Boas1] proved that if $\Omega$ admits a defining function which is plurisubharmonic along the boundary, then it satisfies Condition R. In particular, every smoothly bounded convex domain satisfies Condition R.
Finally, it was shown by Christ [@Chr] that for the worm-domain of Diederich-Fornaess [@DF0], which is smooth and pseudoconvex, Condition R does not hold. This shows limitations of this approach and raises an important question of finding sufficient and necessary conditions for the regularity of the Bergman projection.
Automorphism groups and proper self-mappings
============================================
The geometry of the boundary of a domain $\Omega$ in $\mathbb C^n$ influences the structure of the group of biholomorphic automorphisms of $\Omega$. In its turn, the automorphism group ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ may completely characterize the domain $\Omega$. In this section we discuss some results in this direction.
Automorphisms of strictly pseudoconvex domains
----------------------------------------------
We begin with the following result, generally known in the literature as the Wong-Rosay theorem.
\[WRTheo1\] Let $\Omega$ be a strictly pseudoconvex domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Assume that ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is not compact. Then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}$.
Since ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is not compact, there exists a sequence $\{f^k\}$ in ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ which converges uniformly on every compact subset of $\Omega$ to a boundary point $q \in \partial\Omega$. Fix a point $p \in \Omega$ and set $q^k = f^k(p)$. Let $D^k$ be the scaling sequence for $\{q^k\}$. Then the sequence $F^k = D^k \circ f^k$ converges to a biholomorphic mapping from $\Omega$ to ${\mathbb{B}}$.
Theorem \[WRTheo1\] was established by Webster [@We2] under the additional assumption that the group ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ has positive dimension. In full generality this result was obtained by Burns-Shnider [@BuSh2] using the Chern-Moser theory. A more elementary approach based on invariant metrics is due to Wong [@Wo] and Rosay [@Ro]. The short proof presented above was given in [@Pi7; @Pi8].
There are several other local versions of this result, for example [@Ef]:
\[WRTheo2\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain (not necessarily bounded) in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and let $\partial\Omega$ be $C^2$-smooth strictly pseudoconvex in a neighbourhood of a point $q \in \partial\Omega$. Suppose that there exist a sequence $\{f^k\}$ in ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ and a point $p \in \Omega$ such that $f^k(p) \to q$ as $k \to \infty$. Then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}^n$.
It is also interesting to consider the inverse question: which groups can be realized as an automorphism group of a domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$? The following results are due to Winkelman [@Wi1; @Wi2]:
\[WRTheo3\] Let $G$ be a (finite or infinite) countable group. Then there exists a (connected) Riemann surface $M$ such that $G$ is isomorphic to ${\rm Aut}(M)$.
\[WrTheo3\] Let $G$ be a connected (real) Lie group. Then there exists a Stein, complete hyperbolic complex manifold $M$ on which $G$ acts effectively, freely, properly and with totally real orbits such that $G$ is isomorphic to ${\rm Aut}(M)$.
Note that any compact real Lie group can be realized as an automorphism group of a strictly pseudoconvex domain [@BeDa; @SaZ].
Domains with large automorphism groups
--------------------------------------
Investigation of weakly pseudoconvex domains with large automorphism groups was initiated by Greene-Krantz [@GK]. The following result is due to Bedford-Pinchuk [@BePi1; @BePi4].
\[t.b-p\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain with real analytic boundary in ${\mathbb C}^2$. Suppose that ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is not compact. Then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to a domain of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi1}
\{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: \vert z_1 \vert^2 + \vert z_2 \vert^{2m} < 1 \}\end{aligned}$$ for some positive integer $m$.
The same result also holds if $\Omega$ is a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain of finite type. Furthermore, the assumption of pseudoconvexity (if the boundary is real analytic) can be dropped, see [@BePi2].
We outline the proof of Theorem \[t.b-p\]. Since ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is noncompact, there exists a point $a \in \Omega$ and a sequence of automorphisms $\{f^j\}$ such that the sequence $q^k = f^k(a)$ converges to a boundary point $q \in \partial\Omega$. Then the sequence $(f^k)$ converges uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega$ to a constant map $f^0 \equiv q$. Applying the scaling along the sequence $(q^k)$ one can prove that $\Omega$ is equivalent to a domain of the form $D = \{ 2x_2 + P(z_1,\overline{z}_1) = 0 \}$, where $P$ is a nonzero real polynomial. Note that the proof is more delicate than in the strictly pseudoconvex case and is based on precise estimates of the Kobayashi-Royden metric in pseudoconvex domains of finite type in ${\mathbb C}^2$. These estimates were obtained by Catlin [@Ca5]; a geometric proof of his result based on the scaling method was given by Berteloot [@Ber5]. The one-parameter group $L^t(z_1,z_2) = (z_1,z_2 + it)$ acts on the domain $D$. The biholomorphism $f:D \to \Omega$ defines a real one-parameter group of automorphisms $h^t = f \circ L^t \circ f^{-1}$.
The second step is to prove that the group $(h^t)$ is parabolic, that is, there exists a point $p\in \Omega$ (called a parabolic point) such that $$\lim_{t\to-\infty}h^t(z) = \lim_{t \to \infty}h^t(z) = p.$$ The proof also uses the estimates of the Kobayashi metric.
The next step is to study the holomorphic vector field $X = (X_1,X_2)$ generating the parabolic subgroup $(h^t)$. This vector field is tangent to $\partial\Omega$, that is, $${{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}\left (\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial z_1}X_1 + \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial z_2}X_2\right) = 0 .$$ This condition leads to a rather precise description of the jet of $\partial\Omega$ at a parabolic point $p$, and this can be used to conclude the proof.
In the local case Verma [@Ve] obtained the following classification result.
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^2$. Suppose that there exists a point $p \in \Omega$ and a sequence $\{ \phi_j\} \in {\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ such that $\{ \phi_j(p)\}$ converges to $p_\infty \in \partial\Omega$. Assume that the boundary of $\Omega$ is real analytic and of finite type near $p_\infty$. Then exactly one of the following cases holds:
- If $\dim {\rm Aut}(\Omega) = 2$ then either
- $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to $\Omega_1 = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: 2 {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_2 + P_1({{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_1) < 0 \}$ where $P_1({{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_1)$ is a polynomial that depends on ${{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_1$, or
- $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to $\Omega_2 = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_2 + P_2(\vert z_1 \vert^2) < 0 \}$ where $P_2(\vert z_1 \vert^2)$ is a homogeneous polynomial that depends on $\vert z_1 \vert^2$, or
- $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to $\Omega_3 = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_2 + P_{2m}(z_1,\overline{z}_1) < 0 \}$ where $P_{2m}(z_1,\overline{z}_1)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $2m$ without harmonic terms.
- If $\dim {\rm Aut}(\Omega) = 3$ then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to $\Omega_4 = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: 2{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_2 + ({{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}z_1)^{2m} < 0 \}$ for some integer $m \ge 2$.
- If $\dim {\rm Aut} (\Omega) = 4$ then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to $\Omega_5 = \{ z \in {\mathbb C}^2: \vert z_1 \vert^2 + \vert z_1 \vert^{2m} < 0 \}$ for some integer $m \ge 2$.
- If $\dim {\rm Aut}(\Omega) = 8$ then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to ${\mathbb{B}}^2$.
The dimensions $0,1,5,6,7$ cannot occur with $\Omega$ as above.
In higher dimensions the situation is more complicated. We assign to the variables $z_1,...,z_n$ the weights $\delta_1,...,\delta_n$, where $\delta_j = (2m_j)^{-1}$ for $m_j$ a positive integer. If $J = (j_1,...,j_n)$ and $K=(k_1,...,k_n)$ are the multi-indices, we set $wt(J) = j_1\delta_1 + ...+j_n\delta_n$ and $wt(z^J\overline{z}^K) = wt(J) + wt(K)$. We consider real polynomials of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi2}
p(z,\overline{z}) = \sum_{wt J = wt K = 1/2} a_{JK}z^J\overline{z}^K .\end{aligned}$$ The reality of $p$ is equivalent to $a_{JK} = \overline{{a}_{KJ}}$. The balance of the weights $wt(J) = wt(K)$ implies that the domain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi3}
G = \{ (w,z_1,...,z_n) \in {\mathbb C}\times {\mathbb C}^n: \vert w \vert^2 + p(z,\overline{z}) < 1 \}\end{aligned}$$ is invariant under the action of the real torus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi4.1}
(\phi,\theta) \mapsto (e^{i\phi}w,e^{i\delta_1\theta}z_1,...,e^{i\delta_n\theta}z_n) .\end{aligned}$$ The weighted homogeneity of $p$ implies that the Cayley-type transform $(w,z) \mapsto (w^*,z^*)$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi4.2}
w = (1 - iw^*/4)(1 + iw^*/4)^{-1},\,\,\,z_j = z_j^*(1 + iw^*/4)^{-2\delta_j} ,\end{aligned}$$ maps $G$ biholomorphically onto the domain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePi5}
D = \{ (w,z_1,...z_n): {\mathbb C}\times {\mathbb C}^n: {{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Im}}}}w + p(z,\overline{z}) < 0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter is an unbounded realization of $G$. Note that $D$ is invariant under the translation along the ${{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Re}}}}w$-direction. Since $p$ is homogeneous, the domain $D$ is invariant with respect to the family of anisotropic dilations. Hence the dimension of ${\rm Aut}(D)$ is at least $4$.
\[BePi6\] Let $\Omega \in {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ be a smoothly bounded convex domain of finite type. If ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is noncompact then $\Omega$ is equivalent to the domain of the form (\[BePi3\]).
This result is obtained in [@BePi3]. The scaling method in a convex domain $\Omega$ (not necessarily of finite type) relies on the estimates of the Kobayashi-Royden metric, which also have other applications. Denote by $L(a,V)$ the complex line passing through a point $a \in \Omega$ in the direction of a vector $V$. Define $\delta(a,V)$ to be the Euclidean distance from $a$ to $L(a,V) \cap \partial\Omega$. Then the following estimate holds [@BePi3; @Fra]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BePiEst}
\frac{\vert V \vert }{ 2 \delta(a,V)} \le F_\Omega(a,V) \le \frac{\vert V \vert }{ \delta(a,V)} .\end{aligned}$$ Using this estimate and his version of the scaling method Frankel [@Fra] proved the following
Suppose that $\Omega \subset \mathbb C^n$ is a bounded convex domain and that there exists a discrete subgroup of ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ which acts properly discontinuously, freely, and cocompactly on $\Omega$. Then $\Omega$ is a bounded symmetric domain.
Recently, Zimmer [@Zi] proposed a new approach to the problem of classification of convex domains with large automorphism groups. Let $\Omega$ be a domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. [*The limit set*]{} of $\Omega$ is the set of points $z \in \partial\Omega$ for which there exist some $p \in \Omega$ and some sequence $\phi_k \in {\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ such that $\phi_k(p) \to z$. If ${\rm Aut}(\Omega)$ is noncompact, the limit set is not empty. If $\Omega$ is a bounded convex domain with $C^1$-smooth boundary, [*the closed complex face*]{} of a point $z \in \partial\Omega$ is the closed set $\partial\Omega \cap H_z(\partial\Omega)$. The main result of [@Zi] is the following
Suppose $\Omega$ is a bounded convex domain with $C^\infty$-smooth boundary. Then the following are equivalent:
- The limit set of $\Omega$ intersects at least two closed complex faces of $\partial\Omega$.
- $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to (\[BePi3\]).
Notice that there is no finite type assumption in this theorem. The main new tool used by Zimmer is the theory of Gromov hyperbolic metric spaces.
Suppose that $(X,d)$ is a metric space. Let $I \subset {\mathbb R}$ be an interval. A curve $\sigma:I \to X$ is called [*geodesic*]{} if $d(\sigma(t_1),\sigma(t_2)) = \vert t_1 - t_2 \vert$ for all $t_1,t_2 \in I$. A [*geodesic triangle*]{} is a choice of 3 points in $X$ and geodesic segments connecting these points. A geodesic triangle is said to be $\delta$-[*thin*]{} if any point on any of the sides of the triangle is within distance $\delta$ of the other two sides. A proper geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is called $\delta$-[*hyperbolic*]{} if every geodesic triangle is $\delta$-thin. If $(X,d)$ is $\delta$-hyperbolic for some $\delta \ge 0$, then $(X,d)$ is called [*Gromov hyperbolic*]{}. Zimmer’s approach uses the following result established in [@Zi1]:
\[GrKoTh\] Suppose $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ is a bounded convex domain with smooth boundary. Then the following are equivalent:
- $\Omega$ has a finite type in the sense of D’Angelo,
- $(\Omega,d_\Omega)$ is Gromov hyperbolic, where $d_\Omega$ is the Kobayashi distance on $\Omega$.
Gromov hyperbolicity of strictly pseudoconvex domains was established by Ballog-Bonk [@BaBo] using estimates of the Kobayashi-Royden metric (see Proposition \[KobProp1\]). Further results in this direction are obtained recently by Bracci-Gaussier [@BrGa].
The condition of convexity is crucially used in the proofs of the above results. It is not known whether any bounded pseudoconvex domain with smooth boundary of finite type and noncompact automorphisms group in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n > 2$, is equivalent to (\[BePi3\]). The question remains open even for domains with real algebraic boundaries.
Proper self-mappings
--------------------
Finally, we discuss some progress in the direction originated from Alexander’s Theorem \[AlRu\]: a proper holomorphic self-map of ${\mathbb{B}}^n$, $n > 1$, is a biholomorphism. Its generalization to the case of strictly pseudoconvex domain (see Corollary \[AlPinCor\]) is based on Theorem \[AlPinTheo\]. However, the condition of strict pseudoconvexity is crucial for Theorem \[AlPinTheo\]. Indeed, the map $f:(z_1,z_2) \to (z_1^2,z_2)$ takes the domain $\{ z\in {\mathbb C}^2: \vert z_1\vert^4 + \vert z_2 \vert^2\}$ properly on ${\mathbb{B}}^2$ but its critical locus is not empty. This is a serious obstacle for applications of the scaling method and for this reason the analogs of Alexander’s theorem are currently established only for special classes of domains.
One of the most general results in this direction was obtained by Bedford [@Bed1].
\[BedTheo\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded pseudoconvex domain with real analytic boundary in ${\mathbb C}^n$, $n \ge 2$. Then every proper holomorphic self-mapping $f:\Omega \to \Omega$ is a biholomorphism.
The proof is based on a careful analysis of the branch locus of a proper holomorphic mapping from a pseudoconvex domain with real analytic boundary. Notice that the assumption of real analyticity is crucially used here. To the best of our knowledge it is not known if the analog of Theorem \[BedTheo\] remains true for pseudoconvex domains with smooth boundary of finite type in the sense of D’Angelo. Certain results of this type are obtained for domains which admit some symmetries.
A domain $\Omega$ is said to be quasi-regular if there exist integers $p$ and $q$, $p + q \ge 1$, such that whenever $(z,w) \in \Omega$, $(e^{ip\theta},e^{iq\theta}) \in \Omega$ for $\theta \in [0,2\pi]$. Thus, if $p=q=1$, the domain $\Omega$ is circular; when $p=0$ or $q=0$, $\Omega$ is a Hartogs domain. The following result is obtained in [@CoPaSu1; @CoPaSu2]:
Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex quasi-circular domain of finite type in ${\mathbb C}^2$. Then every proper holomorphic self-map of $\Omega$ is a biholomorphism.
The proof uses the scaling method (for the study of the branch locus of the map) and arguments from holomorphic dynamics.
Assumptions on regularity of the boundary can be weakened for domains with additional symmetries. For every $a \in {\mathbb C}^n$ denote by $L_a:{\mathbb C}^n \to {\mathbb C}^n$ the linear map $T_az = (a_1z_1,...,a_nz_n)$. Recall that a domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ is called a Reinhardt domain (resp. complete) if $T_a(\Omega) = \Omega$ for every $a$ with $\vert a_j \vert = 1$ (resp. $\vert a_j \vert \le 1$), $1 \le j \le n$. We note that a complete description of automorphisms of a wide class of hyperbolic Reinhardt domains was obtained by Kruzhilin [@Kru1].
The following result was established by Berteloot-Pinchuk [@BerPi]:
\[BePiTheo\] Among bounded, complete, Reinhardt domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$, the bidiscs are the only ones that admit proper holomorphic self-mappings that are not automorphisms.
This work also contains a detailed description of proper holomorphic maps between complete Reinhardt domains. The general case of Reinhardt domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$ (not necessarily complete) was considered by Isaev-Kruzhilin [@IsKru]. They obtained a complete description of proper holomorphic mappings and classified all Reinhardt domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$ admitting proper holomorphic self-maps which are not biholomorphisms. A partial generalization of Theorem \[BePiTheo\] to higher dimensions is obtained by Berteloot [@Ber4].
Proper holomorphic mappings between the classical Cartan domains and a wide class of Siegel domains were studied by Tumanov-Henkin [@TuHe1; @TuHe2] and Henkin-Novikov [@HeNo]. We present here one of their results:
Let $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$, $n > 1$, be an irreducible bounded symmetric domain. Then every proper holomorphic self-map $f:\Omega \to \Omega$ is an automorphism of $\Omega$.
Proper holomorphic mappings between real analytic domains
=========================================================
The goal of this section is to present the following results obtained by Diederich-Pinchuk [@DiPi1; @DiPi2003].
\[DP1\] Let $f: \Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic mapping between two bounded domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ with real analytic boundaries. Suppose that at least one of the following conditions holds:
- $n=2$;
- $f$ extends continuously on $\overline{\Omega}$.
Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of $\overline{\Omega}$.
When the map $f$ is assumed to be a biholomorphism and to extend smoothly to the boundary of $\Omega$, then this result was obtained by Baouendi-Jacobowitz-Trèves [@BaJaTr]. For pseudoconvex domains this was proved in any dimension and without the assumption of boundary continuity by Diederich-Fornaess [@DiFo4] and Baouendi-Rothschild [@BaRo]. In that case pseudoconvex boundaries are automatically of finite type and Condition R holds. Therefore, a proper holomorphic map $f$ extends smoothly on $\overline{\Omega}$ by Theorem \[Bergman2\]. Case (a) was also considered by Huang [@Huang] under an additional assumption that $f$ is continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$.
Part (b) follows from a more general result.
\[DP2\] Let $\Gamma \subset \Omega$ (resp. $\Gamma' \subset \Omega'$) be a real analytic closed hypersurface of finite type and let $f:\Gamma \to \Gamma'$ be a continuous CR mapping. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of $\Gamma$.
The proof of these results consists of two major parts:
\(1) One proves that $f$ extends as a proper holomorphic correspondence to a neighbourhood of $\partial\Omega$.
\(2) One proves that if $f$ extends as a proper holomorphic correspondence then it extends as a holomorphic mapping to a neighbourhood of $\partial\Omega$.
The main tool in the proof is the invariance property of Segre varieties associated with the real analytic hypersurfaces. Their behaviour near Levi degenerate points of the boundary requires a more subtle analysis. We describe now the main steps.
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ with real analytic boundary. There exist a neighbourhood $W$ of $\partial\Omega$ and a real analytic function $\rho:W \to {\mathbb R}$ such that $D \cap W = \{ z \in W: \rho(z) < 0 \}$ and $d\rho(z) \neq 0$ for all $z \in \partial\Omega$ (a global defining function). Its complexification $\rho(z,\overline{w})$ is defined on a suitable neighbourhood $V \subset {\mathbb C}^{2n}$ of the diagonal $\Delta \subset W \times W$ and is holomorphic in $z$ and antiholomorphic in $w$. For points $z \in {\mathbb C}^{n}$ we use the notation $z = ('z,z_n) \in {\mathbb C}^{n-1} \times {\mathbb C}$.
Let $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$. A local holomorphic coordinate system centred at $z^0$ is called standard if the defining function $\rho$ can be written in these coordinates in the form $\rho(z) = 2 x_n + o(\vert z \vert)$. A pair of open neighbourhoods $U_1 \subset U_2$ (with $\overline{U_1} \subset U_2$) is called a standard pair of neighbourhoods of $z^0$ if it has the following properties:
- With respect to a suitable standard coordinate system at $z^0$ one has $U_2 = {'U_2} \times U_{2n}$ with $'U_2$ being an open neighbourhood of $0 \in {\mathbb C}^{n-1}$, and $U_{2n}$ an open neighbourhood on the $z_n$-axis.
- The complexification $\rho(z,\overline{w})$ is well defined on $U_2 \times U_1$ so that for each $w \in U_1$ the Segre variety $Q_w = \{ z \in U_2: \rho(z,\overline{w}) = 0 \}$ is well-defined.
- $Q_w$ can be written as a graph. This means that there exists a holomorphic function $h_w('z)$ on $'U_2$ (depending antiholomorphically on $w$), such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.DP1}
Q_w = \{ ('z,z_n) \in U_2: z_2 = h_w('z) \} .\end{aligned}$$
Note that every point $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$ admits a family of standard pairs of neighbourhoods such that the corresponding $U_2$ form a neighbourhood basis of $z^0$. With this notation the function $h('z,\overline{w}):= h_w('z)$ can be written as a power series $h('z,\overline{w}) = \sum_j \lambda_j(\overline{w})z^j$ with coefficients $\lambda_j$ antiholomorphic on $U_1$. There exists an integer $N$ (depending only on $\partial\Omega$) such that for all $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$ and any standard pair of neighbourhoods $U_1 \subset U_2$ of $z^0$, the coefficients $\{ \lambda_j: \vert j \vert \le N \}$ uniquely determine $Q_w$. This allows us to define the structure of a finite dimensional complex variety on the family of all Segre varieties so that the maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e.DP2}
\lambda: U_1 \ni w \mapsto Q_w
\end{aligned}$$ are finite antiholomorphic branched coverings. For any point $w \in W$, with $W$ being a sufficiently small open neighbourhood of $\partial\Omega$, one has the following: the complex line $l_w$ through $w$ containing the real line passing through $w$ and orthogonal to $\partial\Omega$ intersects the Segre variety $Q_w$ at exactly one point ${}^sw$, called the symmetric point of $w$. For $w \in W \setminus \overline\Omega$ one always has ${}^sw \in \Omega$. The connected component of $Q_w \cap \Omega$ containing ${}^sw$ is denoted by ${}^sQ_w$ and is called the symmetric component.
The second important technical tool is provided by holomorphic correspondences. Let $U$, $U'$ be open subsets of ${\mathbb C}^n$. A proper holomorphic correspondence is a closed complex analytic subset $F \subset U \times U'$ of pure dimension $n$ such that the canonical projection $\pi:F \to U$ is proper. The correspondence $F$ is called irreducible if $F \subset U \times U'$ is irreducible as an analytic set (see [@Ch1] for generalities on complex analytic sets). Let $\Omega$, $\Omega'$ be bounded domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$ be a boundary point. We say that $f$ extends as a proper holomorphic correspondence to a neighbourhood $U$ of $z^0$ if there exist an open set $U' \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ and an irreducible proper holomorphic correspondence $F \subset U \times U'$ such that $$\Gamma_f \cap\{ (\Omega \cap U) \times \Omega' \} \subset F,$$ where $\Gamma_f$ denotes the graph of $f$.
One can view this as an extension of $f$ as a multiple-valued map. Indeed, a correspondence $F$ assigns to each point $z \in U$ a finite number of points in the target space, namely, the set ${\hat F(z)} := \pi'(\pi^{-1}(z))$, where $\pi'$ denotes the projection of $F$ to $U'$.
Let $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic mapping between two bounded domains with real analytic boundaries in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Suppose that $f$ extends as a correspondence $F$ to a neighbourhood of the point $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$. Choose standard coordinates such that $z^0 = 0$, $f(z^0) = 0$ and the standard neighbourhoods $U_j$,(resp. $U_j'$), $j=1,2$. Then we have the following invariance property for the Segre varieties under $\hat F$:
\[DP3\] For every $(w,w') \in F \cap (U_1 \times U_1')$, the inclusion $\hat{F}(Q_w) \subset Q_{w'}'$ holds.
Now we can explain how to construct a holomorphic correspondence which extends the graph of $f$. For $\zeta \in Q_w$ we denote by ${}_\zeta Q_w$ the germ of $Q_w$ at $\zeta$. For every point $z^0 \in \partial\Omega$ in a standard coordinate system, a standard pair of neighbourhoods $U_1 \subset U_2$, and a suitably chosen open neighbourhood $U'$ of $\partial\Omega'$ we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DP4}
V:= \{ (w,w') \in (U_1 \setminus \overline\Omega) \times (U' \setminus \overline{\Omega'}): {}_{{}^sw'}Q_{w'}' \subset f(Q_w \cap \Omega) \} .\end{aligned}$$ The important step is to show that $V$ extends as an $n$-dimensional analytic set to a full neighbourhood of $(0,0)$, which, in fact, is the extension of the graph of $f$. This is not obvious because it requires the properness of the projection of $V$ to $U_1 \setminus \Omega$.
The second part of the proof is given by the following
Let $\Omega$, $\Omega' \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ be bounded domains with real analytic boundaries and $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$ be a proper holomorphic mapping that extends as a holomorphic correspondence to a neighbourhood of $\overline\Omega$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a (possibly smaller) neighbourhood of $\overline\Omega$.
The original proof of this result [@DiPi2] used the fact that $f$ extends smoothly to pseudoconvex points of $\partial\Omega$. This result in turn used subelliptic estimates for the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator. Later Pinchuk-Shafikov [@PiSha] gave a self-contained geometric proof without using the $\overline\partial$-methods. Further, in [@DiPi4] Diederich and Pinchuk showed that for holomorphic extension of the map $f$ it is enough to assume that its graph extends as an analytic set of dimension $n$ (i.e., the projection $\pi$ from this set is not assumed to be proper).
Analytic discs
==============
In this section we consider a special case of proper holomorphic mappings from the unit disc to domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Since the unit disc does not have biholomorphic invariants, analytic discs are more flexible than holomorphic mappings between domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ for $n > 1$. This flexibility makes them very useful in geometric complex analysis and its applications. These applications are often based on the existence of analytic discs with boundaries in prescribed CR manifolds. We discuss here some important results of this type.
Gromov’s theorem
----------------
Consider the standard symplectic form on ${\mathbb C}^n$ $$\omega = \sum_{j=1}^n dx_j \wedge dy_j.$$ A real submanifold $E$ of dimension $n$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ is called [*Lagrangian*]{} if $\omega\vert L = 0$. It is easy to see that every Lagrangian manifold is totally real, but the class of totally real manifolds is larger. The following result is due to Gromov [@Gr].
\[continuity10\] Let $E$ be a smooth compact Lagrangian submanifold in ${{\mathbb{C}}}^n$. Then there exists a nonconstant analytic disc smooth on $\overline{{\mathbb D}}$ with the boundary attached to $L$.
This theorem has deep applications in symplectic geometry (see, for example, [@Ar]). Note that one can view it as a (partial) generalization of the Riemann mapping theorem. Indeed, when $n=1$ every real curve is Lagrangian.
From the analytic point of view the problem of constructing an analytic disc with the boundary glued to $E$ can be viewed as a Riemann-Hilbert type boundary value problem with nonlinear boundary data (given by $E$). We sketch the main steps of Gromov’s approach following the work of Alexander [@Al], who gave a simplified version of Gromov’s approach in the case of ${\mathbb C}^n$. We note that the original methods of Gromov lead to considerably more general results.
[*Step 1. Manifolds of discs and elliptic estimates.*]{} Fix a point $p \in E$ and fix also a noninteger $r > 1$. Consider the set of pairs $$\label{mnfd-U}
{\mathcal F} = \left\{f\in C^{r+1}({\mathbb D}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n):
f(\partial {\mathbb D}) \subset E,\ f(1) = p \right\}.$$
Denote by $F$ an open subset of ${\mathcal F}$ which consists of $f$ homotopic to a constant map $f^0 \equiv p$ in ${\mathcal F}$. It is well-known that $F$ is a complex Banach manifold. Denote by $G$ the complex Banach space of all $C^r$ maps $g:{\mathbb D}\to {{\mathbb{C}}}^n$. Set $H = \{ (f,g) \in F \times G: \partial f /\partial \overline\zeta = g \}$. Then $H$ is a connected submanifold of $F \times G$.
For $0<t<1$, let ${\mathbb D}_t := t {\mathbb D}$, and ${\mathbb D}^+_t := t{\mathbb D}\cap \{{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Im}}}}\zeta >0\}$.
\[AlEst2\] Let $f_k:({\mathbb D}_t^+,\partial {\mathbb D}_t^+ \cap {{\mathbb{R}}}) \to ({{\mathbb{C}}}^n,E)$ be maps of class $C^{r+1}$ that converge uniformly to $f:({\mathbb D}_t^+,\partial {\mathbb D}_t^+ \cap {{\mathbb{R}}}) \to ({{\mathbb{C}}}^n,E)$. Suppose that the sequence $g_k = \partial f_k/\partial\overline\zeta$ converges in $C^r({\mathbb D}^+_t)$ to $g \in C^r({\mathbb D}^+_t)$. Then for every $\tau < t$ one has $f \in C^{r+1}({\mathbb D}^+_t)$ and $\{ f_k \}$ converges to $f$ in ${\mathbb D}^+_\tau$ in the $C^{r+1}$ norm.
Denote by $T_{\mathbb D}f = (2\pi i)^{-1}f * (1/ \zeta)$ the Cauchy-Green integral on ${\mathbb D}$. Recall the classical regularity property of the Cauchy-Green integral: for every noninteger $s > 0$ the linear map $T_{\mathbb D}:C^s({\mathbb D}) \longrightarrow C^{s+1}({\mathbb D})$ is bounded. The proof of Lemma \[AlEst2\] given in [@Al] is based on the standard elliptic “bootstrapping" argument employing the above regularity of the Cauchy-Green operator and elementary estimates of the harmonic measures. Notice that this proof is purely local, i.e., all estimates and the convergence are established in a neighbourhood of a given boundary point of a disc. The global statement is the following
\[AlEst1\] Suppose that a sequence $\{ f_k\}$ in ${\mathcal F}$ converges to a continuous mapping $f:({\mathbb D},\partial{\mathbb D}) \to ({{\mathbb{C}}}^n,E)$ uniformly on $\overline {\mathbb D}$, and $g_k:= \partial f_k/\partial \overline\zeta$ converges in $C^r({\mathbb D})$ to $g \in C^r({\mathbb D})$. Then $f \in C^{r+1}({\mathbb D})$ and $\{f_k\}$ converges to $f$ in ${\mathcal F}$ after possibly passing to a subsequence.
Considering a finite covering of $\partial{\mathbb D}$ by such neighbourhoods we obtain $C^{r+1}$ convergence in a neighbourhood of $\partial{\mathbb D}$. The convergence in the interior of ${\mathbb D}$ follows, since $f_k = T_{\mathbb D}g_k + h_k$, and the bounded sequence $\{h_k\}$ of holomorphic functions is a normal family.
Notice that the above boundary regularity and convergence results for analytic discs are quite similar to the tools used in the proof of Fefferman’s mapping theorem.
[*Step 2: Renormalization and scaling.*]{} The canonical projection $\pi: H \to G$ given by $\pi(f,g) = g$ is a map of class $C^1$ between two Banach manifolds. It is known [@Al; @Gr] that $\pi$ is a Fredholm map of index $0$ and the constant map $f^0$ is a regular point for $\pi$.
The crucial property of $\pi$ is proved in [@Al]: [*the map $\pi$ is not surjective.*]{} Now, arguing by absurd, suppose that a nonconstant analytic disc of class $C^{r+1}({\mathbb D})$ attached to $E$ does not exist, then $\pi^{-1}(0) = \{ f^0\}$. It follows that $0 \in G$ is a regular value of $\pi$. If $\pi$ is proper, then Gromov’s argument based on Sard-Smale’s theorem implies surjectivity of $\pi$ (see [@Al]) – a contradiction. Thus, it remains to show that $\pi:H \to G$ is proper.
Arguing by contradiction, suppose that $\pi$ is not proper. Then there exists a sequence $\{(f_k,g_k)\}\subset H$ such that $g_k\to g$ in $G$ but $f_k$ diverge in $F$. For every $k$ consider the function $q_k$ defined by $q_k(\zeta)= T_{\mathbb D}g_k(\zeta)$ for $\zeta \in \overline{\mathbb D}$ and $q_k(\zeta) = 0$ on $\zeta \in {{\mathbb{C}}}\setminus \overline{\mathbb D}$. Then $q_k \to q = T_{\mathbb D}g$ in $C^{r+1}(\overline{\mathbb D}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ and $f_k = q_k + h_k$, where $h_k\in C^{r+1}({\mathbb D}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ and $h_k$ is holomorphic on ${\mathbb D}$. We have $f_k(\partial {\mathbb D})\subset E$ and $q_k$ are uniformly bounded since $g_k$ are; we conclude that $h_k|_{\partial {\mathbb D}}$ are uniformly bounded. By the maximum principle the functions $h_k$ are uniformly bounded on $\overline{\mathbb D}$. Hence, $f_k$ are uniformly bounded.
Set $M_k = \sup_{{\mathbb D}}|h'_k(\lambda)|$. Since $h_k\in C^r({\mathbb D}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ and $r > 1$, the constants $M_k$ are finite for every $k$. If $\{M_k\}$ contains a bounded subsequence, then a subsequence of $\{h_k\}$ converges uniformly on ${\mathbb D}$. Then a subsequence of $\{f_k\}$ converges uniformly, and by Lemma \[AlEst1\] it converges in $F$ – a contradiction. Thus, we may suppose that $M_k \to \infty$. The key idea of [@Al] is to apply a renormalization argument which is essentially a version of the scaling argument.
There exists $\lambda_k\in \partial {\mathbb D}$ with $M_k= |h'(\lambda_k)|$ and, taking a subsequence if necessary, suppose that $\lambda_k\to \lambda^*$. Set $z_k = (1-\frac{1}{M_k})\lambda_k\in {\mathbb D}$ and consider the renormalization sequence of the Mobius maps $$\phi_k(\lambda) = \frac{\lambda + z_k}{1+\bar z_k\lambda} .$$ Set $\tilde f_k = f_k\circ \phi_k$, $\tilde q_k = q_k\circ \phi_k$ and $\tilde h_k = h_k\circ \phi_k$. It is proved in [@Al] that after extracting a subsequence, the sequences $(\tilde q_k)$ and $(\tilde h_k)$ converge uniformly on compacts in $\overline{\mathbb D}\setminus \{-\lambda^*\}$ respectively to a constant map $c$ and a holomorphic map $\tilde h$.
Notice that since $q_k$ converge in $C^{r+1} (\overline {\mathbb D}) $, the sequence $\tilde q_k$ converges on compacts in $\overline{\mathbb D}\setminus \{-\lambda^*\}$ in this norm. Since Lemma \[AlEst1\] is local, it applies and gives the convergence of $(\tilde f_k)$ to $\tilde f$ also in the $C^{r+1}$-norm on compacts in $\overline{\mathbb D}\setminus \{-\lambda^*\}$. Then again the argument of [@Al] shows that $\vert\tilde h_k'(\lambda_k)\vert$ converges to $1/2 = \vert \tilde h'(\lambda^*) \vert$. Hence, $\tilde f$ is a nonconstant disc of class $C^{r+1}$. By the boundary regularity theorem for analytic discs, we conclude that $f$ is of class $C^\infty$ on $\overline{\mathbb D}\setminus \{ 1 \}$.
Furthermore, since $E$ is a Lagrangian manifold, it is easy to see that the disc $\tilde f$ has bounded area. This is due to the fact that for an analytic disc the area (induced by the Euclidean structure) coincides with the symplectic area $[{\mathbb D}] (f^*\omega)$ (where $[{\mathbb D}]$ is the current of integration over ${\mathbb D}$). Then [@Al Thm 2] implies that $f: {\mathbb D}\setminus f^{-1}(E) \to {{\mathbb{C}}}^n \setminus E$ is a proper map. But then $\tilde f$ extends smoothly to a neighbourhood of the point $1$ (see Proposition \[CCS\]) and so is smooth on $\overline{\mathbb D}$. This contradicts our assumption of nonexistence of nonconstant analytic discs attached to $E$, and the theorem is proved.
The assumption that $E$ is Lagrangian is crucial in Gromov’s theorem. Alexander [@Al4] constructed a totally real torus $T^2$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$ which does not contain the boundary of an analytic disc. However, in this example one can attach to $T^2$ the boundary of some Riemann surface (an annulus). This phenomenon was recently studied by Duval-Gayet [@DuGa] for certain classes of totally real tori in ${\mathbb C}^2$. Their approach uses the results of Bedford-Gaveau [@BeGa], Bedford-Klingenberg [@BeKl] and Kruzhilin [@Kru2] on filling topological 2-spheres, contained in compact strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^2$, with Levi-flat hypersurfaces. The filling is provided by a 1-parameter family of analytic discs attached to the sphere. These results have many other applications, in particular, in symplectic topology.
Discs in pseudoconvex domains
-----------------------------
Another approach to the extension of the Riemann mapping theorem concerns construction of proper holomorphic discs in domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$. We begin with the following result of Forstnerič -Globevnik [@ForGl].
\[FG\] Let $\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded strictly pseudoconvex domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$. Then for every point $p \in \Omega$ there exists an analytic disc $f:{\mathbb D}\to \Omega$, smooth on $\overline{{\mathbb D}}$, and such that $p = f(0)$ and $f(\partial{\mathbb D}) \subset \partial\Omega$.
In fact, even stronger results in this direction have been obtained. We refer the reader to [@DrDrFor] for a detailed account. The proof of Theorem \[FG\] can be described as follows. Consider a global defining function $\rho$ of $\Omega$. The idea is to construct an analytic disc attached to a suitable noncritical sub-level set of $\rho$. When such a sub-level is a small deformation of a ball around $p$, this can be achieved by the implicit function theorem. The main part of the proof consists of two major steps. First, an approximate solution of the Riemann-Hilbert type boundary value problem allows one to construct a homotopy on the space of analytic discs attached to the noncritical level sets of $\rho$. The second step is a careful analysis of the Morse geometry of a critical level set of $\rho$ which allows one to push an analytic disc on the post-critical level set. Combining these two tools we may begin with a small disc attached to some noncritical level and then deform it through other levels to a global disc attached to the boundary.
For strictly convex domains even stronger results can be obtained. This theory was developed by Lempert [@Lem1]. Let $\Omega$ be a strictly convex domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ (this means the real Hessian of the boundary is positive definite; in particular, $\Omega$ is strictly pseudoconvex). Fix a point $p \in \Omega$. Then for every tangent vector $V$ at $p$ there exists a unique analytic disc $f$ centred at $p$ in the direction of $V$, which is extremal for the Kobayashi-Royden metric of $\Omega$. The condition of extremality means that the infimum in the definition of the metric is achieved on this disc. It turns out that $f$ is smooth up to the boundary and its boundary is attached to $\partial\Omega$. Moreover, $f$ admits a holomorphic lift which is attached to the projectivization of the holomorphic tangent bundle of $\partial\Omega$. Since ${\mathbb P}H(\partial\Omega)$ is a totally real manifold, $f$ satisfies a Riemann-Hilbert type boundary value problem. When $\Omega$ is a small deformation of the unit ball, this problem can be easily solved by the Implicit Function Theorem. The general case requires more advanced tools provided by the continuity method. It consists of two major steps: the Implicit Function Theorem for the linearized Riemann-Hilbert boundary value problem and a priori estimates (here the assumption of strict convexity is used).
In the case of the unit ball Lempert’s discs through the origin are just linear and are given by the intersection of complex lines with the ball. It turned out that in the general case the geometry of extremal discs through any point $p$ is similar: they form a singular foliation of $\Omega$ with a unique singularity at $p$. This allows one to construct the “Riemann mapping" from $\Omega$ to ${\mathbb{B}}^n$ which is holomorphic along every extremal disc through a fixed point $p$ and preserves the contact structure of the boundary.
Lempert’s theory has many applications. For example, it provides an independent proof of Fefferman’s mapping theorem. Furthermore, extremal discs form a very useful family of biholomorphic invariants which leads to a solution of the biholomorphic equivalence problem [@Lem2]. The logarithm of the Euclidean norm of the above “Riemann mapping" gives a solution of the complex Monge-Ampère equation with a logarithmic pole at $p$; it can be also viewed as a higher dimensional analog of the Green function. A similar approach was used by Donaldson [@Do] for the construction of regular solutions of the Dirichlet problem for a certain class of complex Monge-Ampère equations.
Positive codimension
====================
In this section we consider the properties of holomorphic mappings $f:\Omega \to \Omega'$, where $\Omega \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ and $\Omega' \subset {\mathbb C}^N$ with $1 < n < N$ (the case of [*positive codimension*]{}). These maps do not have flexibility of analytic discs since the boundary of the source domain has intrinsic geometry. Nevertheless, the case of positive codimension is considerably more flexible than the equidimensional one. This is illustrated by the following result due to Forstnerič [@For1] and Low [@Low].
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded strictly pseudoconvex domain with $C^2$ boundary in ${\mathbb C}^n$. There is an integer $N_1$ such that for every $N \ge N_1$ there exists a proper holomorphic mapping $f:\Omega \to {\mathbb{B}}^N$. Some of these embeddings extend continuously to $\overline\Omega$ but there exist also embeddings that are not continuous on $\partial\Omega$.
In particular, a direct analog of Fefferman’s mapping theorem is not true in the case of positive codimension.
Note that the tools of the Moser or the Cartan-Chern theory do not seem to be appropriate in this case. This is one of the reasons why the study of the rigidity phenomenon in positive codimension is a difficult problem. One of the main tools here is the geometric Reflection Principle based on the geometry of Segre varieties, which seems to admit some generalization to the case of positive codimension.
Forstnerič [@For7] showed that most generic real analytic CR manifolds of positive CR dimension are not locally holomorphically embeddable to the germ of any generic real algebraic CR manifold of the same real codimension. One of the principal facts is that an analog of the Poincaré - Alexander phenomenon holds for CR mappings between real spheres of positive codimension if the initial regularity of a CR mapping is sufficiently high. Forstnerič [@For2] proved that such a CR mapping extends to a rational mapping with un upper bound on the degree (depending on the codimension). Similar results are obtained for holomorphic mappings between real algebraic CR manifolds; see for example [@BaEbRo3; @CoMeSu; @Me1; @Z]. However, the extension of the Poincaré - Alexander phenomenon to the real analytic category meets difficulties. The following unpublished result is due to S. Pinchuk (Thesis, Chelyabinsk, 1979):
\[hcod1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a (connected) real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^n$ ($n > 1$). Assume that $f$ is a smooth CR mapping in a neighbourhood $U$ of a point $p \in \Gamma$ such that $f(U) \subset \partial{\mathbb{B}}^N$ with $n \le N$. Then $f$ extends as holomorphic mapping along any path in $\partial\Omega$.
The proof is based on the analytic Reflection Principle. Currently there is no extension of this result to the case when the sphere $\partial{\mathbb{B}}^n$ is replaced with a real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface. Furthermore, even in the case of the local Schwarz type Reflection Principle many basic questions remain open.
Finally, Forstnerič [@For3] established the following
\[hcod2\] Let $f:\Gamma \to \Gamma'$ be a smooth CR mapping between real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and ${\mathbb C}^N$ respectively, $n \le N$. Then there exists an open dense subset $O \subset \Gamma$ such that $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of every point of $O$.
A natural question is if the above set $O$ coincides with the whole $\Gamma$. The following result was obtained in [@PiSu].
\[hcod3\] Let $f:\Gamma \to \Gamma'$ be a smooth CR mapping between real analytic strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$ and ${\mathbb C}^N$ respectively, and $n \le N \le 2n$. Then $f$ extends holomorphically to a neighbourhood of every point in $\Gamma$.
The proofs of Theorems \[hcod2\] and \[hcod3\] are based on the geometric Reflection Principle and the study of Segre varieties. To the best of our knowledge it is not known whether the condition $N \le 2n$ in Theorem \[hcod3\] can be dropped.
[12]{}
R. Airapetian, [*Continuation of CR functions from piecewise smooth CR manifolds*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**134 (176)**]{} (1987), 108-118.
H. Alexander, [*Holomorphic mappings from the ball and polydisc*]{}, Math. Ann. [**209**]{} (1974), 249-256.
H. Alexander, [*Proper holomorphic mappings in ${\mathbb C}^n$*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**26**]{} (1977), 137-146.
H. Alexander, [*Gromov’s method and Bennequin’s problem*]{}, Invent. math. [**125**]{} (1996), 135-148.
H. Alexander, [*Discs with boundaries in totally real and Lagrangian manifolds*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**100**]{} (1999), 131-138.
V.I. Arnold, [*Symplectic geometry and topology,*]{} J. Math. Phys. [**41**]{} (2000), no. 6, 3307-3343.
M.S. Baouendi, F. Treves. [*A property of the functions and distributions annihilated by a locally integrable system of vector fields.*]{} Ann. Math. [**113**]{} (1981), 387-421.
M.S. Baouendi, H. Jacobowitz, F. Trèves, [*On the analyticity of CR mappings*]{}, Ann Math. [**122**]{} (1985), 365-400.
M.S. Baouendi, L. Rothschild, [*Germs of CR maps between real analytic hypersurfaces*]{}, Invent. Math. [**93**]{} (1988), 481-500.
M.S. Baouendi, P. Ebenfelt, L. Rothschild, [*Algebraicity of holomorphic mappings between real algebraic sets in ${\mathbb C}^n$*]{}, Acta Math. [**177**]{} (1996), 225-273.
M.S. Baouendi, P. Ebenfelt, L. Rothsdchild, [*Real submanifolds in complex space and their mappings*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, 1999.
M.S. Baouendi, P. Ebenfelt, L. Rothschild, [*Local geometric properties of real submanifolds in complex space*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**37**]{} (2000), 309-336.
E. Bedford, [*Proper holomorphic mappings from domains with real analytic boundaries*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**106**]{}(1984), 745-760.
E. Bedford, [*Proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**10**]{} (1984), 157-175.
E. Bedford, J. Dadok, [*Bounded domains with prescribed group of automorphisms*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**62**]{} (1987), 561-572.
E. Bedford, B. Gaveau, [*Envelopes of holomorphic of certain 2-spheres in ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**105**]{}(1983), 975-1009.
E. Bedford, W. Klingenberg, [*On the envelope of holomorphy of a 2-sphere in ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**4**]{} (1991), 623-646.
E. Bedford, S. Pinchuk, [*Domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$ with noncompact groups of holomorphic automorphisms*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**135 (177)**]{} (1988), 147-157.
E. Bedford, S. Pinchuk, [*Domains in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ with noncompact automorphism groups*]{}, J.Geom. Anal. [**1**]{}(1991), 165-191.
E. Bedford, S. Pinchuk, [*Convex domains with noncompact groups of automorphisms*]{}, Mat. Sb.[**185**]{}(1994), 3-26.
E. Bedford, S. Pinchuk, [*Domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$ with noncompact automorphism groups*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**47**]{}(1998), 199-222.
S. Bell, D. Catlin, [*Boundary regularity of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**49**]{} (1982), 385-369.
S. Bell, D. Catlin, [*Regularity of CR mappings*]{}, Math. Z. [**199**]{} (1988), 357-368.
F. Berteloot, [*Hölder continuity of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Studia Math. [**100**]{} (1991), 229-335.
F. Berteloot, [*A remark on local continuous extension of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Contemp. Math. [**137**]{}, 79-83.
F. Berteloot, [*Holomorphic vector fields and proper holomorphic self-maps of Reinhardt domains*]{}, Ark. Math. [**36**]{} (1998), 241-254.
F. Berteloot, [*Principe de Bloch et estimations de la metrique de Kobayashi des domaines de ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, J. Geom. Anal. [**13**]{} (2003), 29-37.
F. Berteloot, [*Methodes des changements d’echelles en analyse complexe*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. [**(6) 15**]{} (2006), 42è-483.
F. Berteloot, S. Pinchuk, [*Proper holomorphic mappings between bounded complete Reinhardt domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, Math. Z. [**219**]{} (1995), 343-356.
Z. Ballog, M. Bonk, [*Gromov hyperbolicity and the Kobayashi metric on strictly pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**75**]{} (2000), 504-533.
H. Boas, E. Straube, [*Sobolev estimates for the $\overline\partial$-Neumann operator on domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$ admitting a defining plurisubharmonic function*]{}, Math. Z. [**206**]{}(1991), 81-88.
S. Bochner, S.W. Martin, [*Several complex variables*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, 1948.
F. Bracci, H. Gaussier, [*Horosphere topology*]{}, arXiv 1605.04119 (2017), 38 pp.
D. Burns, S. Shnider, [*Spherical hypersurfaces in complex manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**33**]{} (1976), 223-246.
D. Burns, S. Shnider, [*Geometry of hypersurfaces and mapping theorems in ${\mathbb C}^n$*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**54**]{} (1979), 199-217.
D. Burns, S. Shnider, [*Projective connections in CR geometry*]{}, Manuscripta Math. [**33**]{} (1980/81), 1-26.
E. Cartan, [*Sur la geometrie pseudoconforme des hypersurfaces de deux variables complexe*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pure Appl. [**11**]{} (1932), 17-90.
D. Catlin, [*Necessary conditions for subellipticity of the $\overline\partial$-Neumann problem*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**117**]{}(1983), 147-171.
D. Catlin, [*Global regularity of the Neumann $\overline\partial$-problem*]{}, 39-49, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. [**41**]{} , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1984.
D. Catlin, [*Boundary invariants of pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**120**]{} (1984), 529-586.
D. Catlin, [*Regularity of solutions of the $\overline\partial$-Neumann problem*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**126**]{} (1987), 131-191.
D. Catlin, [*Estimates of invariant metrics on pseudoconvex domains of dimension two*]{}, Math. Z. [**200**]{}(1989), 429-466.
S.S. Chern, [*On the projective structure of a real hypersurface in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$*]{}, Math. Scand. [**36**]{} (1975), 74-82.
S.S. Chern, J. Moser, [*Real hypersurfaces in complex manifolds*]{}, Acta Math. [**133**]{} (1974), 219-271.
E. Chirka, [*Complex analytic sets*]{} Kluwer, 1989.
E. Chirka, [*Regularity of the boundaries of analytic sets*]{} Mat. Sb. [**117(159)**]{} (1982), 291-336.
E. Chirka, [*An introduction to the geometry of CR manifolds*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys [**46**]{}(1991), 95-197.
E. Chirka, B. Coupet, A. Sukhov, [*On boundary regularity of analytic discs*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**46**]{} (1999), 271-279.
S. Cho, [ A lower bound on the Kobayashi metric near a point of finite type in ${\mathbb C}^n$]{}, J. Geom. Anal. [**2**]{} (1992), 317-322.
M. Christ, [*Global $C^\infty$ irregularity of the $\overline\partial$-Neumann problem for worm domains.*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**9**]{} (1996), no. 4, 1171-1185.
B. Coupet, F. Meylan, A. Sukhov, [*Holomorphic maps of algebraic CR manifolds*]{}, Internat. Math. Res. Notices, [**1**]{}(1999), 1-29.
B. Coupet, Y. Pan, A. Sukhov, [*On proper holomorphic mappings from domains with $T$-action*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. [**154**]{} (1999), 57-72.
B. Coupet, Y. Pan, A. Sukhov, [*Proper holomorphic self-maps of quasi-circular domains*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. [**164**]{} (2001), 1-16.
B. Coupet, S. Pinchuk, A. Sukhov, [*On boundary rigidity and regularity of holomorphic mappings*]{}, Internat. J. Math. [**7**]{}(1996), 617-643.
B. Coupet, A. Sukhov, [*Reflection principle and boundary properties of holomorphic mappings*]{}, J.Math. Sci. (N.Y.) [**125**]{} (2005), 825-930.
J. D’Angelo, [*Real hypersurfaces, order of contact and applications*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**115**]{}(1982), 615-637.
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaess. [*Pseudoconvex domains: an example with nontrivial Nebenhülle.* ]{} Math. Ann. [**225**]{} (1977), no. 3, 275-292.
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaes, [*Bounded strictly pseudoconvex exhaustion functions*]{}, Invent. Math. [**39**]{} (1977), 129-141.[**1**]{}(1999),
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaess, [*Pseudoconvex domains with real analytic boundary*]{}, Ann. Math. [**107**]{}(1978), 371-384.
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaess, [*Proper holomorphic maps onto pseudoconvex domains with real analytic boundary*]{}, Ann. Math. [**110**]{} (1979), 575-592.
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaess, [*Boundary regularity of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Invent. Math. [**67**]{} (1982), 363-384.
K. Diederich, J.E. Fornaess, [*Proper holomorphic mappings between real-analytic domains in ${\mathbb C}^n$*]{}, Math. Ann. [**282**]{} (1988), 681-700.
K. Diederich, S. Pinchuk, [*Proper holomorphic maps in dimension 2 extend,*]{} Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**44**]{} (1995), 1089 -1126.
K. Diederich, S. Pinchuk, [*Reflection principle in higher dimensions,*]{} Proc. Internal. Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin 1988). Doc. Math. 1988, 703-712.
K. Diederich, S. Pinchuk, [*Regularity of continuous CR maps in arbitrary dimension,*]{} Michigan Math. J. [**51**]{} (2003), no. 1, 111-140.
K. Diederich, S. Pinchuk, [*Analytic sets extending the graphs of holomorphic mappings*]{}, J.Geom. Anal. [*14*]{}(2004), 231-239.
K. Diederich, S. Pinchuk, [*The geometric reflection principle in several variables: a survey*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Eq. [**54**]{}(2009), 223-241.
S. Donaldson, [*Holomorphic discs and the complex Monge-Ampère equation*]{} J. Sympl. Geom. [**1**]{} (2002), 171-196.
B. Drinoveč - Drnovsek, F. Forstnerič, [*Holomorphic curves in complex spaces*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**139**]{} (2007), 203-253.
J. Duval, D. Gayet, [*Riemann surfaces and totally real tori*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**89**]{} (2014), 299-312.
A. Efimov, [*A generalization of the Wong-Rosay theorem for the unbounded case*]{}, Math. Sb. [**186**]{}(1995), 967-976.
Ch. Fefferman, [*The Bergman kernel and biholomorphic mappings of pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Invent. Math. [**26**]{} (1974), 1-65.
J.E. Fornaess, E. Low, [*Proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Math. Scand. [**58**]{} (1986), 311-322.
J.E. Fornaess, N. Sibony, [*Construction of P.S.H. functions on weakly pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**58**]{} (1989), 633-655.
F. Forstnerič, [*Embedding strictly pseudoconvex domains to the balls*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**295**]{} (1986), 347-368.
F. Forstnerič, [*Proper holomorphic maps from the balls*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**53**]{} (1986), 427-441.
F. Forstnerič, [*Extending proper holomorphic mappings of positive codimension*]{}, Invent. Math. [**95**]{} (1989), 31-61.
F. Forstnerič, [*An elementary proof of Fefferman’s theorem*]{}, Exposit. Math. [**10**]{}(1992), 135-149.
F. Forstnerič, [*Proper holomorphic mappings: a survey*]{}, Math. Notes [**38**]{}, 297-363. Princeton Univ. Press, 1993.
F. Forstnerič, [*Holomorphic automorphisms of ${\mathbb C}^n$: a survey*]{}, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. [**173**]{}, 173-199, Dekker, NY, 1996.
F. Forstnerič, [*Most real analytic Cauchy-Riemann manifolds are nonalgebraizable*]{}, Manuscripta Math. [**115**]{}(2004), 489-494.
F. Fosrtnerič, [*Stein manifolds and holomorphic mappings. The homotopy principle in complex analysis*]{}, Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
F. Forstnerič, J. Globevnik, [*Discs in pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**67**]{} (1992), 129-145.
F. Forstnerič, J.P. Rosay, [*Localization of the Kobayashi metric and the boundary continuity of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Math. Ann. [**279**]{} (1987), 239-252.
S. Frankel, [*Complex geometry of convex domains that cover varieties*]{}, Acta Math. [**163**]{} (1989), 109-149.
R. Greene, S. Krantz, [*Characterization of certain weakly pseudoconvex domains by their automorphism groups*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, [**1268**]{} (1987), 121-157.
R. Greene, K.T. Kim, S. Krantz, [*Geometry of complex domains*]{}, Progress in Mathematics, 291. Birkhauser, 2011.
M. Gromov, [*Pseudoholomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds*]{}, Invent. math. [**82**]{} (1985), 307-347.
A. Isaev, [*Lectures on the automorphism groups of Kobayashi-hyperbolic manifolds*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**1902**]{} (2007), 139 pp.
A. Isaev, S. Krantz, [*Domains with noncompact automorphism group: a survey*]{}, Adv. Math. [**146**]{}(199), 1-38.
A. Isaev, N. Kruzhilin, [*Proper holomorphic maps between Reinhardt domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**54**]{} (2006), 33-63.
M. Hachtroudi, [*Les espaces d’elements a connection projective normale*]{}, Hermann, Paris, 1937.
G.M. Henkin, [*An analytic polyhedron holomorphically nonequivalent to a strictly pseudoconvex domain*]{}, Sov. Math. Dokl. [**14**]{}, (1973), 858-862.
G. Henkin, R. Novikov, [*Proper mappings of classical domains*]{}, Linear and Complex Analysis Problem Book, Springer, Berlin (1984), 625-627.
L. Hörmander, J. Wermer. [*Uniform approximation on compact sets in $C^n$.*]{} Math. Scand. [**23**]{} 1968 5-21 (1969).
X. Huang, [*A removable singularity property for CR mappings between real analytic hypersurfaces*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations [**25**]{} (2000), 299-317.
H. Kerner, [*Überlagerungen und Holomorphiehüllen*]{}, Math. Ann. [**144**]{} (1961), 126-134.
Y. Khurumov, [*Boundary smoothness of proper holomorphic mappings of strictly pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Mat. Zametki [**48**]{} (1990), 149-150.
J.J. Kohn, [*Harmonic integrals on strongly pseudo-convex manifolds*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**78**]{} (1963), 112-148.
I. Kossovskiy, B. Lamel, [*New extension phenomena for solutions of tangential Cauchy-Riemann equations,*]{} Comm. Part. Diff. Eq. [**41**]{} (2016), 925-951.
I. Kossovskiy, R. Shafikov. [*Analytic Continuation of Holomorphic Mappings From Non-minimal Hypersurfaces,*]{} Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**62**]{} (2013), no. 6, 1891-1916.
I. Kossovskiy, R. Shafikov, [*Analytic differential equations and spherical real hypersurfaces*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**102**]{} (216), 67-126.
I. Kossovskiy, R. Shafikov, [*Divergent CR-equivalences and meromorphic differential equations*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc. [**18**]{} (2016), 2785-2819.
S. Krantz, [*The automorphism groups of domains in complex space: a survey*]{}, Quaest. Math. [**36**]{}(2013), 225-251.
N. Kruzhilin, [*Holomorphic automorphisms of hyperbolic Reinhardt domains*]{}, Math. USSR-Izv. [**52**]{}(1988), 15-38.
N. Kruzhilin, [*Two-dimensional spheres on the boundaries of pseudoconvex domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, Math. USSR-Izv. [**55**]{}(1991), 1194-1237.
L. Lempert, [*La metrique de Kobayashi et la representation des domaines sur la boule*]{}, Bull. Math. Soc. France [**109**]{} (1981), 427-474.
L. Lempert, [*Holomorphic invariants, normal forms and the moduli space of convex domains*]{}, Ann. Math. [**128**]{}(1988), 43-78.
E. Low, [*Embedding and proper holomorphic maps of strictly pseudoconvex domain into polydiscs and balls*]{}, Math. Z. [**190**]{} (1985), 401-410.
H. Lewy, [*On the boundary behavior of holomorphic mappings*]{}, Acad. Naz. Lincei [**35**]{}(1977), 1-8.
J. Merker, [*On the partial algebraicity of holomorphic mappings between two real algebraic sets*]{}, Bull. Math. Soc. France, [**129**]{}(2001), 547-591.
J. Merker, [*The local geometry of generating submanifolds of ${\mathbb C}^n$ and the analytic reflection principle*]{}, J.Math. Sci. (N.Y.) [**125**]{}(2005), 751-824.
J. Merker, [*Lie symmetries and CR geometry. Complex analysis*]{}. J.Math. Sci. (N.Y.), [**154**]{} (2008), 817-922.
S. Nemirovski, R. Shafikov, [*Uniformization of strictly pseudoconvex domains. I.*]{} Izv. Math. [**69**]{} (2005), 1189-1202.
S. Nemirovski, R. Shafikov, [*Uniformization of strictly pseudoconvex domains. II.*]{} Izv. Math. [**69**]{} (2005), 1203-1210.
L. Nirenberg, S. Webster, P. Yang, [*Local boundary regularity of holomorphic mappings*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**33**]{} (1980), 305-338.
S. Pinchuk, [*A boundary uniqueness theorem for holomorphic functions of several variables*]{}, Mat. Zametki, [**15**]{} (1974), 205-212.
S. Pinchuk, [*Proper holomorphic maps of strictly pseudoconvex domains*]{} Sibirsk. Math. J. [**15**]{} (1974), 909-917.
S. Pinchuk, [*Bogoljubov’s “edge-of-the-wedge" theorem for generic manifolds*]{} Mat.Sb. [**94 (136)**]{} (1974), 1309-1312.
S. Pinchuk, [*The analytic continuation of holomorphic mappings*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**98 (140)**]{} (1975), 416-435.
S. Pinchuk, [*Holomorphic mappings of real-analytic hypersurfaces*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**105 (147)**]{}, (1978) 574-593.
S. Pinchuk, [*Proper holomorphic mappings of strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, [**241**]{} (1978), 30-33.
S. Pinchuk, [*Domain with noncompact groups of holomorphic automorphisms*]{}, Proceedings of All Union conference on complex analysis and approximation theory, Ufa, 1980, 86-87.
S. Pinchuk, [*Holomorphic mappings in $C^n$ and the problem of holomorphic equivalence.*]{} Current problems in mathematics. Fundamental directions, Vol. 9 (Russian), 195-223, 292, Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekhn. Inform., Moscow, 1986.
S. Pinchuk, [*Scaling Method and Holomorphic Mappings*]{}, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, [**52**]{}, Part 1 (1991), 151-162.
S. Pinchuk, S. Khasanov, [*Asymptotically holomorphic functions and their applications*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**134 (176)**]{} (1987), 546-555.
S. Pinchuk, Sh. Tsyganov, [*Smoothness of CR mappings between strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces*]{}, Math-USSR Izv. [**35**]{} (1990), 457-467.
S. Pinchuk, R. Shafikov, [*Critical sets of proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**143**]{} (2015), 4335-4345.
S. Pinchuk, A. Sukhov, [*Extension of CR maps of positive codimension*]{}, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. [**253**]{} (2006), 246-255.
H. Poncaré, [*Les fonctions analytiques de deux variables et la représentation conforme*]{}, Rend. circ. Mat. Palermo, [**23**]{} (1907), 185-220.
M. Range, [*Holomorphic functions and integral representations in several complex variables*]{}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 108. Springer-Verlag, N.Y. 1986. xx+386pp.
J.-P. Rosay, [*Sur une caractérisation de la boule parmi les domains de ${\mathbb C}^n$ par son groupe d’automorphisms*]{} Ann. Inst. Fourier [**29**]{} (1979), 91-97.
W. Rudin, [*Holomorphic maps that extends to automorphisms of the ball*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**81**]{} (1981), 429-432.
R. Saerens, W. Zame, [*The isometry groups of manifolds and the automorphism groups of domains*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**301**]{} (1987), 413-429.
B. Segre, [*Intorno al problema di Poincaré della rappresentazione pseudo-conforme*]{}, Rend. Acc. Lincei, [**13**]{}(1931), 676-683.
N. Sibony, [*A class of hyperbolic manifolds*]{}, Ann. of Math. Stud [**100**]{}, 357-372, Princeton Univ. Press,1981.
N. Sibony, [*Une class des domaines pseudoconvexes*]{} Duke Math. J. [**55**]{} (1987), 299-319.
N. Sibony, [*Some aspects of weakly pseudoconvex domains*]{}, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 199- 231, [**52**]{} [**Part I**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, 1991.
R. Sharipov, A. Sukhov, [*On CR mappings between algebraic Cauchy-Riemann manifolds and separate algebraicity of holomorphic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**348**]{}(1996), 767-780.
R. Shafikov, [*Analytic continuation of germs of holomorphic mappings between real hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb C}^n$*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**47**]{} (2000), 133-149.
A. Sukhov, [*On the continuous continuation and rigidity of domains with piecewise smooth boundaries*]{}, Mat.Sb. [**185**]{} (1994), 131-142.
A. Sukhov, [*On the boundary regularity of holomorphic mappings*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**185**]{} (1994), 131-142.
A. Sukhov, [*On transformations of analytic CR structures*]{}, Izv. Math. [**67**]{}(2003), 3043-332.
N. Tanaka, [*On the pseudo-conformal geometry of hypersurfaces of the space of $n$ complex variables.*]{} J. Math. Soc. Japan [**14**]{} (1962) 397-429.
A. Tumanov, [*The geometry of CR-manifolds.*]{} Current problems in mathematics. Fundamental directions, Vol. 9, 225-246, 292, Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekhn. Inform., Moscow, 1986.
A. Tumanov, [*Extension of CR functions into a wedge*]{}, Mat. Sb. [**181**]{} (1990) , 951-964.
A. Tumanov, G. Henkin, [*Local characterization of holomorphic automorphisms of classical domains*]{}, Dokl. Acad. Nauk SSSR, [**267**]{} (1982), 796-799.
A. Tumanov, G. Henkin, [*Local characterization of holomorphic automorphisms of Siegel domains,*]{} Func. Anal. [**17**]{} (1983), 49-61.
A. Tresse, [*Determination des invariants ponctuels de l’equation differentielle ordinaire du second order $y'' = \omega(x,y,y')$*]{}, Preisschr. Furstlich Jablon. Ges., Leiptzig, Hirzel, 1896.
K. Verma, [it A characterization of domains in ${\mathbb C}^2$ with noncompact automorphism group]{}, Math. Ann. [**344**]{} (2009), 645-701.
A. Vitushkin, [*Real-analytic hypersurfaces in complex manifolds*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys [**40**]{}(1985), 1-35.
A. Vitushkin, [*Holomorphic mappings and the geometry of surfaces*]{}, Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, Akad. Nauk SSR, Vol. 7, (1985), 167-226.
A. Vitushkin, V. Ezhov, N. Kruzhilin. [*Extension of local mappings of pseudoconvex surfaces.*]{} Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**270**]{} (1983), no. 2, 271-274.
S. Webster, [*On the mapping problem for real algebraic hypersurfaces*]{}, Invent. Math. [**43**]{} (1977), 53-68.
S. Webster, [*On the transformation group of a real hypersurface*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**231**]{} (1977), 179-190.
S. Webster, [*On the reflection principle in several complex variables*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**71**]{} (1978), 26-28.
J. Winkelmann, [*Realizing connected Lie groups as automorphism groups of complex manifolds*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**79**]{}(2004), 285-299.
J. Winkelmann, [*Realizing countable groups as automorphism groups of Riemann surfaces*]{} Doc. Math. [**7**]{}(2002), 413-417.
B. Wong, [*Characterization of the unit ball in ${\mathbb C}^n$ by its automorphism group*]{}, Invent. Math. [**41**]{} (1977), 253-257.
D. Zaitsev, [*Algebraicity of local holomorphisms between real-algebraic submanifolds of complex spaces*]{}, Acta Math. [**183**]{} (1999), 273-305.
A. Zimmer, [*Gromov hyperbolicity and the Kobayashi metric on convex domains of finite type*]{}, Math. Ann. [**365**]{}(2016),1425-1498.
A. Zimmer, [*Characterizing domains by the limit set of their automorphism group*]{}, arXiv: 1506.07852v2 (2017), 35 pp.
[^1]: MSC: 37F75,34M,32S,32D. Key words: holomorphic mapping
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Given an integral lattice $\Lambda$ of rank $n$ and a finite sequence $m_1 \leq m_2
\leq \dots \leq m_k$ of natural numbers we construct a modular form $\Theta_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ of level $N=N(\Lambda)$. The weight of this modular form is $nk/2+\sum_{i=1}^k m_k$. This construction generalizes the theta series $\Theta_\Lambda$ of integral lattices, because $\Theta_\Lambda = \Theta_{0,\Lambda}$.\
We give the $q$-expansions of the modular forms $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}$, and $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ and show that (up to some scaling) they are given by power series with integer coefficients.\
address:
- 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany'
- 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany'
author:
- Juan Marcos Cerviño
- Georg Hein
date: 'August 31, 2009'
title: 'lattice invariants from the heat kernel (II)'
---
Introduction
============
For an integral lattice $\Lambda$ the theta series $\Theta_\Lambda(\tau)
= \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \exp(2 \pi i \|\lambda\|^2 \tau)$ is a first invariant. Moreover, $\Theta_\Lambda$ is a modular form of weight ${{\rm rk}}(\Lambda)/2$ and level $N(\Lambda)$. Since the vector space of modular forms of given weight and level is of finite dimension, $\Theta_\Lambda$ can be read off from the first coefficients in its $q$-expansion. Unfortunately, there are pairs $(\Lambda,\Lambda')$ of lattices which possess the same theta series $\Theta_\Lambda =
\Theta_{\Lambda'}$ and are not isometric. A first example are the two unimodular lattices $E_8 \oplus E_8$ and $E_{16}$ of rank 16 (see page 1243 in [@Elk2] for details). Schiemann constructed in [@Sch] an example of two four dimensional lattices $(\Lambda,\Lambda')$ which are isospectral (i.e. $\Theta_\Lambda = \Theta_{\Lambda'}$) but not isometric.\
Spherical theta functions $\Theta_{h,\Lambda} := \sum_{\lambda \in
\Lambda} h(\lambda)\exp(2 \pi i \|\lambda\|^2 \tau)$ define for homogeneous harmonic polynomials $h$ also modular forms of level $N(\Lambda)$. These modular forms depend on $h$ and are of weight $\deg(h) +{{\rm rk}}(\Lambda)/2$. (The term [*spherical theta functions*]{} appears in [@Zag] whereas Elkies uses [*weighted theta function*]{} in [@Elk].) The authors managed in [@CH] to find sums of products of these spherical theta functions which give new lattice invariants. These modular forms can be used to distinguish the two isospectral lattices in Schiemann’s example (see Proposition 4.4 in [@CH]). In our article [@CH] we construct an invariant $c_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ which turns out to be a sum of products of modular forms and their derivatives. Out of these invariants we can sometimes construct invariant harmonic data $p_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ which give invariant modular forms. However, we computed only $p_{1,1,\Lambda}$ explicitly for lattices $\Lambda$ of arbitrary rank in our article [@CH].\
The aim of this article is a direct construction of the invariant harmonic datum $p_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$. So take an integral lattice $\Lambda$ of rank $n$, let $N$ be the level of $\Lambda$, and fix a finite sequence $0 \leq m_1 \leq m_2 \leq \dots \leq m_k$ of integers. We start with an isometric embedding $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$ of $\Lambda$ into the Euclidean space. Here we consider $\Lambda$ as a distribution on the Schwartz functions on ${{\mathbb E}}^n$. The heat flux of this distribution is given by a function $f_\Lambda: {{\mathbb R}}^+ \times
{{\mathbb E}}^n \to {{\mathbb R}}$. Using the [*harmonic Taylor coefficients*]{} of $f_\Lambda$ we obtain the harmonic invariant system $p_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ which provides a modular form $\Theta_{m_1,m_2,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ of level $N$ and weight $nk/2+\sum_{i=1}^km_k$, independent from the chosen embedding $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$ (see Theorem \[thetam1mk\]).\
Next we give for all integers $m \geq 0$ the $q$-expansion of the invariant modular forms $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda} = \sum_{k \geq 0}
a_{m,m,k}q^k$. It turns out that the coefficients $a_{m,m,k}$ are given by $$a_{m,m,k} = \sum_{(v,w) \in
\Lambda^2, \|v\|^2+\|w\|^2=k} p_m(\cos(\measuredangle
(v,w ))) \|v\|^{2m}\|w\|^{2m} \, ,$$ where $p_m$ is an even polynomial of degree $2m$ (see Theorem \[main1\]). We compute these polynomials in Lemma \[pm\]. The first ones being $$p_0(c) =1 \,,\,\,\,
p_1(c) = \frac{c^2}{2}-\frac{1}{2n} \, , \mbox{ and }
p_2(c) = \frac{c^4}{24}-\frac{c^2}{4(n+4)}+\frac{1}{8(n+4)(n+2))} \, .$$ Knowing these polynomials we can give the modular forms $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ for the $E_8$ lattice for $m \leq 9$ in \[ex-e8\]. We conclude with computing the [*triple modular invariant*]{} $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ in Theorem \[theta-111\].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
This work has been supported by the SFB/TR 45 “Periods, moduli spaces and arithmetic of algebraic varieties”.
The modular forms $\Theta_{k_1,\dots,k_m,\Lambda}$ {#THETAmm}
==================================================
Notation
--------
We consider a lattice $\Lambda \subset {{\mathbb E}}^n$ embedded in the $n$-dimensional euclidean space. In [@CH] we defined the function $f_\Lambda:{{\mathbb R}}^+ \times {{\mathbb E}}^n
\to {{\mathbb R}}$ by $$f_\Lambda(t,x) = {(4\pi t)^\frac{-n}{2}}\sum_{\gamma \in \Lambda}
\exp \left( \frac{-\|x-\gamma\|^2}{4t} \right) \, .$$ As explained in Section 2.1 of [@CH] this function describes the heat flux of the lattice $\Lambda$. We call a function $c_{\Lambda}:{{\mathbb R}}^+ \to {{\mathbb R}}$, which we obtain from $f_\Lambda$, a lattice invariant if the action of the orthogonal group ${{\rm O}}(n)$ on the isometric embeddings of $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$ does not change $c_{\Lambda}$. The first example for such a lattice invariant is $c_{0,\Lambda}(t)=f_\Lambda(t,0)$. It was shown in [@CH Section 2.10] that this function $c_{0,\Lambda}$ determines the theta series of the lattice $\Lambda$. We call a lattice $\Lambda$ integral if the square lengths $\|\gamma
\|^2$ are integers for all $\gamma \in \Lambda$. An integral lattice $\Lambda$ has two integer invariants: its discriminant $D = D(\Lambda)$, and the level $N=N(\Lambda)$. We recall their definitions. If $\frac{1}{2}A \in {{\rm Mat}}_{n \times
n}({{\mathbb R}})$ is a symmetric Gram matrix for $\Lambda$, then $A \in {{\rm Mat}}_{n
\times n}({{\mathbb Z}})$ and has even integers on its diagonal. We set $D(L):= \det(A)$. The smallest positive integer $N$ such that $N\cdot A{^{-1}}\in {{\rm Mat}}_{n \times n}({{\mathbb Z}})$ and $N\cdot A{^{-1}}$ has even entries on the principal diagonal is called the level of $\Lambda$.
Harmonic polynomials {#harm-num}
--------------------
We list some well known properties of harmonic polynomials. For proofs see [@Hel Theorem 3.1], and [@Lang Chapter XIII, Exercises 33–35]. The ring of polynomial functions on ${{\mathbb E}}^n$ we denote by $A={{\mathbb R}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. The ring $A$ has a natural grading $A= \oplus_{k \geq 0} A_k$ with $A_k$ the homogeneous polynomials of degree $k$. We define a pairing on $$A \times A \to {{\mathbb R}}\, ,\quad \langle g , f \rangle =
g\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1},\dots \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_n}\right)f |_0
\,.$$ The orthogonal group ${{\rm O}}(n)$ acts on ${{\mathbb E}}^n$, defining an action on the polynomials $\sigma(f)(x):=f(\sigma{^{-1}}(x))$ It is convenient, to recall some well known basic properties of this pairing.
1. The pairing is a bilinear, symmetric, and positive definite.
2. For $I=(i_1,\dots,i_n) \in {{\mathbb N}}^n$ we set $x^I = \prod_{k=1}^n
x_k^{i_k}$, and $I!=\prod_{k=1}^n i_k!$. The normed monomials $\left\{
\frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \right\}_{I \in {{\mathbb N}}^n}$ form a orthonormal basis.
3. For two polynomials $P,Q \in A$ we have $\langle P \cdot Q ,f
\rangle= \langle P , Q\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1},\dots \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_n}\right)f \rangle$. In particular, the Laplace operator $\Delta=
-\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{{\partial}^2}{{\partial}x_k^2}:A_m \to A_{m-2}$ has up to sign the multiplication with $r^2=\sum_{k=1}^n x_k^2$ as adjoint.
4. The infinite dimensional representation ${{\rm O}}(n) \times A \to A$ is compatible with the grading of $A$ and with the inner product on $A$. Therefore it defines finite dimensional representations ${{\rm O}}(n) \to {{\rm O}}(A_m, \langle, \rangle )$ for all $m \geq 0$.
5. The kernel ${{\rm Harm}}_m$ of $\Delta:A_m \to A_{m-2}$ is an irreducible representation. The vector space ${{\rm Harm}}_m$ of harmonic functions is of dimension $\binom{n+m-1}{n-1} - \binom{n+m-3}{n-1}$. Its orthogonal complement is $r^2 \cdot A_{m-2}$ which is an ${{\rm O}}(n)$ invariant subspace. In consequence, we obtain the decomposition of $A_m$ into irreducible subspaces $$A_m = \bigoplus_{k=0}^{\lfloor m/2 \rfloor} r^{2k} {{\rm Harm}}_{m-2k}
\,.$$
6. For $h_1,h_2 \in {{\rm Harm}}_{2m-2k}$ we have the equality $$\langle r^{2k}h_1 , r^{2k}h_2 \rangle = a_{k,m}{\left\langle h_1, h_2 \right\rangle}
\mbox{ with } a_{k,m}=2^k k!
\prod_{l=1}^{k} (n+4m-2k-2l)$$
7. For $h \in {{\rm Harm}}_{m}$, and natural numbers $k,d \in {{\mathbb N}}$ we have $$r^{2k}\Delta^k(r^{2d}h) = b_{k,d,m} r^{2d}h \mbox{ with } b_{k,d,m} =
\prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (2l-2d)(n-2+2d-2l+2m)
\, .$$ Note that $b_{0,d,m}=1$, and $b_{k,d,m} = 0 \iff k >d$.
8. Using the above numbers $b_{k,d,m}$ we define for $m \geq 0$, and $k=0, \dots, \lfloor m/2 \rfloor$ rational numbers $d_{k,m}$ by the assignment $r_{0,m}:= 1$, and $$r_{d,m} := \frac{-1}{b_{d,d,m-2d} }
\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} r_{k,m}b_{k,d,m-2d} \mbox{ for all integers }
d=1,\dots , \lfloor m/2 \rfloor \, .$$ The use of the integers $b_{k,d,m}$ is not necessary. Using their definition we obtain: $$r_{0,m} = 1 \mbox{ and by } r_{d,m} = - \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \left(
\prod_{l=k}^{d-1} \frac{1}{(2l-2d)(n-2+2m-2d-2l)} \right) r_{k,m} \, .$$ From this, we derive in Lemma \[combi-1\] the explicit formula: $$r_{k,m}{^{-1}}=2^k k! \prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (n+2m-4-2l) .$$ However, the first definition implies immediately that for all $d \geq 1$ we have: $$\sum_{k=0}^{d} r_{k,m}b_{k,d,m-2d} =0 \, .$$ Therefore we conclude, that the linear map $P_{{{\rm harm}},m} = \sum_{k \geq
0}^{m/2}r_{k,m} r^{2k} \Delta^k$ operates on $A_m$ as the harmonic projection. Indeed, for a homogeneous harmonic function $h$ of degree $m-2d$ we find that $P_{{{\rm harm}},m}(r^{2d}h) = \left( \sum\limits_{k=0}^{d}
r_{k,m}b_{k,d,m-2d}\right) r^{2d}h$.
9. Let us explicitly give the harmonic projections in degree two, four and six: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
P_{{{\rm harm}},2}& =&{{\rm id}}+\frac{1}{2n}r^2\Delta \\
P_{{{\rm harm}},4} & =&
{{\rm id}}+\frac{1}{2(n+4)}r^2\Delta+\frac{1}{8(n+2)(n+4)}r^4\Delta^2\\
P_{{{\rm harm}},6} & =&
{{\rm id}}+\frac{1}{2(n+8)}r^2\Delta+\frac{1}{8(n+6)(n+8)}r^4\Delta^2+
\frac{1}{48(n+4)(n+6)(n+8)}r^6\Delta^3\\
\end{array}$$
Harmonic Taylor coefficients
----------------------------
We consider the homogeneous parts of the Taylor expansion of $f_\Lambda$ at the point $x=0$. Since $f_\Lambda$ is symmetric in $x$, only the even parts appear. We set $$f_{\Lambda,m} = \sum _{I \subset {{\mathbb N}}^n, |I|=2m} a_I \frac{x^I}{I!}
\mbox{
where for } I=(i_1,i_2,\dots,i_n) \,\,\,
I!:=\prod_{m=1}^n i_m! \mbox{ , } x^I:=\prod_{m=1}^n x_m^{i_m}
\,\mbox{ , and }$$ $$a_I:= \langle x^I , f_\Lambda \rangle = \frac{{\partial}^{i_1}}{{\partial}x_1^{i_1}}
\frac{{\partial}^{i_2}}{{\partial}x_2^{i_2}} \cdots \frac{{\partial}^{i_n}}{{\partial}x_n^{i_n}}f_\Lambda|_{{{\mathbb R}}^{+} \times \{0\}} \, .$$
The $f_{\Lambda,m}$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $2m$ in the $x_i$ over the ring of functions in $t$. We may write $$f_{\Lambda,m} = \sum _{I \subset {{\mathbb N}}^n, |I|=2m}
{\left\langle \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}}, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}
\frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \,.$$ Indeed, the operator $f \mapsto \sum _{I \subset {{\mathbb N}}^n, |I|=2m}
{\left\langle \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}}, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}
\frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}}$ is the identity on $A_{2m}$ the space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $2m$. So we can replace the orthonormal basis $\left\{ \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \right\}_{I \subset
{{\mathbb N}}^n, |I|=2m}$ by any other orthonormal basis. If ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\rm harm}}_{2m}$ is an orthonormal basis of ${{\rm Harm}}_{2m}$, the space of harmonic polynomials of degree $2m$, then the projection of $f_{\Lambda,m}$ to ${{\rm Harm}}_{2m}$ is called the [*harmonic Taylor coefficient*]{} of $f_\Lambda$ and given by $$f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m} = \sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} {\left\langle h, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}h \,
.$$ We derive more formulas for $f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m}$ which we will use in the sequel. Taking any orthonormal basis ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m}$ of $A_{2m}$ we obtain $f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m} = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle g, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}P_{{\rm harm}}(g)$ where $P_{{\rm harm}}:A_{2m} \to A_{2m}$ denotes the orthogonal projection to the space of harmonic polynomials. Therefore, we conclude $f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m} = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle P^*_{{\rm harm}}(g), f_\Lambda \right\rangle}g$ with $P^*_{{\rm harm}}$ the adjoint operator of $P_{{\rm harm}}$. Since an orthogonal projection is self adjoint we find that $f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m} = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle P_{{\rm harm}}(g), f_\Lambda \right\rangle}g$. Using the formula for the harmonic projection developed in \[harm-num\].(8) we derive the next
\[harm-tay\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be any orthonormal basis of $A_{2m}$. We have: $$f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,m} = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle P_{{\rm harm}}(g), f_\Lambda \right\rangle}g = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle g, P_{{\rm harm}}(f_\Lambda) \right\rangle}g= \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad$$ $$\qquad \qquad = \sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle g, \sum_{k=0}^m p_{k,2m} r^{2k}\Delta^k f_\Lambda \right\rangle}g =
\sum_{g \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}}
{\left\langle g, \sum_{k=0}^m p_{k,2m} r^{2k}
(-1)^k\frac{{\partial}^k}{{\partial}t^k}f_\Lambda \right\rangle}g$$ with the rational numbers $p_{k,2m}=\frac{1}{2^kk!} \prod_{l=0}^{k-1}
(n+4m-4-2l){^{-1}}$ from \[harm-num\].(8).
We have shown all equalities but the last one. This is a consequence of the identity $\Delta^kf_\Lambda = (-1)^k\frac{{\partial}^k}{{\partial}t^k}f_\Lambda$ (see 2.1 in [@CH]).
The invariant harmonic system $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$
---------------------------------------------------------
We define for any set of integers $m_1,\dots,m_k$ with $m_i \geq 0$ the function $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ by $$p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda} := \int_{S^{n-1}} f_{\Lambda,m_1}^{{\rm harm}}\cdot f_{\Lambda,m_2}^{{\rm harm}}\cdot \dots \cdot f_{\Lambda,m_k}^{{\rm harm}}d
\bar \mu \, .$$ If ${\varphi}: {{\mathbb E}}^n \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$ is any isometry, then ${\varphi}$ commutes with the multiplication with $r^2$ as well as with $\Delta$. Whence it commutes with the harmonic projection, which can be described in terms of $r^2$ and $\Delta$. In consequence $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,{\varphi}(\Lambda) }
= p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$. Using the defining equation of $f_{\Lambda,m_i}$ we can write $$p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda} = \sum_{h_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_1}^{{\rm harm}}\dots
h_k \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_k}^{{\rm harm}}} \left( \prod_{l=1}^k {\left\langle h_l, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}
\right) \int_{S^{n-1}} h_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot h_k d \bar \mu \, ,$$ where ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\rm harm}}_{2m_i}$ is an orthonormal basis of harmonic polynomials of degree $2m_i$. Since the $\int_{S^{n-1}} h_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot h_k d \bar \mu $ are merely real numbers we obtain from this equation and the equality $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,{\varphi}(\Lambda) } = p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ for all isometries ${\varphi}\in {{\rm O}}(n)$, that $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ is an invariant harmonic system for lattices $\Lambda \in {{\mathbb E}}^n$ (see [@CH 2.8]). The Proposition 2.9 from [@CH] implies:
\[thetam1mk\] For any integral lattice $\Lambda \subset {{\mathbb E}}^n$ the modular form $$\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda} = \sum_{h_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_1}^{{\rm harm}}\dots h_k \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_k}^{{\rm harm}}}
\left( \prod_{l=1}^k \Theta_{h_l,\Lambda} \right)
\int_{S^{n-1}} h_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot h_k d \bar \mu$$ is a modular form of weight $\frac{nk}{2}+2\sum_{l=1}^km_i$. The modular form is of level $N$, the level of the lattice $\Lambda$. Furthermore, $\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ is independent from the chosen embedding $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$. If $k$ is an odd number, then $\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ has character $\left(\frac{D}{\cdot}
\right)$. For $k$ an even integer $\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ is a modular form for the trivial character.
The functions $\left\{ \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \right\}_{I \subset
{{\mathbb N}}^n, |I|=2m}$ form an orthonormal basis of $A_{2m}$. Whereas an orthonormal basis of the subspace ${{\rm Harm}}_{2m} \subset A_{2m}$ is more difficult. However by Proposition \[harm-tay\] we can compute $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ in a different manner: $$p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda} = \sum_{g_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_1} \dots
g_k \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_k}} \left( \prod_{l=1}^k {\left\langle P_{{\rm harm}}(g_l), f_\Lambda \right\rangle}
\right) \int_{S^{n-1}} g_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot g_k d \bar \mu \, ,$$ with the ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m_i}$ orthonormal basis of $A_{2m_i}$. Applying [@CH Proposition 2.9] to this presentation of $p_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ we obtain the next
\[alt-def\] The modular form $\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda}$ can be computed using orthonormal basis ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m_i}$ of $A_{2m_i}$, and the orthogonal harmonic projections $P_{{\rm harm}}:A_{2m_i} \to A_{2m_i}$ as follows $$\Theta_{m_1,\dots,m_k,\Lambda} = \sum_{g_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_1}
\dots g_k \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m_k}}
\left( \prod_{l=1}^k \Theta_{P_{{\rm harm}}(g_l),\Lambda} \right)
\int_{S^{n-1}} g_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot g_k d \bar \mu \, .$$
The modular forms $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}$ for integers $m
\geq 0$
========================================================
Definition of $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}$
------------------------------------
On the real polynomials on ${{\mathbb E}}^n$ we have two ${{\rm O}}(n)$-invariant scalar products. The one defined in \[harm-num\], and the integral scalar product ${\left\langle f, g \right\rangle}_2:= \int_{S^{n-1}} fg d \bar \mu$. The first has the advantage that $A_m \bot A_k$ for $m \ne k$. However, when we restrict to the irreducible subspace ${{\rm Harm}}_{2m}$ the two scalar products agree up to a constant $c_{2m}$, i.e. ${\left\langle f, g \right\rangle}_2= c_{2m}{\left\langle f, g \right\rangle}$ for all $f,g \in
{{\rm Harm}}_{2m}$. The formula from Theorem \[thetam1mk\] yields $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}
& =& \displaystyle
\sum_{h_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} \sum_{h_2 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}}
\Theta_{h_1,\Lambda} \Theta_{h_2,\Lambda} \int_{S^{n-1}} h_1h_2 d \bar
\mu \\
& =& \displaystyle
\sum_{h_1 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} \sum_{h_2 \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}}
\Theta_{h_1,\Lambda} \Theta_{h_2,\Lambda}
{\left\langle h_1, h_2 \right\rangle}_2\\
& =& \displaystyle
c_{2m} \sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}}
\Theta_{h,\Lambda}^2 \, .
\end{array}$$ A straightforward computation using [@CH Corollary A.2] yields $c_{2m}=\prod\limits_{k=0}^{2m-1}\frac{1}{n+2k}$. However, to ease notation we define $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}:= \sum_{h \in
{{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} \Theta_{h,\Lambda}^2$.
\[aux-32\] Let $v$ and $w$ to vectors in ${{\mathbb E}}^n$, ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}$ be a orthonormal basis of ${{\rm Harm}}_{2m}$, and $c=\cos(\measuredangle
(v,w )) = \frac{{\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}}{\|v\|\|w\|}$ be the cosine of the angle between $v$ and $w$. We have $$\sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} h(v)h(w) = p_m(c)\|v\|^{2m}\|w\|^{2m}$$ where $p_m$ is the even polynomial of degree $2m$ from Lemma \[pm\].
We proceed by induction on $m$. For $m=0$ the statement is obvious. Let ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m}$ be a orthonormal basis of $A_{2m}$. We want to compute $D_m(v,w) = \sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}} h(v)h(w)$. Since ${{\rm O}}(n)$ acts orthogonal on $A_{2m}$, this number is independent of the chosen basis. In particular, we can take ${{\mathcal B}}_{2m} = \left\{ \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}}
\right\}_{|I| = 2m }$. With this choice we find $D_m(v,w) =
\frac{{\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}^{2m}}{(2m!)}$. Another choice for an orthonormal basis is by \[harm-num\].(6) $${{\mathcal B}}_{2m}'= B_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}\cup
\frac{1}{\sqrt{a_{1,m}}} r^2 B_{2m-2}^{{\rm harm}}\cup \dots \cup
\frac{1}{\sqrt{a_{m,m}}}
r^{2m}B^{{\rm harm}}_0 \, ,$$ where the numbers $a_i,m$ are those defined in \[harm-num\].(6). This basis corresponds to the irreducible decomposition $A_{2m} = \bigoplus_{k=0}^m r^{2k} {{\rm Harm}}_{2m-2k}$. Working with this orthonormal basis we deduce $$D_m(v,w) = \sum_{k=0}^m \frac{1}{a_{k,m}} \sum_{h \in B^{{\rm harm}}_{2m-2k}
} h(v)h(w) \, .$$ The defining equation for the polynomials $p_m$, Lemma \[pm\], and the induction hypothesis yield the stated formula for $p_m$.
\[main1\] For an integer lattice $\Lambda \subset {{\mathbb E}}^n$ the modular form $$\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda} = \sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}}
\Theta_{h,\Lambda}^2$$ is of weight $4m+n$, has level $N(\Lambda)$, and is independent of the chosen embedding. Its $q$-expansion is given by $$\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda} (\tau) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \left( \sum_{(v,w) \in
\Lambda^2, \|v\|^2+\|w\|^2=k} p_m(\cos(\measuredangle
(v,w ))) \|v\|^{2m}\|w\|^{2m} \right) q^k \, .$$ For $m >0$ we have, $ \frac{(2m)!2^{2m}\prod_{l=0}^{m-1} (n+4m-4-2l) }{q^{2l}}
\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda} \in {{\mathbb Z}}[[q]]$ where $l$ denotes the minimum of $\|v\|^2$ for all nonzero $v \in
\Lambda$.
We take the function $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda} = \sum_{h \in
{{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}} \Theta_{h,\Lambda}^2 $. As a sum of squares of modular forms of weight $2m+\frac{n}{2}$ it is a modular form of weight$4m+n$. Let us calculate the $q$-expansion: $$\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}(\tau) = \sum_{h \in {{\mathcal B}}_{2m}^{{\rm harm}}}
\sum_{(v,w) \in \Lambda \times \Lambda } h(v)h(w) q^{\|v\|^2+\|w\|^2}
\quad \mbox{ with } q=\exp(2 \pi i \tau)
\,.$$ This yields by Lemma \[aux-32\] the stated $q$-expansion. From the $q$-expansion we directly deduce that $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}$ is independent from the chosen embedding $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$. Likewise we see that the coefficients of $q^k$ in $\Theta_{m,m,\Lambda}$ vanish for all $k < 2l$. Now we consider for two vectors $v,w \in \Lambda$ the number $$\delta_m(v,w) = (2m)!2^{2m}\prod_{l=0}^{m-1} (n+4m-4-2l)
p_m(\cos(\measuredangle (v,w ))) \|v\|^{2m}\|w\|^{2m} \, .$$ This number is by Lemma \[pm\] and the definition of the cosine given by $$\delta_m(v,w) = \sum_{k=0}^m
(-1)^k\frac{(2m)!}{(2m-2k)!k!} 2^{2m-k}{\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}^{2m-2k}
\|v\|^{2k}\|w\|^{2k} \prod_{l=k}^{m-1}(n+4m-4-2l) \, .$$ Since $\Lambda$ is integral ${\left\langle v, w \right\rangle} \in \frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb Z}}$. Thus, $\delta_m(v,w)$ is a sum of integers. This completes the proof.
Example: The modular forms $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ {#ex-e8}
---------------------------------------------
Let $v \in E_8$ be any lattice vector of length one. Basic combinatorics yield, that the possible values of ${\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}^2$ for the 240 lattice vectors $w \in E_8$ of length one are: one (2 times), $\frac{1}{4}$ (112 times), and $0$ (126 times). This allows by Theorem \[main1\] the computation of the coefficient $a_{m,m,2}$ of $q^2$ in the $q$-expansion of $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ for all integers $m \geq 1$. We list the first: $$\begin{array}{c|c}
m & a_{m,m,2} \\
\hline
m \in \{1,2,3,5 \} & 0 \\
4 & 3/896\\
6 & 7/316293120\\
7 & 1/30057431040\\
8 & 1/22235892940800 \\
9 & 1/21727643959296000 \\
\end{array}$$
Now $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ is a cusp form of weight $4m+8$ for ${{\rm SL}}_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ which starts with $\Theta_{m,m,E_8} = a_{m,m,2}q^2 +
\dots $. Since we know the dimensions of the spaces of cusp forms we can determine $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ from $a_{m,m,2}$ for $m \leq 6$, and obtain: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Theta_{m,m,E_8}(\tau) & = & 0 \quad \mbox{for } m \in \{1,2,3,5 \} \\
\\
\Theta_{4,4,E_8}(\tau) & = & \displaystyle\frac{3}{896} \Delta^2(\tau)\\
\\
\Theta_{6,6,E_8}(\tau) & = &
\displaystyle\frac{7}{658944} G_8(\tau)\Delta^2(\tau) \,
,\\
\end{array}$$ where $\Delta(\tau)=q\prod_{n \geq 1}(1-q^n)^{24}$ is the discriminant function, and $G_8(\tau) = \frac{1}{480}+\sum_{n \geq 1} \sigma_7(n)q^n$ is the Eisenstein series of weight eight (see Chapter 0 in [@Zag]). The vanishing of $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}(\tau)$ for $m \in \{1,2,3,5 \}$ can be deduced alternatively: These modular forms are sums of squares of cusp forms of weight $2m+4$ which do not exists for those values of $m$. The same argument can be applied for $m \in \{7,8,9\}$. Here $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ is a sum of squares of cusp forms of weight $2m+4$. Those cusp forms form a one-dimensional vector space with generator, say $G_{2m-8}\Delta$, where $G_{2m-8}$ is the Eisenstein series of weight $2m-8$. We deduce that $\Theta_{m,m,E_8}$ is a scalar multiple of $G_{2m-8}^2\Delta^2$. We can use the coefficient $a_{m,m,2}$ to deduce this scalar. After all, this yields: $$\begin{array}{rclcl}
\Theta_{7,7,E_8}(\tau) &
= & \displaystyle \frac{9}{1064960} G_6(\tau)^2\Delta(\tau)^2
&& \mbox{with } G_6(\tau) = \frac{-1}{504}+\sum_{n \geq 1}
\sigma_5(n)q^n\, ,\\\\
\Theta_{8,8,E_8}(\tau) & = & \displaystyle\frac{1}{96509952}
G_8(\tau)^2\Delta(\tau)^2\, , \\\\
\Theta_{9,9,E_8}(\tau) &
= & \displaystyle\frac{11}{3429236736000} G_{10}(\tau)^2\Delta(\tau)^2
&& \mbox{with } G_{10}(\tau) = \frac{-1}{264}+\sum_{n \geq 1}
\sigma_9(n)q^n \, .\\
\end{array}$$
The modular form $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$
=========================================
The invariant harmonic datum $p_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ {#aux-41}
------------------------------------------------
We consider the harmonic Taylor coefficient $f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1}$ of the function $f_\Lambda$. By Proposition \[harm-tay\] it is given by $$f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1} =
\sum_{i =1}^n {\left\langle x_i^2-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^nx_j^2, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}
\frac{x_i^2}{2} + \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq n}
{\left\langle x_ix_j, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}x_ix_j\, .$$ When introducing the shorthand $h_i={\left\langle nx_i^2-\sum_{j=1}^nx_j^2, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}$, and $b_{ij}={\left\langle x_ix_j, f_\Lambda \right\rangle}$ we obtain $$2n f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1} = \sum_{i =1}^n h_i x_i^2 + 2n\sum_{1 \leq i < j
\leq n} b_{ij}x_ix_j \, .$$ We consider the invariant harmonic datum: $$p_{1,1,1,\Lambda} =
\int_{S^{n-1}} \left(f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1}\right)^3 d\bar \mu \,.$$ We need the following spherical integrals $ \int_{S^{n-1}} x_i^6d\bar \mu = \frac{15}{n(n+2)(n+4)}$, $\int_{S^{n-1}} x_i^4x_j^2 d\bar \mu = \frac{3}{n(n+2)(n+4)}$, and $\int_{S^{n-1}} x_i^2x_j^2x_k^2 d\bar \mu = \frac{1}{n(n+2)(n+4)}$. Furthermore $\int_{S^{n-1}} \prod_i x_i^{n_i} d \bar \mu =0$ when at least one of the exponents $n_i$ is an odd integer (see [@CH Corollary A.2]). After these preparation we compute: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
n(n+2)(n+4)(2n)^3 p_{1,1,1,\Lambda} & = &n(n+2)(n+4) \int_{S^{n-1}} 2n
(f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1})^3 d \bar \mu \qquad \qquad \qquad \\\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
&=& n(n+2)(n+4) \int_{S^{n-1}} \left( \sum_{i =1}^n h_i x_i^2 +
2n\sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq n} b_{ij}x_ix_j \right)^3 d \bar \mu \\
&=&\displaystyle \sum_{i_1=1}^n\sum_{i_2=1}^n
\sum_{i_3=1}^n h_{i_1}h_{i_2}h_{i_3}
+ 6\sum_{i_1=1}^n\sum_{i_2=1}^n h_{i_1}^2h_{i_2} +8\sum_{i=1}^n h_i^3 +
12n^2\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{1 \leq j < k \leq n} h_ib_{jk}^2 +\\
&&\displaystyle + 24n^2\sum_{1 \leq j < k \leq n} (h_k+h_j)b_{jk}^2 +
48n^3 \sum_{1 \leq i<j < k \leq n} b_{ij}b_{ik}b_{jk} \\
\end{array}$$ Having in mind that $\sum_{i=1}^n h_i =0$ we obtain
\[p111\] With the notation from \[aux-41\] we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
n^4(n+2)(n+4) p_{1,1,1,\Lambda} &=& \displaystyle
n^4(n+2)(n+4) \int_{S^{n-1}}
\left(f^{{\rm harm}}_{\Lambda,1}\right)^3 d\bar \mu\\
&=& \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^n h_i^3 + 3n^2\sum_{1
\leq i < j \leq n} (h_i+h_j)b_{ij}^2 + 6n^3 \sum_{1 \leq i<j < k \leq n}
b_{ij}b_{ik}b_{jk} \, .
\end{array}$$
Definition of $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ {#def-t111}
--------------------------------------
Again we rescale our definition and find by Theorem \[thetam1mk\] for any integral lattice $\Lambda$ the modular form $$\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda} = \sum_{i=1}^n
\Theta_{h_i, \Lambda}^3 + 3n^2 \sum_{1
\leq i < j \leq n} (\Theta_{h_i, \Lambda} +
\Theta_{h_j, \Lambda})\Theta_{x_ix_j,\Lambda}^2 + 6n^3 \sum_{1 \leq i<j
< k \leq n} \Theta_{x_ix_j,\Lambda} \Theta_{x_ix_k,\Lambda}
\Theta_{x_jx_k,\Lambda}$$ where $h_i$ denotes the harmonic polynomial $h_i=nx^2_i-\sum_{j=1}^mx_j^2$. To determine the $q$-expansion of $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ we need
\[aux-43\] Let $u,v,w \in {{\mathbb E}}^n$ be three vectors in euclidean space. We fix with ${{\mathcal B}}_2 = \left\{ \frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \right\}_{I \subset {{\mathbb N}}^n \,
|I|=2}$ a basis of the homogeneous polynomials of degree 2 on ${{\mathbb E}}^n$. Denote by $P=P_{{{\rm harm}},2}$ be the harmonic projection of degree two. Then we have an equality $$\Xi(u,v,w):=n^3(n+2)(n+4) \sum_{g_1,g_2,g_3 \in {{\mathcal B}}_2}
P(g_1(u))P(g_2(v))P(g_3(w)) \int_{S^{n-1}} g_1g_2g_3 d\bar \mu = \qquad$$ $$=
2\|u\|^2\|v\|^2\|w\|^2
-n(\|u\|^2{\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}^2+\|v\|^2{\left\langle u, w \right\rangle}^2+\|w\|^2{\left\langle u, v \right\rangle}^2)
+n^2{\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}{\left\langle u, w \right\rangle}{\left\langle u, v \right\rangle} \, .$$ Furthermore, when $\|u\|^2$, $\|v\|^2$, and $\|w\|^2$ are integers, and the scalar products ${\left\langle v, w \right\rangle}$, ${\left\langle u, w \right\rangle}$, and ${\left\langle u, v \right\rangle}$ are in $\frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb Z}}$, then $8 \Xi(u,v,w)$ is an integer.
This is a straightforward calculation along the lines of computing $p_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ in \[aux-41\].
\[theta-111\] For any integral lattice $\Lambda$ of level $N$ and discriminant $D$, the modular form $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ defined in \[def-t111\] has level $N$, character $\left( \frac{D}{\cdot} \right)$, and weight $\frac{n+12}{2}$. $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ is independent from the embedding $\Lambda \to {{\mathbb E}}^n$. Its $q$-expansion is given by $$\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}(\tau) = n\sum_{k \geq 0} \left( \sum_{(u,v,w) \in
\Lambda^3 \, \|u\|^2+\|v\|^2+\|w\|^2=k} \Xi(u,v,w) \right) q^k \, .$$ Furthermore, $\frac{8}{n} \Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}(\tau) \in {{\mathbb Z}}[[q]]$.
If we define $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ by $$\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda} = n^4(n+2)(n+4) \sum_{h1,h2,h_3 \in {{\mathcal B}}^{{\rm harm}}_2 }
\Theta_{h_1,\Lambda} \Theta_{h_2,\Lambda}\Theta_{h_3,\Lambda}
\int_{S^{n-1}}h_1h_2h_3 d \bar \mu \, ,$$ then we obtain by Theorem \[thetam1mk\] an invariant modular form of the given weight, character, and level. Lemma \[p111\] show that this definition coincides with the definition in \[def-t111\]. By Proposition \[alt-def\] we can use the basis ${{\mathcal B}}_2 = \left\{
\frac{x^I}{\sqrt{I!}} \right\}_{I \subset {{\mathbb N}}^n \,
|I|=2}$ of the homogeneous polynomials of degree 2 and the harmonic projection $P$ to compute $\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}$ as $$\Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda} = n^4(n+2)(n+4) \sum_{h1,h2,h_3 \in
{{\mathcal B}}_2 }
\Theta_{P(g_1),\Lambda} \Theta_{P(g_2),\Lambda}\Theta_{P(g_3),\Lambda}
\int_{S^{n-1}}g_1g_2g_3 d \bar \mu \, .$$ Now we deduce the $q$-expansion and $\frac{8}{n} \Theta_{1,1,1,\Lambda}
\in {{\mathbb Z}}[[q]]$ from Lemma \[aux-43\].
Some combinatorics
==================
\[combi-0\] We define for all integers $d \geq 1$, and $w$ the quantity $$q_{d,w}=\sum_{k=0}^d (-1)^k \binom{d}{k} \binom{w+k}{d-1} \,.$$ For all integers $d \geq 1$, we have $q_{d,-1}=1$, and $q_{d,w}=0$ for $w \ne -1$.
We consider the formal Laurent series $f_d,g_{d-1,w} \in {{\mathbb Q}}((t))$, given by $$f_d:=\sum_{k=0}^d (-t{^{-1}})^k\binom{d}{k} = \left( \frac{t-1}{t}
\right)^d \quad \mbox{, and } \quad
g_{a,b} := \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb Z}}} \binom{b+k}{a} t^k \, .$$ We have $g_{0,b} = t^{-b}(1-t){^{-1}}$ by definition. From the formula $\binom{b+k}{a} = \binom{b-1+k}{a} + \binom{b-1+k}{a-1}$ we deduce that $g_{a,b} = t(g_{a,b}+g_{a-1,b})$. Hence $g_{a,b}=\frac{t}{1-t}g_{a-1,b}$ which gives by induction: $$g_{a,b} = t^{a-b}(1-t)^{-1-a} \, .$$ The number $q_{d,w} $ is the coefficient of $t^0$ in $f_d g_{d-1,w}$. Eventually, we conclude from the above calculation that $f_d g_{d-1,w} = t^{1+w}$.
\[pre-pm\] For all integers $w$, and $r \geq 0$ we have an equality $$\label{form-2}
\sum_{p=0}^r (-1)^{r-p}
(w+2p-2r)
\binom{w}{r-p} \binom{w+p-2r-1}{p}
= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} w & \mbox{ for } r=0\\
0 & \mbox{ for } r \geq 1\\ \end{array} \right.$$
First we denote the left hand side of equation (\[form-2\]) by $\xi_{r,w}$. We consider the formal power series $f \in{{\mathbb Z}}[[t]]$ given by: $$f = \sum_{p \geq 0} (w-2p)\binom{w}{p} (-t)^p= w \sum_{p \geq 0}
\binom{w}{p} (-t)^p +2 \sum_{p \geq 0} \binom{w}{p}(-p) (-t)^p \, .$$ Using the binomial equation $(1-t)^w=\sum_{p \geq 0} \binom{w}{p}
(-t)^p$, and its derivative with respect to $t$ we obtain $\sum_{p \geq 0} \binom{w}{p}(-p) (-t)^p
= (-t) \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t} (1-t)^w =wt(1-t)^{w-1}$. Therefore we have $$f = w(1-t)^w +2wt(1-t)^{w-1} = w(1+t)(1-t)^{w-1} \, .$$ Next we consider the formal power series $h \in {{\mathbb Z}}[[t]]$ which we define to be $$h= \sum_{p \geq 0} \binom{ (w-2r-1)+p}{p} t^p = g_{w-2r-1,w-2r-1} =
(1-t)^{2r-w} \,,$$ where $g_{w-2r-1,w-2r-1}$ is the function defined in the proof of Lemma \[combi-0\]. Now we are able to compute $\xi_{r,w}$. Indeed, the number $\xi_{r,w}$ is the coefficient of $t^r$ in $f \cdot h$. Since $f \cdot h = w(1+t)(1-t)^{2r-1}$, we deduce from the binomial formula that for $r \geq 1$ we have $$\xi_{r,w} = w \left( (-1)^r\binom{2r-1}{r}
+(-1)^{r-1}\binom{2r-1}{r-1} \right) = 0 \, .$$ Since for $r=0$ the assertion also holds, we are done.
\[combi-1\] The rational numbers $r_{k,m}=\frac{1}{2^k k! \prod_{l=0}^{k-1}
(n+2m-4-2l)}$ fulfill the equation $$\sum_{k=0}^{d} \left(
\prod_{l=k}^{d-1} \frac{1}{(2l-2d)(n-2+2m-2d-2l)} \right) r_{k,m} =0 \,
\mbox{ for all } d \geq 1 \,.$$
We obtain from Lemma \[combi-0\] that $q_{d,w+d-2} = 0$ for all integers $w \geq 2-d$. We may write $$q_{d,w+d-2} = d \sum_{k=0}^d \frac{(-1)^k}{(d-k)!k!}
\prod_{l=k}^{k+d-2}(w+l)\, .$$ Considered as a polynomial in $w$ of degree at most $d-1$, $q_{d,w+d-2}$ can have at most $d-1$ zeros. Hence it is identically zero for all $w \in {{\mathbb Q}}$. Setting $w=2-m-\frac{n}{2}$ we obtain therefore that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
0 &=& \frac{(-2)^{d-1}}{(-2)^d \prod_{l=0}^{2d-2} (n+2m-4-2l)}
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{d} \frac{(-1)^k}{(d-k)! k!}
\prod_{l=k}^{k+d-2} (w+l) \\
&=& \frac{1}{(-2)^d \prod_{l=0}^{2d-2} (n+2m-4-2l)}
\sum\limits_{k=0}^{d} \frac{(-1)^k}{(d-k)! k!}
\prod_{l=k}^{k+d-2} (n+2m-4-2l) \\
&=& \frac{1}{(-2)^d} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{d} \frac{(-1)^k}{(d-k)! k!}
\frac{1}{\prod_{l=k+d-1}^{2d-2} (n+2m-4-2l)}
\frac{1}{\prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (n+2m-4-2l)} \\
&=& \frac{1}{(-2)^d} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{d} \frac{(-1)^k}{(d-k)! k!}
\frac{1}{\prod_{l=k}^{d-1} (n-2+2m-2d-2l)}
\frac{1}{\prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (n+2m-4-2l)} \\
& =& \sum_{k=0}^{d} \left(
\prod_{l=k}^{d-1} \frac{1}{(2l-2d)(n-2+2m-2d-2l)} \right) \left(
\frac{1}{2^k k! \prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (n+2m-4-2l)} \right)
\end{array}$$ This is the stated assertion.
\[pm\] The polynomials $p_m \in {{\mathbb Q}}[c^2]$ which are implicitly defined by $$\sum_{k=0}^m \frac{p_{m-k}}{a_{k,m}} = \frac{c^{2m}}{(2m)!}
\quad \mbox{ with the integers } \quad a_{k,m}=2^k k!
\prod_{l=1}^{k} (n+4m-2k-2l)$$ from \[harm-num\] (6) are explicitly given by $$\label{form-1}
p_{m}(c) = \sum_{k=0}^m \frac{(-1)^k c^{2m-2k}}{(2m-2k)!k!2^k
\prod_{l=0}^{k-1} (n+4m-4-2l)} \, .$$
We take the formula (\[form-1\]) as the definition of $p_m$ and compute the sum $s_m:=\sum_{k=0}^m \frac{p_{m-k}}{a_{k,m}}$. By definition $s_m$ is a polynomial in ${{\mathbb Q}}[c^2]$ of degree at most $2m$. We write $s_m = \sum_{r=0}^m \frac{t_r}{4^r (2m-2r)!} c^{2m-2r}$. We find that $$t_r = \sum_{p=0}^r \frac{(-1)^p}{
p!(r-p)!
\left( \prod_{l=1}^{r-p} (w+p-r-l) \right)
\left( \prod_{q=0}^{p-1} (w+2p-2r-2-q) \right) } \, ,$$ with $w:=\frac{n}{2}+2m-1$. Up to the factor $(w+2p-2r)$ the two products in the denominator give $\prod_{l=0}^{r} (w+p-r-l)$. So we get $$t_r = \sum_{p=0}^r \frac{(-1)^p (w+2p-2r)}{
p!(r-p)!
\prod_{l=0}^{r} (w+p-r-l) }$$ Multiplying both side with the factor $\prod_{q=0}^{2r}(w-q) \ne 0$ we get $$\left( \prod_{q=0}^{2r}(w-q) \right) t_r =
\sum_{p=0}^r \frac{(-1)^p (w+2p-2r) \prod_{q=0}^{r-p-1} (w-q)
\prod_{q=0}^{p-1}(w+p-2r-1-q)
}{
p!(r-p)!}$$ As usual, we define for a non-negative integer $k$ for all complex numbers $z$ the binomial coefficient $\binom{z}{k} =\frac{ \prod_{a=0}^{k-1} (z-a)}{k!}$. Using this notation we obtain $$\left( \prod_{q=0}^{2r}(w-q) \right) t_r =\sum_{p=0}^r
(-1)^p \binom{w}{r-p} \binom{w+p-2r-1}{p} (w+2p-2r) \, .$$ Both side of this equation are polynomials of degree at most $2r$. By Lemma \[pre-pm\] the right hand side is zero for $r \geq 1$ and all integers $w$. So it is zero for all $w$. We conclude that $t_r =0$ for all $r \geq 1$. We finish the proof by checking $t_0=1$ which is obvious.
[7]{} J. Cerviño, and G. Hein, [*Lattice invariants from the heat kernel*]{}, preprint 2009, [math.NT/0906.1128]{}. N. Elkies, [*Lattices, Linear Codes, and Invariants, Part I*]{}, Notices of the AMS [**47 nr. 10**]{} (2000) 1238–1245. N. Elkies, [*Theta functions and weighted theta functions of Euclidean lattices, with some applications*]{}, draft from March 2009, 51 pages. S. Helgason, Topics in harmonic analysis, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1981. S. Lang, Algebra, revised third ed., Springer, New York, 2002. A. Schiemann, [*Ein Beispiel positiv definiter quadratischer Formen der Dimension 4 mit gleichen Darstellungszahlen*]{}, Arch. Math. [**54**]{} (1990) 372–375. D. Zagier, [*Introduction to modular forms*]{} in: M. Waldschmidt, P. Moussa, J. M. Luck and C. Itzykson (eds.) From number theory to physics (Les Houches, 1989), 238–291, Springer, Berlin, 1992.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The property that a 1-1 function from the set of natural numbers , $\mathcal{N}$, to itself preserves the density of subsets of $\mathcal{N}$ is shown to be equivalent to a condition on the covering of intervals in the range of the function by images of intervals in the domain of the function.'
address: |
ICL-1 L208\
City College of San Francisco\
50 Phelan Ave\
San Francisco, CA 94112
author:
- 'Paul J. Huizinga'
title: Density Preserving Functions
---
Density
=======
If $\mathcal{N}$ is the set of natural numbers and $\mathcal{F}$ is a finite subset of $\mathcal{N}$ , then $\| \mathcal{F} \|$ denotes the number of elements of $\mathcal{F}$. For $\mathcal{S}$, an arbitrary subset of $\mathcal{N}$, let $\mathcal{S}_n$ denote the set of elements of $\mathcal{S}$ less than or equal to $n$. If the limit $$d(\mathcal{S}) = {\ensuremath{\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}}}\frac{\| \mathcal{S}_n \|}{n}$$ exists, $\mathcal{S}$ is said to have the density $d(\mathcal{S})$. The concept of density and variations on it occur in several areas of mathematics, for example, probability theory [@feller ch. VIII sec. 4], algebraic number theory [@lang ch. VIII sec. 4], and the number theoretic study of subsets of the natural numbers [@halb ch.V].
An example of a set which does not have a density is
$$\mathcal{S} = \{n |\; 2^{2m} \leq n < 2^{2m+1}
,\; m = 0, 1, 2, \ldots \}.$$ There are $4^m$ elements of $\mathcal{S}$ associated with the value, m. If $ n \; = \; 2^{2m + 1} -1$ and $ n' \; = \; 2^{2m + 2} - 1 $, then $\| \mathcal{S}_n \| \; = \; \| \mathcal{S}_{n'} \| $ is $$\sum_{i=0}^m 4^i \; = \;
\frac{4^{m+1} - 1}{3}.$$ So that $ \| \mathcal{S}_n \| / n$ is $$\frac{ \frac{ 4^{m+1} -1 }{ 3 } }{ 2^{2m + 1} - 1 }
\; = \; \frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{ 2^{2m +2} -1 }{ 2^{2m+1} -1} \right)
\; = \; \frac{2}{3} \left( \frac{ 2^{2m+1} -\frac{1}{2} }{ 2^{2m+1} -1}
\right)$$ and $ \| \mathcal{S}_{n'} \| / n'$ is $$\frac{ \frac{ 4^{m+1} -1 }{3} }{ 2^{2m+2} -1 }
\; = \; \frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{ 2^{2m+2} - 1 }{ 2^{2m+2} - 1} \right).$$ Therefore $\| \mathcal{S}_n \| / n$ has a $\limsup$ of 2/3 and a $\liminf$ of 1/3.
An interval in the set of natural numbers is a sub-set of $\mathcal{N}$ of the form: $$I = [a, b] = \{ n | \; a \leq n \leq b \}.$$ For such an interval I, $\mu (I)$ is defined to be b/a. The interval, $I=[a,b]$, is said to be an m-interval ( $ m > 1,\; M \in \Re $ – the set of real numbers), if $\frac{b}{a} \leq m < \frac{b+1}{a}$ or equivalently $ma - 1 < b \leq ma.$ $I$ is said to be a $\;$ +m-interval (plus-m-interval) , if $ \mu(I) > m$.
If $I = [a,b]$, call $$\frac{ \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| }{ \| I \| }
\; = \; \frac{ \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| }{b-a+1}$$ the density of $\mathcal{S}$ in $I$. The intervals, $ [ 2^{2m}, 2^{2m +1} - 1 ] $ contained in the set with no density, $\mathcal{S}$, in the example above and the intervals, $ [ 2^{2m+1}, 2^{2m+2} - 1 ]$ contained in its complement have a $\mu > 1.5$ for $m \geq 1$. Therefore, if $ I_x $ is the 1.5-interval which has x as left endpoint, the density of $\mathcal{S}$ in $I_x$ does not converge (in fact oscillates between 1 and 0) as $x$ goes to infinity. That this is a characteristic of sets which fail to have a density is shown by the following:
For any set, $ \mathcal{S}, \; d(\mathcal{S})$ exists and is equal to $D$ iff for any $\epsilon > 0$ ($\epsilon \in \Re$) and $m > 1 \; ( \; m \in \Re )$ there is an $N \geq 1
\; ( N \in \mathcal{N} )$ such that for any +m-interval $I = [a,b]$ with $a > N$ $$\left| \frac{\| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|}{ \| I \| } - D \right|
< \epsilon .$$
First, suppose $d(\mathcal{S}) = D$. Given $\epsilon$ and $m$, let $0 < \epsilon ' < \frac{m-1}{m+1}\epsilon$. Since $d(\mathcal{S}) = D$ there is an $N$ such that, if $n>N$ $$\left| \frac{\| \mathcal{S}_n \| }{n} - D \right| < \epsilon ' .$$ If $I = [a,b]$ with $a>N+1$ and $\mu(I) > m$, then $$Db - \epsilon'b < \|\mathcal{S}_b \| < Db + \epsilon'b$$ $$-D(a-1) - \epsilon'(a-1) < - \|\mathcal{S}_{a-1}\|
< -D(a-1) + \epsilon'(a-1) .$$ Since $ \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| = \| \mathcal{S}_b \| -
\| \mathcal{S}_{a-1} \|$, we have $$D(b-(a-1) - (b+(a-1))\epsilon' < \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| <
D(b-(a-1)) + (b+(a-1))\epsilon' .$$ When $c>0$, $\frac{x-c}{x+c}$ is an increasing function of $x$ for $x \neq -c$. So that $b > ma$ implies $$\frac{b-(a-1)}{b+(a-1)} \; > \; \frac{ma - a + 1}{ma + a - 1}
\; > \; \frac{ma-a}{ma+a} \; = \; \frac{m-1}{m+1}$$ and $$(b-(a-1))\epsilon \; = \; (b+(a-1)) \frac{b-(a-1)}{b+(a-1)} \epsilon$$ $$\; > \; (b+(a-1)) \frac{m-1}{m+1} \epsilon \; > \; (b+(a-1)) \epsilon'$$ (note the prime on the final $\epsilon$) giving $$D(b-(a-1)) - \epsilon (b-(a-1)) \; < \; D(b-(a-1))
- \epsilon' (b+(a-1))$$ $$\; < \: \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|$$ $$\; < \; D(b-(a-1)) + \epsilon'(b+(a-1))
\; < \; D(b-(a-1)) + \epsilon (b-(a-1))$$ or $$\left| \frac{ \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|}{ \| I \| }
- D \right| \; = \;
\left| \frac{ \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|}{b-(a-1)} - D \right|
\; < \; \epsilon.$$
Now suppose the second condition is met, that is the density of $\mathcal{S}$ in +m-intervals approaches $D$ asymptotically for for any $m>1$. Given $\epsilon$, choose $\epsilon' < \epsilon / 3$ and $m > 3 / \epsilon$. If $N$ is the value given by the second condition and $I = [a,b]$ is an interval with $a>N$ and $\mu(I) > m = 3 / \epsilon$, then $$D(b-(a-1)) - \epsilon' (b-(a-1)) \; < \; \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|
\; < \; D(b-(a-1)) + \epsilon' (b-(a-1))$$ also $$\| \mathcal{S} \cap I\| \; < \; \|\mathcal{S}_b \|
\; < \; \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| + a.$$ Now $$\| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| \: > \; D(b-(a-1)) - \epsilon' (b-(a-1))
\; = \; Db - \epsilon'b - D(a-1) + \epsilon'(a-1)$$ $$> \; Db - \epsilon'b - D(a-1)$$ $$> \; Db - \frac{\epsilon}{3}b - \frac{\epsilon}{3}b$$ because $\epsilon' < \epsilon / 3$, $a < (\epsilon / 3)b$, and $D \leq 1$. So that $$\| \mathcal{S}_b \| \; > \; \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \|
\; > \; Db - \epsilon b.$$
On the other hand $$\| \mathcal{S}_b \| \; < \; \| \mathcal{S} \cap I \| + a
\; < \; Db + \epsilon' b + a - D(a-1) - \epsilon' (a-1)$$ $$< \; Db + \epsilon' b +a \; < \; Db + \frac{\epsilon}{3} b
+ \frac{\epsilon}{3} b.$$ So that $$\| \mathcal{S}_b \| \; < \; Db + \epsilon b.$$ Therefore, for any $b > (3 / \epsilon) N$, $$\left| \frac{ \| \mathcal{S}_b \| }{b} -D \right| \; < \; \epsilon$$ and $d(\mathcal{S}) = D$.
Density Preserving Functions
============================
A function, $f: \mathcal{N} \rightarrow \mathcal{N},$ is said to preserve density if it is one to one and whenever $d( \mathcal{S} ) = D$, we have $ d(f( \mathcal{S})) = D$. The next theorem describes density preserving functions in terms of the existence for any $p>1$ of a value, $m>1$, such that (asymptotically) any collection of m-intervals whose images cover a +p-interval will have a sub-collection, $\mathcal{C}$, with a specified goodness-of fit. The goodness-of fit is given by two values, $q$ and $r$. The value, $q$ (the inclusion factor), in the theorem, is the fraction of the covering set which is in the covered interval and may be thought of as close to 1. The value, $r$ (the omission factor), is the fraction of the covered interval not in the union of the images of the sub-collection, $\mathcal{C}$, and may be thought of as close to 0.
Let $f:\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\mathcal{N}$ be 1-1, then $f$ preserves density iff $$\forall p \in \Re, \; p>1$$ $$\forall q \in \Re, \; 0<q<1$$ $$\forall r \in \Re, \; 0<r<1$$ $$\exists m \in \Re, \; m>1$$ $$\exists N \in \mathcal{N}, \; N \geq 1$$ such that if $I = [a,b]$ is a +p-interval with $a>N$, $\{J_i | \, i=1 \ldots k \}$ is any disjoint collection of m-intervals with $$I \subset \cup_{i=1}^k f( J_i ),$$ and $ \mathcal{C} \; = \;
\{ J_i | \; \| I \cap f (J_i) \| \:\geq \; q \| J_i \| \}; $ then for $ T \; = \; \cup \{ J_i | \; J_i \notin \mathcal{C} \} $ we have $$\| f(T) \cap I \| \; < \; r \| I \|.$$
First suppose the covering condition holds and $d(\mathcal{S})=D.$ If a $p>1$ and an $\epsilon > 0$ are given, we may assume without loss of generality that $\epsilon < 3D$ to simplify the choice of $r$ below. It will be shown that there is an $N''$ such that if $I = [a,b]$, $\mu(I) > p$, and $a>N''$; then $$\left| \frac{ \| f(\mathcal{S} ) \cap I \| }{ \| I \| }
\; -\; D \right| \; < \: \epsilon .$$
To do this, choose $$0 \; < \; r \; < \; min \left( \frac{\epsilon}{3},
\frac{ \frac{\epsilon}{6}}{ D - \frac{\epsilon}{3}} \right)$$ $$max \left( \frac{1}{1 + \frac{\epsilon}{3}},
\frac{D + \frac{\epsilon}{3}}{ D + \frac{\epsilon}{2}} \right)
\; < \; q \; < \; 1 .$$
Let $m$ and $N$ be the values given by the hypothesis for $p$ , $q$, and $r$. Since $d(\mathcal{S}) = D$, by theorem 1, there is an $N'$ such that for $J = [c,d]$, $c>N'$, $J$ an m-interval, then $$\left| \frac{ \| J \cap \mathcal{S} \| }{ \| J \| } - D \right|
\; < \: \frac{\epsilon}{3}.$$ Choose $N'' \; > \: max \{ f(i) | \; i \leq m N' \}$ and also $N'' \; > \; N$.
Let $I=[a,b]$ be a +p-interval with $a > N''$ and $\{ J_1 \ldots J_k \}$ be a disjoint collection of m-intervals such that $ I \; \subset \: \cup_{i=1}^k f( J_i ). $
If $J_i = [c_i,d_i]$ with $c_i \leq N'$, then $d_i \, \leq \, mc_i \, \leq \, mN'$. So that $f( J_i ) \cap I = \emptyset$ and $J_i$ is not in $\mathcal{C} \; = \;
\{ J_i | \; \| I \cap f (J_i) \| \:\geq \; q \| J_i \| \}$. If $J_i = [c_i, d_i]$ is in $\mathcal{C}$, then $c_i > N'$ and $$( D - \frac{ \epsilon }{3} ) \| J_i \|
\; < \; \| \mathcal{S} \cap J_i \|
\; < \; ( D + \frac{ \epsilon }{3} ) \| J_i \| .$$ Let $$K \, = \, \cup \{ f(J_i) | \; J_i \in\mathcal{C} \}.$$ Set $I_1 = I \cap K, \; I_2 = I - I_1$. By hypothesis, $\| I_2 \| < r \| I \| < \frac{\epsilon}{3} \| I \|$. By the definition of $K$, $ q \| K \| \leq \| I_1 \|$, $ \| K \| \leq \frac{1}{q} \| I_1 \|$. So that $$\|K - I_1 \| \; = \; \| K \| - \| I_1 \| \; \leq \; \frac{1-q}{q}
\| I_1 \|.$$ Since $$q \; > \; \frac{1}{1+ \frac{ \epsilon }{3} },$$ we have $$\frac{1-q}{q} \: < \: \frac{ \epsilon }{3}$$ and since $ \| I_1 \| \leq \| I \| $, $$\| K - I_1 \| \; < \; \frac{ \epsilon }{3} \| I_1 \|
\; \leq \; \frac{ \epsilon }{3} \| I \|.$$
The function, $f$, is 1-1, so for $\mathcal{S}$ the set of density $D$ $$\| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap K \| \; > \;
\left( D - \frac{ \epsilon }{3} \right) \| K \| \; > \:
\left( D - \frac{ \epsilon}{3} \right) \| I_1 \| \; > \;
\left( D - \frac{ \epsilon}{3} \right) (1-r) \| I \| .$$ By the choice of $r$ $$r \; < \; \frac{ \frac{ \epsilon }{6} }{ D - \frac{ \epsilon }{3} }$$ and $$1-r \; > \; \frac{ D - \frac{ \epsilon }{2} }{
D - \frac{ \epsilon }{3} }.$$ So that $$\| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap K \| \; > \left( D - \frac{ \epsilon }{2}
\right) \| I \|$$ and $$\| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I \| \; \geq \: \| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I_1
\|
\; \geq \; \| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap K \| \, - \, \| K - I_1 \|$$ $$> \; \left( D - \frac{ \epsilon }{2} \right) \| I \| \, - \,
\frac{ \epsilon }{3} \| I \|$$ $$\; > \; ( D - \epsilon ) \| I \| .$$
On the other hand, we have $$q \; > \; \frac{ D + \frac{ \epsilon }{3} }{
D + \frac{ \epsilon }{2} }$$ or $$\frac{1}{q} \; < \; \frac{ D + \frac{ \epsilon }{2} }{
D + \frac{ \epsilon }{3} } .$$ So that $$\| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I \|
\; \leq \; \| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap K \| + \| I_2 \|
\; < \; \left( D + \frac{ \epsilon }{3} \right) \| K \| + \| I_2 \|$$ $$< \; \left( D + \frac{ \epsilon }{3} \right) \frac{1}{q} \| I \|
+ \frac{ \epsilon}{3} \| I \|
\; < \; \left( D + \frac{ \epsilon }{2} \right) \| I \|
+ \frac{ \epsilon}{3} \| I \|$$ $$< \; ( D + \epsilon ) \| I \|.$$
Combining the two inequalities $$(D - \epsilon )\| I \| \; < \; \| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I \|
\; < \; (D + \epsilon ) \| I \|$$ or $$\left| \frac{ \| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I \| }{\| I \|} - D \right|
\; < \; \epsilon.$$ Since this holds for any value of $p>1$, by theorem 1 we have that $d( f( \mathcal{S} ) ) = D.$
In the other direction, suppose that the covering condition fails to hold. Then there exist $p$, $q$, and $r$; such that for all $m$ and all $N$ there is a +p-interval $I = [a,b]$ with $a > N$ and a collection of disjoint m-intervals $$\{ J_i | i = 1 \ldots k \}$$ such that $I$ is contained in the union of the images of the $J_i$ and for $$T \; = \; \cup \{ J_i | \; \| I \cap f (J_i) \| \:< \; q \| J_i \| \}
,$$ we have $$\| f(T) \cap I \| \; \geq \; r \| I \| .$$ Since this is also true for $ r' < r$, we may assume that $ r <
\frac{1}{2}.$
The idea is to construct a set whose density is not preserved. Let $\lfloor x \rfloor =$ the greatest integer $\leq x.$ Suppose a set, $\mathcal{S}$, of density, D, is being constructed. If, at some stage in the construction, $ \lfloor Dn \rfloor $ values less than or equal to $n$ have been included in $\mathcal{S}$ and all other values less than or equal to $n$ have been excluded. Then $$D - \frac{1}{n} \; < \; \frac{\| S_n \| }{ n } \; \leq \: D.$$ If there are no constraints on the choice of elements of $\mathcal{S}$, $i$ can be chosen to be in $\mathcal{S}$ whenever $ \lfloor D(i-1) \rfloor \, < \,
\lfloor Di \rfloor $ and the above inequality will be true for every $n$.
To construct a sequence whose density is not preserved, some constraints must be placed on the choice of elements of $\mathcal{S}$. At the k-th stage of the construction, these constraints will consist of choosing certain elements of $( 1 + \frac{1}{k} )$-intervals. If $J = [c,d]$ is such a $( 1 + \frac{1}{k} )$-interval, it will be the case that $c$ is greater than $4k$ and $ \lfloor D(c-1) \rfloor $ values less than $c$ will have been assigned to $S$. When the construction reaches $d$, $ \lfloor Dd \rfloor $ elements of $\mathcal{S}$ will have been chosen. Therefore, no more than $\lfloor D \| J \| \rfloor + 1$ elements of $J$ will have been added to $\mathcal{S}$. The density of $\mathcal{S}$ in $J$ will be less than or equal to $ D \; + \; \frac{1}{ \| J \| }. $
Since, $J$ is a $(1 + \frac{1}{k})$-interval, $$(1 + \frac{1}{k} )c - 1 \; < \; d \; \leq \; ( 1 + \frac{1}{k} )c.$$ So that, $$\frac{c}{k} \; < \; d - (c-1) \, = \, \| J \|
\; \leq \; \frac{c}{k} + 1.$$ Therefore, even if all of the elements of $J$ are added to $\mathcal{S}$ we will have $$\frac{ \| \mathcal{S}_d \| }{ d} \; \leq \;
\frac{ \| \mathcal{S}_{c-1} \| \, + \, \| J \| }{ d }
\; < \;
\frac{ D(c-1) + \frac{c}{k} + 1 }{ c + \frac{c}{k} - 1 }$$ $$= \; \frac{ D( c + \frac{c}{k} - 1 )
\, + \, (1-D) \frac{c}{k} + 1}{ c + \frac{c}{k} - 1 }$$ $$= \; D \, + \, \frac{ (1-D) \frac{c}{k} + 1}
{ c + \frac{c}{k} - 1 }$$ $$= \; D \, + \, \frac{ (1-D) + \frac{k}{c} }
{ k + 1 - \frac{k}{c} }$$ $$< \; D \, + \, \frac{2}{k}.$$ The last inequality holds because $ 0 \leq D \leq 1$ and $ c >4k.$ A similar argument holds if no elements of $J$ are added to $\mathcal{S}$. Therefore, for any $n$, $c \leq n \leq d$ it will be true that: $$\left| \frac{ \| \mathcal{S}_n\| }{ n } \, - \, D \right| \; < \;
\frac{2}{k}$$ and $d(\mathcal{S})$ will exist and be equal to $D$.
Given a function, $f$, for which the covering condition fails to hold with values $p$, $q$, and $r$; a set, $\mathcal{S}$, of density $D = \frac{1-q}{2}$ will be constructed. At the end of stage $k$ all values less than or equal to $L_k$ will have been included in or excluded from the set $\mathcal{S}$ and the membership of values above $L_k$ will be undetermined. Set $L_0 = 0$.
At stage $k$, set $$M_k = \max \left( ( 1 + \frac{1}{k} ) L_{k-1}, \;
\frac{4k (1-r)}{r(1-q)} \right)$$ and $N_k = \max\{ f(x) | \; x \leq M_k \} + 1$ Then for $(1+\frac{1}{k})$-intervals, $[c,d]$ with $c > M_k$ (since $r$ is – by assumption – less than $ \frac{1}{2}$) $$d-(c-1) \; > \; \frac{1}{k}c
\; > \; \frac{1}{k} M_k
\; > \; \frac{ 4 (1-r) }{ r (1-q) }
\; > \; \frac{4}{1-q}$$ and $ (1-q)(d-(c-1)) \; > \; 4 $. This means that $$2 \; < \; \frac{1-q}{2} (d-(c-1))$$ $$\frac{1-q}{2} (d-(c-1)) + 2 \; < \;
(1-q)(d-(c-1))$$ so that there will be no problem with choosing $ \lfloor \frac{1-q}{2}(d-(c-1)) \rfloor + 1$ elements out of a subset of $[c,d]$ containing at least $(1-q)(d-(c-1))$ elements. Also, $$c \; > \; \frac{4k}{1-q} \; > \; 4k$$ as mentioned above.
The fact that the covering condition does not hold implies that for $N = N_k$ and $m = (1 + \frac{1}{k})$ there is a +p-interval, $I = [a,b]$ with $a>N_k$ and a collection, $\{ J_i\}$ of disjoint $(1 + \frac{1}{k})$-intervals whose images cover $I$ such that the $f(J)$’s with inclusion factor less than $q$ contain more than $r \| I \|$ elements of $I$. Since $N_k > \max \{ f(x) | x \leq M_k \}$ and $M_k \geq ( 1 + \frac{1}{k} ) L_{k-1}$, no value in a $( 1 + \frac{1}{k} )$-interval whose image intersects I has been included in or excluded from $\mathcal{S}$ at the end of stage $ k - 1$.
Starting at $L_{k-1} + 1$ the k-th stage of the construction proceeds in ascending order. If all values less than $x$ have been assigned to $\mathcal{S}$ or $ \neg \mathcal{S}$ and $x$ is not in a $J$ whose image intersects $I$, then $x$ is assigned to $\mathcal{S}$ if and only if $ \lfloor D(x-1) \rfloor \, < \, \lfloor Dx \rfloor $. When an interval, $J = [c,d]$, in the given collection whose image intersects $I$ is reached, calculate how many elements of $J$ must be added to $\mathcal{S}$ in order for $ \| \mathcal{S}_{d} \| \, = \, \lfloor Dd \rfloor $. At most $ \lfloor D(d-(c-1)) \rfloor + 1 $ will be needed. Choose as many as possible of them from the elements of $J$ whose images are not in $I$. In the case of the intervals not in $\mathcal{C}$, all of the elements can be chosen so that their image is not in $I$. In the other intervals, since an element whose image is in $I$ is included in $\mathcal{S}$ only if all elements whose images are not in $I$ have been included, the proportion of elements in $J \cap f^{-1}(I)$ that are assigned to $\mathcal{S}$ is less than or equal to $D \; + \; \frac{1}{ \| J \| }$. When the construction has assigned all the elements of the $J$-s, set $L_k$ equal to the last value considered.
This choice of elements of $\mathcal{S}$ yields $$\| f(\mathcal{S}) \cap I \| \; \leq \; \left[
\sum_{J \in \mathcal{C} } \left( D + \frac{1}{ \| J \| } \right)
\| f(J) \cap I \| \right]
\; + \; \left[ 0 \cdot \sum_{J' \notin \mathcal{C} } \| f(J') \| \right]$$
Those $J = [c,d]$ whose images intersect $I$ have $$c \; > \; \frac{ 4k (1-r) }{ r (1-q) }$$ Which means $$\| J \| \; > \; \frac{c}{k} \; > \; \frac{ 4 (1-r) }{ r (1-q)}$$ or $$\frac{1}{ \| J \| } \; < \; \frac{ r (1-q) }{ 4 (1-r) }
\; = \; \left( \frac{1}{ 1-r } \right) \frac{r}{2}
\left( \frac{ 1-q }{ 2 } \right)
\; = \; \frac{ \frac{r}{2} D }{ 1-r }$$ and $$D \; + \frac{1}{ \| J \| }
\; < \: \frac{ ( 1 - \frac{r}{2} ) D }{ 1-r } .$$
So that $$\| f( \mathcal{S} ) \cap I \|
\; < \;\left( \frac{ ( 1 - \frac{r}{2} ) D }{ 1-r } \right)
\cdot \sum_{J \in \mathcal{C} } \| f(J) \cap I \|
\; \leq \; \left( \frac{ ( 1 - \frac{r}{2} ) D }{ 1-r } \right)
\cdot (1-r) \| I \|$$ and $$\frac{ \| f(\mathcal{S}) \cap I \| }{ \| I \| }
\; < \;D - D \frac{r}{2} .$$
When the construction is completed, for any $N$, we have a +p-interval whose elements are greater than $N$ and whose local density is at least $D\frac{r}{2}$ less than than $D$. Therefore the density of $f(\mathcal{S})$ is not $D$ and $f$ does not preserve density.
An Example: The $2^n$ Shuffle
==============================
The $2^n$ shuffle, $sh()$, is defined as follows: $$sh(k) = \begin{cases} k &: \quad k < 4 \\
2^i + 2j &: \quad k = 2^i +j, \quad i > 2, \quad 0 \leq j < 2^{i-1} \\
2^i + 2j +1 &: \quad k = 2^i + 2^{i-1} + j, \quad i > 2, \quad
0 \leq j < 2^{i-1}.\\
\end{cases}$$ Informally, $sh()$ shuffles the numbers in $[ 2^i, \; 2^{i+1} -1 ]$ for $i \geq 2$ and its inverse, $sh^{-1}()$, deals the even numbers in that interval to the lower half of the interval and the odd numbers to the upper half.
Since $sh()$ is 1-1 and onto, when applying theorem 2, we can work in the domain of $sh()$ as easily as in the range. That is to say, we can consider coverings of the inverse image of a +p-interval in the range by m-intervals in the domain.
If a +p-interval, $I$, contains all of $[ 2^i, 2^{i+1} - 1 ]$, its inverse image, $sh^{-1}(I)$, will also contain that interval. If $I$ contains more than one but less than $ 2^i -1 $ of the members of $[ 2^i, 2^{i+1} - 1 ]$, the inverse image of the intersection of $I$ with that interval will consist of two intervals – the even numbers going to the lower interval and the odd to the upper. Therefore the inverse image of an interval under $sh()$ will consist of at most 3 intervals, the even numbers being dealt to a lower interval at one end and the odd to a higher at the other.
Next, consider the covering of a +p-interval, $I = [a, b]$, by a disjoint collection, $\{ J_i \}$, of m-intervals. Assume that $ m \leq \sqrt[3]{p}$, so that at least one of the $J_i$ is completely contained in $I$. The only $J_i$-s not entirely in $I$ or entirely in the complement of $I$ are the ones containing $a$ and $b$. An m-interval containing a has at most $(m - 1)a + 1$ elements and if it intersects the complement of $I$, at most $(m - 1)a$ of them will be in $I$. A similar argument shows that there will be at most $(m - 1)b$ elements in the intersection of $I$ and an m-interval containing $b$, but not entirely contained in $I$. Let $\mathcal{C}'$ be the collection of $J_i$-s entirely contained in $I$. $\mathcal{C}'$ is a sub-collection of $ \{ J_i | \; \| J_i \cap sh^{-1}(i) \| > q \| J_i \| \}$ for any $q < 1$, therefore if the omission factor for $\mathcal{C}'$ is $< r$, this will also be true for any inclusion factor, $q < 1$. There are at most $$(m - 1) ( b + a )$$ elements in $I - \cup \mathcal{C}'$. Since $I$ has $b-a+1$ elements, the fraction of elements of $I$ not in $ \cup \mathcal{C}'$ is less than $$\frac{ (m-1) (b+a) }{ b-a }.$$ As in the proof of theorem 1, $$\frac{b-a}{b+a} \; > \; \frac{pa - a }{ pa + a }
\; = \; \frac{p-1}{p+1}.$$ So that if m is close enough to 1, $$0 \; < \; m-1 \; < \; \frac{p-1}{p+1} r
\;\; \left( \; < \; \frac{b-a}{b+a} r \right),$$ then $$(m-1) \left( \frac{b+a}{b-a} \right) \; < \; r$$ and the omission factor of the sub-collection $ \mathcal{C}' $ is less than r.
Now let $I = [a, b]$ be a +p-interval whose inverse image, $sh^{-1}(I)$, is to be covered with an omission factor of $r$. Since theorem 2 involves only the asymptotic properties of intervals, we may require that $a$ be greater than a given value to be determined later. We have $$\frac{b}{a} \; > \; p, \quad \frac{b}{p} \; > \; a,
\quad -a \; > \; \frac{-b}{p}.$$ So that $$b-a+1 \; > \; b-a \; > b - \frac{b}{p} \; = \; \frac{p-1}{p}b.$$ That is $I$ has more than $\frac{p-1}{p}b$ elements and a sub-collection, $ \mathcal{C}' $, of a covering of disjoint intervals will have an omission factor less than $r$ if $$\| sh^{-1}(I) - \cup \mathcal{C}' \| \; < \;
\frac{p-1}{p} br.$$
$sh^{-1}(I)$ consists of at most 3 intervals. The strategy will be to discard intervals of sufficiently small $\mu$ and use covering intervals whose $\mu$ is small enough that the sub-collection of intervals contained in the inverse image will have an omission factor of less than $\frac{r}{3}$.
Exercising the option mentioned earlier, require $I = [a, b]$ to have $$a \; > \; \frac{6}{(p-1)r}.$$ Then, since $ a < \frac{b}{p}$, $$\frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} br \right)
\; > \; \frac{1}{6} (p-1)ar \; > \; 1$$ and $$\frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} br \right)
\; > \; \frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} br \right) + 1.$$
An interval with $k+1$ elements, $[x, x+k]$ has a $\mu$ of $$\frac{x + k}{x} \; = \; 1 \; + \; \frac{k}{x}$$ which is a decreasing function of $x$. Therefore, the smallest $\mu$ for a component interval of $sh^{-1}(I)$ with $k+1$ elements will occur when this many odd elements are dealt upward from the right hand side of $I$.
Let $$p' \; = \; 1 + \frac{1}{9} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right)r.$$ If $ 2^i + 1 < b < 2^{i+1} -2 $ and $ a < 2^i$, then the right-most component of the inverse image of $ I = [a,b]$ will have the form (since $ 2^i + 2^{i-1} = \frac{3}{2} 2^i $ ) $$\left[ \frac{3}{2} 2^i, \; \frac{3}{2} 2^i + k \right].$$ If $\mu$ of this interval is less than or equal to $p'$, we have $$1 + \frac{k}{ \frac{3}{2} 2^i }
\; \leq \; 1 + \frac{1}{9} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right)r$$ $$k \; \leq \; \frac{1}{9} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right)r ( \frac{3}{2} 2^i )
\; < \; \frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right) rb$$ and $$k + 1 \; < \; \frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right) rb + 1
\; < \; \frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right) br.$$ Therefore any component interval of $sh^{-1}(I)$ with $ \mu \leq p'$ will have less than $$\frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{p-1}{p} \right) br$$ elements.
As shown earlier, a $+p'$-interval can be covered with an omission factor of $ \frac{r}{3} $ by m-intervals where $$m \; < \; \sqrt[3]{p'}$$ and $$0 \; < \; m-1 \; < \; \left( \frac{p'-1}{p'+1} \right) \frac{r}{3}
\; = \; \frac{1}{3} \left( \frac{(p-1)r^2}{ 18p + (p-1)r } \right).$$
Up to two intervals in $sh^{-1}(I)$ of $\mu \leq p'$ can be ignored and $+p'$-intervals in $sh^{-1}(I)$ can be covered with an omission factor of $\frac{r}{3}$ by m-intervals yielding an omission factor for all of $sh^{-1}(I)$ of less than $r$. By theorem 2, $sh()$ preserves density. However, $sh^{-1}()$ takes the even numbers, which have density $\frac{1}{2}$, to the union of {2} and all intervals of the form $$[ 2^i, \frac{3}{2} 2^i -1 ] \quad i\geq 2$$ which is a set that does not have a density. Therefore, $sh^{-1}$ does not preserve density.
[9]{} W. Feller. *Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volume 1*. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1968 S. Lang. *Algebraic Number Theory*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994 H. Halberstam and K. F. Roth. *Sequences*. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1966
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We address an optimal transmit power allocation problem that minimizes the outage probability of a secondary user (SU) who is allowed to coexist with a primary user (PU) in a narrowband spectrum sharing cognitive radio network, under a long term average transmit power constraint at the secondary transmitter (SU-TX) and an average interference power constraint at the primary receiver (PU-RX), with quantized channel state information (CSI) (including both the channels from SU-TX to SU-RX, denoted as $g_1$ and the channel from SU-TX to PU-RX, denoted as $g_0$) at the SU-TX. The optimal quantization regions in the vector channel space is shown to have a ’stepwise’ structure. With this structure, the above outage minimization problem can be explicitly formulated and solved by employing the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) necessary optimality conditions to obtain a locally optimal quantized power codebook. A low-complexity near-optimal quantized power allocation algorithm is derived for the case of large number of feedback bits. More interestingly, we show that as the number of partition regions approaches infinity, the length of interval between any two adjacent quantization thresholds on the $g_0$ axis is asymptotically equal when the average interference power constraint is active. Similarly, we show that when the average interference power constraint is inactive, the ratio between any two adjacent quantization thresholds on the $g_1$ axis becomes asymptotically identical. Using these results, an explicit expression for the asymptotic SU outage probability at high rate quantization (as the number of feedback bits goes to infinity) is also provided, and is shown to approximate the optimal outage behavior extremely well for large number of bits of feedback via numerical simulations. Numerical results also illustrate that with 6 bits of feedback, the derived algorithms provide SU outage performance very close to that with full CSI at the SU-TX.'
author:
- |
YuanYuan He and Subhrakanti Dey,\
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering\
University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia\
e-mail: {yyhe, sdey}@ee.unimelb.edu.au
title: Power Allocation for Outage Minimization in Cognitive Radio Networks with Limited Feedback
---
Introduction
============
Scarcity of available vacant spectrum is limiting the growth of wireless products and services [@Peha2009]. Traditional spectrum licensing policy forbids unlicensed users to transmit in order to avoid unfavorable interference at the cost of spectral utilization efficiency. This led to the idea of cognitive radio (CR) technology, originally introduced by J. Mitola [@Mitola99], which holds tremendous promise to dramatically improve the efficiency of spectral utilization.\
The key idea behind CR is that an unlicensed/secondary user (SU) is allowed to communicate over a frequency band originally licensed to a primary user (PU), as long as the transmission of SU does not generate unfavorable impact on the operation of PU in that band. Effectively, three categories of CR network paradigms have been proposed: interweave, overlay, and underlay [@Goldsmith09]. In the underlay systems, also known as spectrum sharing model, which is the focus of this paper, the SU can transmit even when the PU is present, but the transmitted power of SU should be controlled properly so as to ensure that the resulting interference does not degrade the received signal quality of PU to an undesirable level [@Kang09] by imposing the so called interference temperature [@Ghasemi07] constraints at PU (average or peak interference power (AIP/PIP) constraint) and as well as to enhance the performance of SU transmitter (SU-TX) to SU receiver (SU-RX) link.\
Various notions of capacity for wireless channels include ergodic capacity (for delay-insensitive services), delay-limited capacity and outage probability (for real-time applications). These information theoretic capacity notions constitute important performance measures in analyzing the performance limits of CR systems. In [@Ghasemi07], the authors investigated the ergodic capacity of such a dynamic narrowband spectrum sharing model under either AIP or PIP constraint at PU receiver (PU-RX) in various fading environments. The authors of [@Suraweera08] extended the work in [@Ghasemi07] to asymmetric fading environments. In [@Musavian09], the authors studied optimum power allocation for three different capacity notions under both AIP and PIP constraints. In [@Kang09], the authors also considered the transmit power constraint at the SU-TX and investigated the optimal power allocation strategies to achieve the ergodic capacity and outage capacity of SU under various combinations of secondary transmit (peak/average) power constraints and interference (peak/average) constraints.\
Achieving the optimal system performance requires the SU-TX to acquire full channel state information (CSI) including the channel information from SU-TX to PU-RX and the channel information from SU-TX to SU-RX. Most of the above results assume perfect knowledge or full CSI, which is very difficult to implement in practice, especially the channel information from SU-TX to PU-RX without PU’s cooperation. A few recent papers have emerged that address this concern by investigating performance analysis with various forms of partial CSI at SU-TX, such as noisy CSI and quantized CSI. With assumption of perfect knowledge of the CSI from SU-TX to SU-RX channel, [@Musavian092] studied the effect of imperfect channel information of the SU-TX to PU-RX channel under AIP or PIP constraint by considering the channel information from SU-TX to the PU-RX as a noisy estimate of the true CSI and employing the so-called ’tifr’ transmission policy. Another recent work [@suraweera09] also considered imperfect CSI of the SU-TX to PU-RX channel in the form of noisy channel estimate (a range from near-perfect to seriously flawed estimates) and studied the effect of using a midrise uniformly quantized CSI of the SU-TX to PU-RX channel, while also assumed the SU-TX had full knowledge of the CSI from SU-TX to SU-RX channel. Recently, [@KRZhang09] has proposed a practical design paradigm for cognitive beamforming based on finite-rate cooperative feedback from the PU-RX to the SU-TX and cooperative feedforward from the SU-TX to the PU-RX. A robust cognitive beamforming scheme was also analyzed in [@lan_zhang_09], where full channel information on SU-TX to SU-RX channel was assumed, and the imperfect channel information on the SU-TX to PU-RX channel was modelled using an uncertainty set. Finally, [@marques_giannakis09] studied the issue of channel quantization for resource allocation via the framework of utility maximization in OFDMA based CR networks, but did not investigate the joint channel partitioning and rate/power codebook design problem. The absence of a rigorous and systematic design methodology for quantized resource allocation algorithms in the context of cognitive radio networks motivated our earlier work [@he_dey_tcomm_11], where we addressed an SU ergodic capacity maximization problem in a wideband spectrum sharing scenario with quantized information about the vector channel space involving the SU-TX to SU-RX channel and the SU-TX to PU-RX channel over all bands, under an average transmit power constraint at the SU-TX and an average interference constraint at the PU-RX. A slightly different approach was taken in [@huang_plink_11; @eswaran_plink_11] where the SU overheard the PU feedback link information and used this to obtain information about whether or not the PU is in outage and how the SU-TX should control its power to minimize interference on the PU-RX.\
In this paper, we address the problem of minimizing the SU outage probability under an average transmit power (ATP) constraint at the SU-TX and an average interference power (AIP) constraint at the PU-RX. Similar to [@he_dey_tcomm_11], we consider an infrastructure-based narrowband spectrum sharing scenario where a SU communicates to its base station (SU-BS) on a narrowband channel shared with a PU communicating to its receiver PU-RX contained within the primary base station (PU-BS). The key problem is the jointly designing the optimal partition regions of the vector channel space (consisting of the SU-TX to SU-RX channel (denoted by power gain $g_1$) and the interfering channel between the SU-TX and PU-RX (denoted by power gain $g_0$)) and the corresponding optimal power codebook, and is solved offline at a central controller called the CR network manager as in [@he_dey_tcomm_11], based on the channel statistics. The CR network manager is assumed to be able to obtain the full CSI information of the vector channel space $(g_1, g_0)$ in real-time from the SU-BS and PU-BS, respectively, possibly via wired links (similar to backhaul links in multicell MIMO networks connecting multiple base stations). This real-time channel realization is then assigned to the optimal channel partition and the corresponding partition index is sent to the SU-TX (and to the SU-RX for decoding purposes) via a finite-rate feedback link. The SU-TX then uses the power codebook element associated with this index for data transmission. It was shown in [@he_dey_tcomm_11] that without the presence of the CR network manager, and thus without the ability to jointly quantize the combined channel space, the SU capacity performance is significantly degraded if one carries out separate quantization of $g_1$ and $g_0$. Even if such a CR network manager cannot be implemented in practical cognitive radio networks due to resource constraints, the results derived in this paper will serve as a valuable benchmark. Under these networking assumptions, we prove a ’stepwise’ structure of the optimal channel partition regions, which helps us explicitly formulate the outage minimization problem and solve it using the corresponding Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) necessary optimality conditions. As the number of feedback bits go to infinity, we show that the power level for the last region approaches zero, allowing us to derive a useful low-complexity suboptimal quantized power allocation algorithm called ’ZPiORA’ for high rate quantization. We also derive some other useful properties related to the channel quantizer structure as the number of feedback bits approaches infinity: (a) under an active AIP constraint, the length of interval between any two adjacent quantization thresholds on $g_0$ axis is asymptotically the same, and (b) while when the AIP is inactive, the ratio between any two adjacent quantization thresholds on $g_1$ axis asymptotically becomes identical. Finally, with these properties, we derive explicit expressions for asymptotic (as the number of feedback bits increase) behavior of the SU outage probability with quantized power allocation for large resolution quantization. Numerical studies illustrate that with only 6 bits of feedback, the designed optimal algorithms provide secondary outage probability very close to that achieved by full CSI. With 2-4 bits of feedback, ZPiORA provides a comparable performance, thus making it an attractive choice for large number of feedback bits case. Numerical studies also show that ZPiORA performs better than two other suboptimal algorithms constructed using existing approximations in the literature. Finally, it is also shown that the derived asymptotic outage behavior approximates the optimal outage extremely well as the number of feedback bits becomes large.\
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[us1\] introduces the system model and the problem formulation based on the full CSI assumption. Section \[us2\] presents the joint design of the optimal channel partition regions and an optimal power codebook algorithm. A low-complexity suboptimal quantized power allocation strategy is also derived using novel interesting properties of the quantizer structure and optimal quantized power codebooks. In Section \[us3\], the asymptotic behavior of SU outage probability for high resolution quantization is investigated. Simulation results are given in Section \[us4\], followed by concluding remarks in Section \[us5\].
System Model and Problem Formulation {#us1}
====================================
We consider an infrastructure-based spectrum sharing network where a SU communication uplink to the SU-BS coexists with a PU link (to the PU-BS) within a narrowband channel. Regardless of the on/off status of PU, the SU is allowed to access the band which is originally allocated to PU, so long as the impact of the transmission of SU does not reduce the received signal quality of PU below a prescribed level. All channels here are assumed to be Rayleigh block fading channels. Let $g_1=|h_1|^2$ and $g_{0}=|h_{0}|^2$, denote the nonnegative real-valued instantaneous channel power gains for the links from SU-TX to SU-RX and SU-TX to PU-RX respectively (where $h_1$ and $h_{0}$ are corresponding complex zero-mean circularly symmetric channel amplitude gains). The exponentially distributed channel power gain $g_1$ and $g_{0}$, are statistically mutually independent and, without loss of generality ([*w.l.o.g*]{}), are assumed to have unity mean. The additive noises for each channel are independent Gaussian random variables with, [*w.l.o.g*]{}, zero mean and unit variance. For analytical simplicity, the interference from the primary transmitter (PU-TX) to SU-RX is neglected following previous work such as [@Kang09; @Ghasemi07](in the case where the interference caused by the PU-TX at the SU-RX is significant, the SU outage probability results derived in this paper can be taken as lower bounds on the actual outage under primary-induced interference). This assumption is justified when either the SU is outside PU’s transmission range or the SU-RX is equipped with interference cancellation capability particularly when the PU signal is strong.\
Given a channel realization (${g}_0, g_1$), let the instantaneous transmit power (with full CSI) at the SU-TX be represented by $p({g}_0,
g_1)$, then the maximum mutual information of the SU for this narrowband spectrum sharing system can be expressed as $R(g_1,p({g}_0, g_1))=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p({g}_0, g_1))$, where $\log$ represents the natural logarithm. The outage probability of SU-TX with a pre-specified transmission rate $r_0$, is given as, $P_{out}=Pr\{R(g_1,p({g}_0, g_1))<r_0\}$, where $Pr\{A\}$ indicates the probability of event $A$ occurring. Using the interference temperature concept in [@Ghasemi07], a common way to protect PU’s received signal quality is by imposing either an average or a peak interference power (AIP/PIP) constraint at the PU-RX. In [@Zhang09], it was demonstrated that the AIP constraint is more flexible and favorable than the PIP constraint in the context of transmission over fading channels. Let $Q_{av}$ denotes the average interference power limit tolerated by PU-RX, then the AIP constraint can be written as, $E[g_{0}p( {g}_0, {g}_1)]\leq Q_{av}$.\
The following optimal power allocation problem that minimizes the outage probability of SU in a narrowband spectrum sharing with one PU, under both a long term average transmit power (ATP) constraint at SU-TX and an AIP constraint at the PU-RX, was considered in [@Kang09] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\min_{p( {g}_0, g_1) \geq 0} ~~Pr\{\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p({g}_0, g_1))<r_0\}\nonumber\\
&&~~~~s. t. ~~~~~E[p( {g}_0, {g}_1)]\leq P_{av},~~~~~E[g_{0}p( {g}_0, {g}_1)]\leq Q_{av}
\label{Q1}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{av}$ is the maximum average transmit power at SU-TX.\
With the assumption that perfect CSI of both $g_0$ and $g_1$ is available at the SU-TX, the optimal power allocation scheme for Problem (\[Q1\]) is given by [@Kang09]: $p^*({g}_0, {g}_1)= \frac{c}{g_1}$ when $\lambda^*_f+\mu^*_fg_0<\frac{g_1}{c}$, and $0$ otherwise, where $c=e^{2r_0}-1$, and $\lambda^*_f$, $\mu^*_f$ are the optimal nonnegative Lagrange multipliers associated with the ATP constraint and the AIP constraint, respectively, which can be obtained by solving $\lambda^*_f(E[p({g}_0, {g}_1)]-P_{av})=0$ and $\mu^*_f(E[g_{0}p( {g}_0, {g}_1)]-Q_{av})=0$ .\
However, the assumption of full CSI at the SU-TX (especially that of ${g}_0$) is usually unrealistic and difficult to implement in practical systems, especially when this channel is not time-division duplex (TDD). In the next section, we are therefore interested in designing a power allocation strategy of the outage probability minimization Problem (\[Q1\]) based on quantized CSI at the SU-TX acquired via a no-delay and error-free feedback link with limited rate.
Optimum Quantized power allocation (QPA) with imperfect $g_1$ and ${g}_0$ at SU-TX {#us2}
==================================================================================
Optimal QPA with limited rate feedback strategy
-----------------------------------------------
As shown in Fig.\[s1\], following our earlier work [@he_dey_tcomm_11], we assume that there is a central controller termed as CR network manager who can obtain perfect information of ${g}_0$ and $g_1$, from PU-RX at the PU base station and SU-RX at the SU base station respectively, possibly over fibre-optic links, and then forward some appropriately quantized $(g_0, g_1)$ information to SU-TX through a finite-rate feedback link. For further details on the justification of resulting benefits due this assumption, see [@he_dey_tcomm_11]. Under such a network modelling assumption, given B bits of feedback, a power codebook ${\cal{P}}$$=\{ {p}_1, \dots, {p}_L\}$ of cardinality $L=2^B$, is designed offline purely on the basis of the statistics of $g_0$ and $g_1$ information at the CR network manager. This codebook is also known [*a priori*]{} by both SU-TX and SU-RX for decoding purposes. Given a channel realization $({g}_0, g_1)$, the CR network manager employs a deterministic mapping from the current instantaneous $(g_0, g_1)$ information to one of $L$ integer indices (let ${\cal {I}}(g_0, g_1)$ denote the mapping, which partitions the vector space of $(g_0, g_1)$ into $L$ regions $\cal{R}$$_1, \dots,$$\cal{R}$$_L$, defined as ${\cal
{I}}(g_0, g_1)=j, ~~\text{if} ~~(g_0, g_1)\in
{\cal{R}}_j,~~j=1,\dots,L$), and then sends the corresponding index $j={\cal
{I}}(g_0, g_1)$ to the SU-TX (and the SU-RX) via the feedback link. The SU-TX then uses the associated power codebook element (e.g., if the feedback signal is $j$, then $p_j$ will be used as the transmission power) to adapt its transmission strategy.
Note that the CR network manager could be assumed to be located at the SU-BS for the current setup and in this case, the PU-BS simply has to cooperate with the SU-BS by sending the real-time full CSI information of $g_0$. However, for future generalization of our work to a multi-cell cognitive network scenario, we assume that the CR network manager is a separate entity, which can obtain information from multiple PU-BS and SU-BS if necessary.
Define an indicator function $X_j, ~j=1,\dots,L,$ as $X_j=1$ if $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_{j}) < r_0$, and $0$ otherwise. Let $Pr ({ \cal {R}}_j)$, $E[\bullet|{\cal{R}}_j]$ represent $Pr ((g_0, g_1)\in { \cal {R}}_j)$ and $E[\bullet|(g_0, g_1)\in {\cal{R}}_j]$, respectively. Then the SU outage probability minimization problem with limited feedback can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{p_j\geq 0,~ {\cal{R}}_j~ \forall j} ~\sum^L_{j=1}
E[X_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j) \nonumber\\
&~~s.t.~~~~~~~~~\sum^L_{j=1} E[p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j)\leq P_{av},~~~~~~~\sum^L_{j=1} E[g_0p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j)\leq Q_{av}.
\label{uQ2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the key problem to solve here is the joint optimization of the channel partition regions and the power codebook such that the outage probability of SU is minimized under the above constraints.\
The dual problem of (\[uQ2\]) is expressed as, $\max_{\lambda\geq 0,~\mu\geq 0}~ g(\lambda, \mu)-\lambda P_{av}-\mu Q_{av}$, where $\lambda, \mu$ are the nonnegative Lagrange multipliers associated with the ATP and AIP constraints in Problem (\[uQ2\]), and the Lagrange dual function $g(\lambda, \mu)$ is defined as $$g(\lambda, \mu)=\min_{{p}_j\geq 0,~ {\cal{R}}_j,~\forall j } ~\sum_{j=1}^{L} E[X_j+(\lambda+\mu g_0)p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({ \cal {R}}_j)
\label{udual}$$ The procedure we use to solve the above dual problem is:
1. With fixed values of $\lambda$ and $\mu$, find the optimal solution (power codebook and quantization regions) for the Lagrange dual function (\[udual\]).
2. Find the optimal $\lambda$ and $\mu$ by solving the dual problem using subgradient search method, i.e, updating $\lambda,~ \mu$ until convergence using $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda^{l+1}= [\lambda^l-\alpha^l(P_{av}-\sum^L_{j=1}E[p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j))]^+, \nonumber\\
&\mu^{l+1}= [\mu^l-\beta^l(Q_{av}-\sum^L_{j=1}E[g_0p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j))]^+,
\label{subgra}\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ is the iteration number, $\alpha^l$, $\beta^l$ are positive scalar step sizes for the $l$-th iteration satisfying $\sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \alpha_l = \infty, \; \sum_{l=1}^{\infty} (\alpha_l)^2 < \infty$ and similarly for $\beta_l$, and $[x]^+ = \max (x,0)$.
A general method to solve Step 1 is to employ a simulation-based optimization algorithm called Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation (SPSA) algorithm (for a step-by-step guide to implementation of SPSA, see [@spall98]), where one can use the objective function of Problem (\[udual\]) as the loss function and the optimal power codebook elements for each channel partition are obtained via a randomized stochastic gradient search technique. Note that due to the presence of the indicator function and no explicit expression being available for the outage probability with quantized power allocation, we can’t directly exploit the Generalized Lloyd Algorithm (GLA) with a Lagrangian distortion, as we used in [@he_dey_tcomm_11], to solve Problem (\[udual\]). SPSA uses a simulation-based method to compute the loss function and then estimates the gradient from a number of loss function values computed by randomly perturbing the power codebook. Note that SPSA results in a local minimum (similar to GLA), but is computationally highly complex and the convergence time is also quite long.
Due to the high computational complexity of SPSA and its long convergence time to solve Problem (\[udual\]), we will next derive a low-complexity approach for solving Problem (\[udual\]). However, due to the original problem (\[uQ2\]) not being convex with respect to the power codebook elements, the optimal solution we can obtain is also locally optimal.\
Let ${\cal{P}}=\{p_1,\dots,p_L\}$, where $p_1>\dots>p_L\geq 0$, and the corresponding channel partitioning ${\cal{R}}_1,\dots,{\cal{R}}_L$ denote an optimal solution to Problem (\[udual\]). Let $p({\cal I}(g_0, g_1))$ represent the mapping from instantaneous $(g_0, g_1)$ information to the allocated power level. We can then obtain the following result:
Let $\{v_1,\dots,v_{L}\}$ denote the optimum quantization thresholds on the $g_1$ axis ($0<v_1<\dots<v_{L}$) and $\{s_1,\dots,s_{L-1}\}$ indicate the optimum quantization thresholds on the $g_0$ axis ($0<s_1<\dots<s_{L-1}$). Then we have $\forall j, j=1,\dots,L-1$, $p({\cal {I}}(g_0, g_1))=
p_j$, if $v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}, 0\leq g_0 <s_{j}$ and $p_L$ otherwise, where $v_j=\frac{c}{p_j}, j=1,\dots,L$, and for $\forall j, j=1,\dots,L-1$, when $\mu> 0,~s_j=\frac{1}{\mu(p_j-p_L)}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, while when $\mu= 0,~s_j=\infty$, then condition $0\leq g_0 <s_{j}$ boils down to $\lambda<\frac{1}{p_j-p_L}$. The region ${\cal{R}}_L$ includes two parts : the set ${\cal{R}}_{L1}=\{(g_0, g_1):v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}, g_0 \geq s_{j}, \forall j=0,\dots,L-1\}$ with $s_0=0, v_0=0$ and the set ${\cal{R}}_{L2}=\{(g_0, g_1):g_1 \geq v_L, g_0\geq 0\}$. The entire set ${\cal{R}}_{L1}$ is in outage. \[ul1\]
*Proof:* See Appendix \[app0\].
When $\mu>0$, which implies that the AIP constraint is active, from Lemma \[ul1\], the optimum partition regions possess a stepwise structure, as shown in Fig.\[r1\]. When $\mu=0$, i.e, the AIP constraint is inactive and only ATP constraint is active (we must have $\lambda>0$), Problem (\[uQ2\]) becomes a scalar quantization problem involving quantizing $g_1$ only, and Lemma \[ul1\] reduces to : $p({\cal I}(g_1))=
p_j$, if $v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}, \forall j, j=1,\dots,L-1$, and $p_L$ otherwise, where $\lambda<\frac{1}{p_j-p_L}, \forall j=1,2,\ldots, L-1$ and the two sub-regions of ${\cal{R}}_L$ become ${\cal{R}}_{L1}=\{g_1:0\leq g_1<v_1\}$ and ${\cal{R}}_{L2}=\{g_1:g_1 \geq v_L\}$, and ${\cal{R}}_{L1}$ is in outage. Note that in this case we must have $Q_{av}\geq P_{av}$, due to $Q_{av}\geq \sum^L_{j=1} E[g_0p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({\cal {R}}_j)=\sum^L_{j=1}E[p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({\cal {R}}_j)=P_{av}$, where the last equality follows from the fact the $E[g_0 |{\cal R}_j] = E[g_0] =1$ since ${\cal {R}}_j$ is formed purely based on the values of $g_1$, which is independent of $g_0$. Note also that one can easily prove the converse, that when $Q_{av} \geq P_{av}$, one must have $\mu=0$.
From Lemma \[ul1\], (due to the fading channels being independently exponentially distributed with unity mean) Problem (\[uQ2\]) becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{p_j\geq 0,~\forall j} ~P^L_{out}=1-e^{-v_1}+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})e^{-s_j}\ \nonumber\\
&~~s.t.~~p_L+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(p_j-p_L)(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})(1-e^{-s_j}) \leq P_{av} \nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~p_L+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(p_j-p_L)(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j)) \leq Q_{av}
\label{uQ3}\end{aligned}$$ where $P^L_{out}$ denotes the outage probability with $B=\log_2 L$ bits feedback QPA, $v_j=\frac{c}{p_j}, j=1,\dots,L$ and for $\forall j, j=1,\dots,L-1$, when $\mu>
0,~s_j=\frac{1}{\mu(p_j-p_L)}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, whereas when $\mu= 0,~s_j=\infty$. Although the above optimization problem may be verified to be non-convex, we can employ the KKT necessary conditions to find a local minimum for Problem (\[uQ3\]). Taking the partial derivative of first order of the Lagrangian of Problem (\[uQ3\]) over $p_j, j=1,\dots,L-1$, and setting it to zero, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))]=e^{-v_j}\frac{c}{p^2_j}[\hat{f}(p_{j-1})-\hat{f}(p_j)], ~~1\leq j \leq L-1;
\label{ukkt1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{f}(p_0)=1$ and $\hat{f}(p_j)=(p_j-p_L)(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{j}})),~1\leq j\leq L-1$. (\[ukkt1\]) also can be rewritten as $j=1,\dots,L-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
p_{j+1}=\frac{c}{v_j-\ln (1-\frac{\frac{c}{p^2_j}[\hat{f}(p_{j-1})-\hat{f}(p_j)]}{\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))})},
\label{ukkt4}\end{aligned}$$ Equating the partial derivative of the Lagrangian function of Problem (\[uQ3\]) over $p_L$ to zero gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))]+e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p^2_L}\hat{f}(p_{L-1})=\lambda+\mu.
\label{ukkt2}\end{aligned}$$ Optimal values of $\lambda$ and $\mu$ can be determined by solving $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda[p_L+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(p_j-p_L)(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})(1-e^{-s_j})-P_{av}]=0\nonumber\\
&\mu[p_L+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(p_j-p_L)(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))-Q_{av}]=0
\label{ukkt3}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for fixed values $\lambda$ and $\mu$, we need to solve the $L$ equations given by (\[ukkt4\]), (\[ukkt2\]) to obtain the power codebook. Given $p_1$ and $p_L$, from (\[ukkt4\]) we can successively compute $p_{2},\dots,p_{L-1}$, and then we can jointly solve the equation (\[ukkt4\]) with $j=L-1$ and equation (\[ukkt2\]) numerically for $p_1$ and $p_L$. The optimal value of $\lambda$ and $\mu$ can be obtained by solving (\[ukkt3\]) with a subgradient method, i,e. by updating $\lambda$ and $\mu$ until convergence using (\[subgra\]). One can thus repeat the above two steps (i.e, given $\lambda$ and $\mu$ find the optimal power levels, and then using the resulting optimal power levels update $\lambda$ and $\mu$) iteratively until a satisfactory convergence criterion is met. This procedure can be formally summarized as:
1. First, if $P_{av}\leq Q_{av}$, we must have $\mu=0,~\lambda>0$. Starting with an arbitrary positive initial value for $\lambda$, solve (\[ukkt1\]), (\[ukkt2\]) to obtain a power codebook $\{p_1,\dots,p_L\}$, and then use this codebook to update $\lambda$ by (\[subgra\]). Repeat these steps until convergence and the final codebook will be an optimal power codebook for Problem (\[uQ3\]).
2. If $P_{av}> Q_{av}$, we must have $\mu>0$ by contradiction (since if $\mu=0$, we must have $P_{av} \leq Q_{av}$). Let $\lambda=0$, then solving KKT conditions gives an optimal value of $\mu$ and corresponding power codebook $\{p_1,\dots,p_L\}$. With this codebook, if $\sum^L_{j=1} E[p_j|{\cal{R}}_j]Pr ({
\cal {R}}_j)\leq P_{av}$, then it is an optimal power codebook for Problem (\[uQ3\]). Otherwise we must have $\lambda>0$ too, in which case, starting with arbitrary positive initial values for $\lambda$ and $\mu$, obtain the corresponding power codebook $\{p_1,\dots,p_L\}$, and then update $\lambda$ and $\mu$ by (\[subgra\]). Repeat these steps until convergence and the final codebook will be an optimal power codebook for Problem (\[uQ3\]).
Suboptimal QPA Algorithm
------------------------
When the number of feedback bits $B$ (or alternatively, $L$) goes to infinity, we can obtain the following Lemma that allows us to obtain a suboptimal but computationally efficient quantized power allocation algorithm for large but finite $L$.
$\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} p_L=0$ \[ul2\]
*Proof:* See appendix \[app4\].
Lemma \[ul2\] shows that regardless of whether $\mu>0$ or $\mu=0$, with high rate quantization, the power level for the last region ${\cal{R_L}}$ approaches zero, which also implies the following as $L\rightarrow\infty$:\
1) The non-outage part of ${\cal{R_L}}$, given by ${\cal{R_L}}_2$, disappears gradually. In other words, ${\cal{R_L}}\rightarrow
{\cal{R_L}}_1$. Thus, when $L\rightarrow\infty$, ${\cal{R_L}}$ becomes the outage region with zero power assigned to it.\
2) When $\mu> 0$, the quantization thresholds on the $g_0$ axis $s_j\rightarrow s_j'$ (where $s_j'=\frac{1}{\mu p_j}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$), which gives $v_j=c\lambda+c\mu s'_j$, and it means all the points given by coordinates $(s'_j, v_j)$ lie on the line of $g_1=c\lambda+c\mu g_0$. Therefore, as $L\rightarrow\infty$, the stepwise shape of the structure in $\mu> 0$ case (i.e, the boundary between non-outage and outage regions) approaches the straight line $g_1=c\lambda+c\mu g_0$, which is consistent with the full CSI-based power allocation result in [@Kang09].
Thus, when $L$ is large, applying Lemma \[ul2\] (i.e, $p_L\rightarrow0$) to Problem (\[uQ3\]), the above $L$ KKT conditions (\[ukkt1\]) and (\[ukkt2\]) can be simplified into $L-1$ equations: $$\begin{aligned}
&(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]\nonumber\\
&=e^{-v_j}\frac{c}{p^2_j}[p_{j-1}(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}}))-p_j(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}}))], \; \forall j, j=1,\dots,L-1
\label{ukkt6}\end{aligned}$$ where when $\mu> 0$, the quantization thresholds on the $g_0$ axis are given by $s'_j=\frac{1}{\mu p_j}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, $s'_0=0$, and $p_0=\frac{1}{\lambda+\mu s'_0}$, while when $\mu= 0,~s'_j=\infty,
s'_0=0$, and $p_0=\frac{1}{\lambda}$. (\[ukkt6\]) can be also written as $$\begin{aligned}
&p_{j+1}=\frac{c}{v_j-\ln
(1-\frac{\frac{c}{p^2_j}[p_{j-1}(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}}))-p_j(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}}))]}{\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))})},
~~~j=1,\dots,L-2;\nonumber\\
&\frac{\lambda(1-e^{-s'_{L-1}})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{L-1}}(1+s'_{L-1}))}{\frac{c}{p^2_{L-1}}[p_{L-2}(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{L-2}}))-p_{L-1}(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{{L-1}}}))]}=1
\label{ukkt5}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for given values of $\lambda$ and $\mu$, starting with a specific value of $p_1$, we can successively compute $p_2,\dots,p_{L-1}$ using the first equation of (\[ukkt5\]) (recall that $v_j = \frac{c}{p_j}$). Then the second equation in (\[ukkt5\]) becomes an equation in $p_1$ only, which can be solved easily using a suitable nonlinear equation solver. We call this suboptimal QPA algorithm as ’Zero Power in Outage Region Approximation’(ZPiORA), which is applicable to the case of a large number of feedback bits, where the exact definition of “large" will be dependent on the system parameters. Through simulation studies, we will illustrate that for our choice of system parameters, ZPiORA performs well even for as low as $B=2$ bits of feedback.\
[**Alternative suboptimal algorithms**]{}: For comparison purposes, we also propose two alternative suboptimal algorithms described below:
1. The first suboptimal algorithm is based on an equal average power per (quantized) region (EPPR) approximation algorithm, proposed in [@icc] in a non-cognitive or typical primary network setting for an outage minimization problem with only an ATP constraint. More specifically, by applying the mean value theorem (similar to [@icc]) into the KKT conditions (\[ukkt1\]) with $j=2,\dots,L-1$, we can easily obtain that $p_j(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))]
\approx p_{j-1}(e^{-v_{j-1}}-e^{-v_{j}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_{j-1}})+\mu(1-e^{-s_{j-1}}(1+s_{j-1}))], ~~j=2,\dots,L-2$. Adding the two equations of (\[ukkt3\]) together and applying (\[ukkt2\]), we have $\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} p_j (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda (1-e^{-s_j})+\mu (1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))]=\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}-e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p_L}(p_{L-1}-p_{L})(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}))$. Since $e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p_L}(p_{L-1}-p_{L})(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}))$ can be approximated as $p_{L-1}(e^{-v_{L-1}}-e^{-v_{L}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_{L-1}})+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}(1+s_{L-1}))]$ by using the mean value theorem, we can obtain the following $L$ (approximate) equations, namely $p_j(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))] \approx \frac{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}{L},~j=1,\dots,L-1$ and $p_L(1-\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s_j}(1+s_j))]) \approx \frac{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}{L}$. Then one can jointly solve the above $L$ equations and two other equations ((\[ukkt1\]) with $j=1$ and (\[ukkt2\])) for $\lambda, \mu, p_j, \forall j=1,\dots,L$. We call this suboptimal algorithm as the “Modified EPPR (MEPPR)" approximation algorithm. Obviously, ZPiORA is computationally much simpler than this method, especially when $\mu>0$. Furthermore, from simulations, when $P_{av}$ or ${Q_{av}}$ is small, the performance of ZPiORA is always better than MEPPR. It is seen however that when both $P_{av}$ and $Q_{av}$ are large, for a small number of feedback bits, MEPPR may outperform ZPiORA, whereas with a sufficiently large number of feedback bits, ZPiORA is a more accurate approximation due to Lemma $\ref{ul2}$ (when $L$ is large, $p_L$ approaches zero, whereas MEPPR has $p_L>0$ $\forall L$). See Section V for more details. Note that, an equal probability per region (excluding the outage region) approximation algorithm employed in [@KRZhang09] for scalar quantization can not be applied to our case (vector quantization), since it will increase the computational complexity even further.
2. The second algorithm is based on GLA with a sigmoid function approximation (GLASFA) method proposed by [@weiyu2009], where the sigmoid function is used to approximate the indicator function in the Lagrange dual function (\[udual\]). More specifically, given a random initial power codebook, we use the nearest neighbor condition of Lloyd’s algorithm with a Lagrangian distortion $d((g_0, g_1),j)=X_j+(\lambda+\mu g_0)p_j$ to generate the optimal partition regions [@Gray89] given by, ${\cal{R}}_j=\{(g_0,g_1): X_j+(\lambda+\mu g_0)p_j\leq X_i+(\lambda+\mu g_0)p_i, \forall i\not=j\}$, $i,j=1,\dots,L$. We then use the resulting optimal partition regions to update the power codebook by $p_j\approx \text{argmin}_{p_j\geq 0} E[\sigma(k(\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_{j})-r_0))+(\lambda+\mu g_0)p_j|R_{j}]Pr(R_{j})$ for $ j=1,\dots,L$, where we use the approximation $X_j\approx \sigma(k(\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_{j})-r_0))$, $\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{1+e^x}$ being the sigmoid function where the coefficient $k$ controls the sharpness of the approximation (for detailed guidelines on choosing $k$ see [@weiyu2009]). The above two steps of GLA are repeated until convergence. Numerical results illustrate that ZPiORA significantly outperforms this suboptimal method. See Section V for more details.
Asymptotic outage behaviour of QPA under high resolution quantization {#us3}
=====================================================================
In this section, we derive a number of asymptotic expressions for the SU outage probability when the number of feedback bits approaches infinity. To this end, we first derive some useful properties regarding the quantizer structure at high rate quantization:
As the number of quantization regions $L\rightarrow\infty$, we can obtain the following result: with $\mu>0$, the optimum quantization thresholds on the $g_0$ axis satisfy\
$s'_{1}-s'_{0}\approx s'_{2}-s'_{1}\approx \dots \approx
s'_{L-1}-s'_{L-2}$, where $s'_j=\frac{1}{\mu p_j}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}, j=1,\dots,L-1$ and $s'_0=0$. With $\mu=0$, the optimum quantization thresholds on the $g_1$ axis satisfy $\frac{v_{1}}{v_{0}} \approx \frac{v_{2}}{v_{1}} \dots \approx
\frac{v_{L-1}}{v_{L-2}}$, where $v_j=\frac{c}{p_j}, j=1,\dots,L-1$ and here $v_0=c\lambda$. \[ul3\]
*Proof:* See Appendix \[app1\].
In the high rate quantization regime, as $L\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]\approx \frac{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}{L-1}
\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} \frac{1}{p_j}.
\label{uk20}\end{aligned}$$ where when $\mu> 0$, $s'_j=\frac{1}{\mu p_j}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, whereas when $\mu= 0,~s'_j=\infty$, and (\[uk20\]) simplifies to $ce^{-v_1}\approx \frac{P_{av}}{L-1}\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} v_j$ with $v_j=\frac{c}{p_j}$. \[ul4\]
*Proof:* See Appendix \[app2\].\
With Lemma \[ul3\] and Lemma \[ul4\], the main result of this section can be obtained in the following Theorem.
The asymptotic SU outage probability for a large number of feedback bits is given as,\
$P^L_{out}\approx
1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[1-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}}{1-e^{-\frac{a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}{L}}}]$ (for $\mu > 0$) where $a$ is a constant satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
&(\lambda_f^* P_{av}+\mu_f^* Q_{av})(\lambda_f^*+\frac{a}{2c})e^{c\lambda_f^*}\nonumber\\
&\approx [(\lambda_f^*+\mu_f^*)(1-\frac{c\mu_f^*}{1+c\mu_f^*}(1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}))-\frac{c (\mu_f^*)^2}{(1+c\mu_f^*)^2
}(1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}(1+a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})))].\end{aligned}$$ We also have $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty} P^L_{out}=
1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[1-\frac{1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}}{1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*}}]$. For $\mu=0$, $P^L_{out}\approx 1-e^{-c\lambda_f^* (1+\frac{\beta}{L})}$, where $\beta$ is a constant given by $ e^{-c\lambda_f^*}\approx {\lambda_f^*
P_{av}}\frac{e^{\beta}-1}{\beta}$. In this case we also have $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty} P^L_{out}= 1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}$. \[ut1\]
*Proof:* See Appendix \[app3\].
Numerical Results {#us4}
=================
In this section, we will examine the outage probability performance of the SU in a narrowband spectrum sharing system with the proposed power allocation strategies via numerical simulations. All the channels involved are assumed to be independent and undergo identical Rayleigh fading, i.e, channel power gain $g_{0}$ and $g_1$ are independent and identically exponentially distributed with unity mean. The required transmission rate is taken to be $r_0=0.25$ nats per channel use.\
Fig. \[f1\] displays the SU outage probability performance of the suboptimal algorithm ZPiORA versus $P_{av}$ with feedback bits $B=\{1, 2\}$, under $Q_{av}=-5$ dB and $Q_{av}=0$ dB respectively, and compares these results with the corresponding outage performance of the suboptimal method MEPPR and the optimal QPA. As observed from Fig. \[f1\], when $Q_{av}=-5$ dB, with $B$ fixed, the outage performances of ZPiORA and corresponding optimal QPA almost overlap with each other. When $Q_{av}=0$ dB and $P_{av}\leq -5$ dB, with the same number of feedback bits, the outage performances of these two methods are still indistinguishable; and with $P_{av}>-5$ dB, the outage performance gap between ZPiORA and corresponding optimal QPA is decreasing with increasing B. For example, with 1 bit feedback, at $P_{av}=10$ dB, the outage gap between ZPiORA and optimal QPA is $0.0347$, but with 2 bits of feedback, the outage performance of these two methods are very close to each other, which agrees with Lemma \[ul2\] that ZPiORA is a near-optimal algorithm for large number of feedback bits. Now we look at the performance comparison between ZPiORA and MEPPR. As illustrated in Fig. \[f1\], when $P_{av}$ or ${Q_{av}}$ is small, with B bits feedback, the performance of ZPiORA is always better than MEPPR. This is attributed to the fact that when $P_{av}$ or ${Q_{av}}$ is small, it can be easily verified that $p_L$ is close to zero, but MEPPR always uses $p_L>0$. However, when both $P_{av}$ and $Q_{av}$ are large (e.g. $P_{av}\geq 0$ dB and $Q_{av}=0$ dB), for 1 bit feedback case, MEPPR outperforms ZPiORA and performs very close to the optimal QPA, whereas with a sufficiently large number of feedback bits (in fact, with more than just 2 bits of feedback), ZPiORA is a more accurate approximation due to Lemma $\ref{ul2}$. These results confirm the ZPiORA is a better option for a large number of feedback bits, not to mention that ZPiORA is much simpler to implement than MEPPR.\
In addition, Fig. \[f5\] compares the outage performance of ZPiORA with another suboptimal method (GLASFA) with $Q_{av}= -5$ dB. We can easily observe that with a fixed number of feedback bits (2 bits or 4 bits), ZPiORA always outperforms GLASFA. And ZPiORA is also substantially faster than GLASFA. For example, with fixed $\lambda$ and $\mu$ and 4 bits of feedback ($Q_{av}= -5$dB, $P_{av}= 10$ dB), when implemented in MATLAB (version 7.11.0.584 (R2010b)) on a AMD Quad-Core processor (CPU P940 with a clock speed of $1.70$ GHz and a memory of 4 GB), it was seen that GLASFA (with 100,000 training samples, starting $k=20$ and increasing it by a factor of 1.5 at each step which finally converged at about $k=768.8672$) took approximately 299.442522 seconds (different initial guesses of the power codebook may result in different convergence time). In comparison, ZPiORA took only 0.006237 seconds to achieve comparable levels of accuracy. These results further confirm the efficiency of ZPiORA.\
Fig. \[f2\] illustrates the outage performance of SU with optimal QPA strategy versus $P_{av}$ with feedback bits $B=\{2,4,6\}$, under $Q_{av}=-5$ dB and $Q_{av}=0$ dB respectively, and studies the effect of increasing the number of feedback bits on the outage performance. For comparison, we also plot the corresponding SU outage performance with full CSI case. Since ZPiORA is an efficient suboptimal method for large number of feedback bits, we employ ZPiORA to obtain the outage performance instead of using optimal QPA for $B=6$ bits. First, it can be easily observed that all the outage curves decrease gradually as $P_{av}$ increases until $P_{av}$ reaches a certain threshold, when the outage probability attains a floor. This is due to the fact that in the high $P_{av}$ regime, the AIP constraint dominates. For a fixed number of feedback bits, the higher $Q_{av}$ is, the smaller the resultant outage probability is, since higher $Q_{av}$ means PU can tolerate more interference. Fig. \[f2\] also illustrates that for fixed $Q_{av}$, introducing one extra bit of feedback substantially reduces the outage gap between QPA and the perfect CSI case. To be specific, for $Q_{av}=0$ dB and $P_{av}=10$ dB, with $2$ bits, $4$ bits and $6$ bits of feedback, the outage gaps with the full CSI case are approximately $0.1083$, $0.0249$ and $0.006979 $ respectively. And for any $Q_{av}$, only 6 bits of feedback seem to result in an SU outage performance very close to that with full CSI case.\
Figure \[f3\] compares the asymptotic outage performance derived in Theorem \[ut1\] and the optimal QPA performance $B=\{4,6,8\}$ under $Q_{av}= 0 $ dB. It is clearly observed that increasing number of feedback bits substantially shrinks the outage performance gap between the asymptotic outage approximation and the corresponding optimal QPA performance. For instance, with 4, 6, 8 bits of feedback at $P_{av}=10$ dB, the outage gap between the asymptotic outage approximation and the corresponding optimal QPA are around $0.0325$, $0.00618$, $0.000168$ respectively. These results confirm that the derived asymptotic outage expressions in Theorem \[ut1\] are highly accurate for $B \geq 8$ bits of feedback. In addition, Figure \[f4\] depicts the asymptotic outage probability behavior of SU versus the number of quantization level $L$ at $Q_{av}=0$ dB, $P_{av}=10$ dB, and compares the result with the corresponding full CSI performance. It can be seen from Figure \[f4\] that the outage decreases as the number of quantization level $L$ increases, however, as $L$ increases beyond a certain number ($L\geq 2^8$, i.e, $B \geq 8$ bits), the outage probability curve starts to saturate and approaches the full CSI performance. This further confirms that only a small number of feedback bits is enough to obtain an outage performance close to the perfect CSI-based performance.
Conclusions and extensions {#us5}
==========================
In this paper, we designed optimal power allocation algorithms for secondary outage probability minimization with quantized CSI information for a narrowband spectrum sharing cognitive radio framework under an ATP constraint at SU-TX and an AIP constraint at PU-RX. We prove that the optimal channel partition structure has a “stepwise" pattern based on which an efficient optimal power codebook design algorithm is provided. In the case of a large number of feedback bits, we derive a novel low-complexity suboptimal algorithm ZPiORA which is seen to outperform alternative suboptimal algorithms based on approximations used in the existing literature. We also derive explicit expressions for asymptotic behavior of the SU outage probability for a large number of feedback bits. Although the presented optimal power codebook design methods result in locally optimal solutions (due to the non-convexity of the quantized power allocation problem), numerical results illustrate that only 6 bits of feedback result in SU outage performance very close to that obtained with full CSI at the SU transmitter. Future work will involve extending the results to more complex wideband spectrum sharing scenario along with consideration of other types of interference constraints at the PU receiver.
Proof of Lemma \[ul1\]: {#app0}
-----------------------
We use an analysis method similar to [@khoj08] to prove our problem’s optimal quantizer structure. Let ${\cal{P}}=\{p_1,\dots,p_L\}$, where $p_1>\dots>p_L\geq 0$, and the corresponding channel partitioning ${\cal{R}}=\{{\cal{R}}_1,\dots,{\cal{R}}_L\}$ denote the optimal solution to the optimization problem (\[uQ2\]), and $p(g_0, g_1)=p_j,~~ \text{if}~~ (g_0, g_1)\in {\cal{R}}_j$.\
Let ${\cal{R}}^*_j=\{(g_0,g_1): v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}, 0\leq g_0 <s_{j}\},~ j=1,\dots,L-1$ and ${\cal{R}}^*_L={\cal{R}}^*_{L1}\cup{\cal{R}}^*_{L2}=\{(g_0,g_1): v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1},~g_0\geq s_{j}, \forall j=0,1,\dots,L-1\}\cup\{(g_0,g_1): g_1\geq v_{L}, g_0\geq 0\}$, where $s_0=0$ and $v_0=0$. We assume that the set ${\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j$ is a non-empty set, where $\setminus$ is the set subtraction operation (i.e, if $(g_0, g_1)\in {\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j$, then $(g_0, g_1)\in{\cal{R}}^*_j$ but $(g_0, g_1)\notin{\cal{R}}_j$). Then, the set ${\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j$ can be partitioned into two subsets $S^-_j=({\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j)\cap(\cup^{j-1}_{k=1} {\cal{R}}_k) $ and $S^+_j=({\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j)\cap(\cup^{L}_{k=j+1}{\cal{R}}_k)$. In what follows, we denote the empty set by $\emptyset$.\
[**(1)**]{}: We will show that $S^-_j=\emptyset, ~\forall j=1,\dots,L$.\
[*(a)*]{}: When $j=1$, it is obvious that $S^-_1=\emptyset$. When $1<j<L$, if $S^-_j\not=\emptyset$, then we can always reassign the set $S^-_j$ into region ${\cal{R}}_j$ without changing the overall outage probability. This is due to the fact that within the set $S^-_j\in {\cal{R}}^*_j$, we have $v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}$ resulting in $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_j)\geq r_0$, and the power level in $(\cup^{j-1}_{k=1} {\cal{R}}_k)$ satisfies $p_k>p_j$. Thus $S^-_j$ is never in outage. However, the new assignment can achieve a lower Lagrange dual function (LDF) in (\[udual\]), due to $g'(\lambda, \mu)-g(\lambda, \mu)=E[(\lambda+\mu
g_0)(p_j-p_k)|S^-_j]Pr (S^-_j)<0$, where $g'(\lambda, \mu)$ denotes the LDF with the new assignment, which contradicts the optimality of the solution ${\cal{P}}, {\cal{R}}$.\
[*(b)*]{} When $j=L$, if $S^-_L\not=\emptyset$, we can again reassign the set $S^-_L$ into region ${\cal{R}}_L$. 1) If some part of $S^-_L$ is in the set $\{(g_0,g_1): 0\leq g_1 <v_1,~g_0\geq 0\}$ of ${\cal{R}}^*_{L1}$, we have $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_1)< r_0$, which implies that this part of $S^-_L$ is always in outage. Therefore, this reassignment for this part of $S^-_L$ will not change the outage probability but will decrease the LDF due to the power level $p_L$ in ${\cal{R}}_L$ is the lowest. 2) For any $j$ ($j=1,\dots,L-1$), if some part of $S^-_L$ (denoted by “$S^-_{Lp}$") exists in the set $\{(g_0,g_1): v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1},~g_0\geq s_{j}\}$ of ${\cal{R}}^*_{L1}$, we have $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_j)\geq r_0$, $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_{j+1})< r_0$ and $(\lambda+\mu g_0)(p_j-p_L)\geq 1$. And given $S^-_{Lp}\subset(\cup^{L-1}_{k=1} {\cal{R}}_k)$, let the power level for $S^-_{Lp}$ be $p_k$ (where $k$ could be any value from $\{1,\dots,L-1\}$). Reassigning this part of set $S^-_L$ into region ${\cal{R}}_L$ will reduce the value of the LDF, since if $k\leq j$ (implying $p_k\geq p_j$), $g'(\lambda, \mu)-g(\lambda, \mu)=E[1+p_L(\lambda+\mu
g_0)-p_k(\lambda+\mu
g_0)|S^-_{Lp}]Pr (S^-_{Lp})<0$ and if $k>j$ (implying $p_k<p_j$), $g'(\lambda, \mu)-g(\lambda, \mu)=E[1+p_L(\lambda+\mu
g_0)-1-p_k(\lambda+\mu
g_0)|S^-_{Lp}]Pr (S^-_{Lp})<0$. 3) If some part of $S^-_L$ belongs to the set ${\cal{R}}^*_{L2}$, similar to (a), we can show that the new partition for this part of $S^-_L$ does not change the overall outage probability and meanwhile reduces the value of the LDF. These all contradict optimality.\
[**(2)**]{}: We will now show that the set $S^+_j=\emptyset,~
j=1,\dots,L$. When $j=L$, it’s straightforward that $S^+_L=\emptyset$. When $j<L$, we assume that $S^+_j\not=\emptyset$. Within the set $S^+_j\in {\cal{R}}^*_j$, we have $v_j\leq g_1 <v_{j+1}$, implying $\frac{1}{2}\log(1+g_1p_{j+1})< r_0$, or in other words, $S^+_j\in(\cup^{L}_{k=j+1}{\cal{R}}_k)$ is in outage. We can reallocate the set $S^+_j$ into region ${\cal{R}}_j$. This reassignment not only lowers the outage probability ($S^+_j$ with $p_j$ will not be in outage) but also lowers the value of the LDF, given by $g'(\lambda, \mu)-g(\lambda, \mu)=E[(\lambda+\mu
g_0)(p_j-p_k)-1|S^+_j]Pr (S^+_j)\leq E[(\lambda+\mu
g_0)(p_j-p_L)-1|S^+_j]Pr (S^+_j)<0$, due to $g_0<s_j=\frac{1}{\mu(p_j-p_L)}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$. This also contradicts optimality.\
Therefore, we have ${\cal{R}}^*_j \setminus {\cal{R}}_j=\emptyset, ~\forall j=1,\dots,L$, i.e, ${\cal{R}}^*_j \subseteq {\cal{R}}_j, ~\forall j=1,\dots,L$. Since $\cup^{L}_{j=1}{\cal{R}}^*_j=\text{the whole space of}~(g_0, g_1)=\cup^{L}_{j=1}{\cal{R}}_j$, and ${\cal{R}}^*_j \subseteq {\cal{R}}_j,~\forall j$, we can obtain that ${\cal{R}}^*_j = {\cal{R}}_j,~\forall j=1,\dots,L.$
Proof of Lemma \[ul2\]: {#app4}
-----------------------
We assume that $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}p_L\not=0$. Let $\delta=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}p_L> 0$. From the KKT condition (\[ukkt2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p^2_L}(p_{L-1}-p_L)(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}))&= (\lambda+\mu)(P^L_{out}+e^{-v_L})+\mu \sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})e^{-s_j}s_j\nonumber\\
&\geq (\lambda+\mu)(P^L_{out}+e^{-v_L})
\label{uk70}\end{aligned}$$ Let $P^f_{out}$ denote the outage probability with full CSI at SU-TX, then we have $P^L_{out}\geq P^f_{out}$ and $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}P^L_{out}=P^f_{out}$. Taking the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$ on both sides of (\[uk70\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p^2_L}(p_{L-1}-p_L)(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}))\geq (\lambda+\mu)(P^f_{out}+e^{-\frac{c}{\delta}})\not=0
\label{uk71}\end{aligned}$$ Given $p_1>\dots>p_L>0$, it is clear that the sequence $\{p_j\},\; j=1,2, \ldots, L$ is a monotonically decreasing sequence bounded below, therefore it must converge to its greatest-lower bound $\delta$, as $L \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, it can be easily shown that for an arbitrarily small $\epsilon > 0$, we can always find a sufficiently large $L$ such that $p_{L-1} - p_L < \epsilon$. Thus, as $L\rightarrow \infty$, $(p_{L-1}-p_L)\rightarrow 0$, which implies when $\mu>0$, $s_{L-1}=\frac{1}{\mu(p_{L-1}-p_L)}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}\rightarrow
\infty$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}e^{-v_L}\frac{c}{p^2_L}(p_{L-1}-p_L)(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s_{L-1}}))= e^{-\frac{c}{\delta}}\frac{c}{\delta^2}(\lambda+\mu) \lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}(p_{L-1}-p_L)=0.\end{aligned}$$ which is in contradiction with (\[uk71\]). Thus, we must have $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}p_L=0$.
Proof of Lemma \[ul3\]: {#app1}
-----------------------
As $L\rightarrow\infty$, from Lemma \[ul2\], we have $p_L\rightarrow 0$. Applying it to Problem (\[uQ3\]), we have the KKT conditions as (\[ukkt6\]).\
1) $\mu>0$: From $s'_j=\frac{1}{\mu p_j}-\frac{\lambda}{\mu}$, we have $p_j=\frac{1}{\lambda+\mu s'_j}$, and we also have $p_0=\frac{1}{\lambda+\mu s'_0}$. Applying it to (\[ukkt6\]), the right hand side (RHS) of equation (\[ukkt6\]) becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
RHS&=e^{-v_j}\frac{c}{p^2_j}[\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_{j-1}}-\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_j}]\nonumber\\
&=e^{-v_j}\frac{c(s'_{j-1}-s'_j)}{p^2_j}\frac{\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})}{\lambda+\mu
s'_{j-1}}-\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}})}{\lambda+\mu
s'_j}}{s'_{j-1}-s'_j} \label{uk1}\end{aligned}$$ From the mean value theorem (MVT), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_{j-1}}-\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_j}}{s'_{j-1}-s'_j}
=\frac{-\mu}{(\lambda+\mu
s')^2}[\lambda(1-e^{-s'})+\mu(1-e^{-s'}(1+s'))] \label{uk2}\end{aligned}$$ where $s'\in [s'_{j-1}, s'_{j})$. As the number of feedback bits $B=\log_2 L\rightarrow \infty$, the length of quantization interval on $g_0$ axis $[s'_{j-1}, s'_{j}), j=1,\dots,L-1$ approaches zero [@icc]. Hence (\[uk2\]) becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_{j-1}}-\frac{\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}})}{\lambda+\mu s'_j}}{s'_{j-1}-s'_j}
\approx \frac{-\mu}{(\lambda+\mu
s'_j)^2}[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]
\label{uk3}\end{aligned}$$ Applying (\[uk3\]) to (\[uk1\]), we have $RHS \approx
e^{-v_j}c\mu(s'_{j}-s'_{j-1})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]$. Similarly, as $L\rightarrow \infty$, we also have the length of quantization interval on the $g_1$ axis $[v_{j}, v_{j+1}),
j=1,\dots,L-2$ approaches zero, thus from MVT, $e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}}\approx e^{-v_j}(v_{j+1}-v_j)$. Thus the left hand side (LHS) of equation (\[ukkt6\]) can be approximated as, $ LHS\approx
e^{-v_j}(v_{j+1}-v_j)[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))$. Hence, we have $\forall j=1,\dots,L-2,$ $v_{j+1}-v_j\approx c\mu (s'_{j}-s'_{j-1})$, from which we get $s'_{j+1}-s'_j\approx s'_{j}-s'_{j-1}, \forall j=1,\dots,L-2$, namely, $s'_{L-1}-s'_{L-2}\approx\dots\approx s'_{1}-s'_{0}$, since $v_j=c\lambda+c\mu s'_{j}$.
2\) $\mu=0$: In this case, we have $s'_j=\infty, j=1,\dots,L-1$. Thus (\[ukkt6\]) becomes $e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}}=e^{-v_j}\frac{c}{p^2_j}(p_{j-1}-p_j)$, where $j=1,\dots,L-1$ and $p_0=\frac{1}{\lambda}$, which can be rewritten as $\frac{1}{v_j} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})=\frac{1}{v_{j-1}}
e^{-v_j}(v_{j}-v_{j-1})$, where $v_0=\frac{c}{p_0}=c\lambda$. Applying MVT into as before, we have $\frac{1}{v_j} e^{-v_j}(v_{j+1}-v_j)\approx\frac{1}{v_{j-1}}
e^{-v_j}(v_{j}-v_{j-1}), \forall j=1,\dots,L-2$, which yields $\frac{v_{j+1}}{v_j}\approx\frac{v_{j}}{v_{j-1}}, \forall j=1,\dots,L-2$, namely, $\frac{v_{L-1}}{v_{L-2}}\approx\dots\approx\frac{v_{1}}{v_{0}}$.
This completes the proof for Lemma \[ul3\].
Proof of Lemma \[ul4\]: {#app2}
-----------------------
As $L\rightarrow\infty$, from Lemma \[ul2\], we have $p_L\rightarrow 0$. Adding the two equations of (\[ukkt3\]) together and applying $p_L\rightarrow
0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} p_j (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda (1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu (1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]=\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av} \label{uk21}\end{aligned}$$ The KKT conditions (\[ukkt6\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
p_j(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]
=p_{j-1}e^{-v_j}(v_j-v_{j-1})\frac{[\hat{f}'(p_{j-1})-\hat{f}'(p_j)]}{p_{j-1}-p_j}
\label{uk22}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{f}'(p_j)=p_j(\lambda+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j}}))$. As mentioned before, when $L\rightarrow \infty$, we have the length of quantization interval on the $g_1$ axis $[v_{j-1}, v_{j}),
j=2,\dots,L-1$ approaching zero. Hence we also have the length of the interval $[p_{j-1},
p_{j}), j=2,\dots,L-1$ approaching zero, since $v_j=\frac{c}{p_j}$. Thus from MVT, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-v_{j-1}}-e^{-v_j}&\approx e^{-v_j}(v_j-v_{j-1})\nonumber\\
\frac{\hat{f}'(p_{j-1})-\hat{f}'(p_j)}{p_{j-1}-p_j}&\approx\lambda(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}}(1+s'_{j-1}))
\label{uk23}\end{aligned}$$ Applying (\[uk23\]) into (\[uk22\]), we can obtain, $\forall j=2,\dots,L-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
&p_j(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]\approx\nonumber\\
&p_{j-1}(e^{-v_{j-1}}-e^{-v_j})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_{j-1}}(1+s'_{j-1}))]
\label{uk24}\end{aligned}$$ Then applying the result of (\[uk24\]) into (\[uk21\]), we can have $j=1,\dots,L-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
p_j(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]\approx \frac{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}{L-1} \label{uk25}\end{aligned}$$ which gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]\approx \frac{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}{L-1} \sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
\frac{1}{p_j}. \label{uk26}\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof for Lemma \[ul4\].
Proof of Theorem \[ut1\]: {#app3}
-------------------------
1\) $\mu>0$: From Lemma \[ul3\], we can easily obtain, $s'_{j} \approx js'_{1},\;
\frac{1}{p_j}=\lambda+\mu s'_{j}\approx \lambda+j\mu s'_{1}$, and ${v_j}=\frac{c}{p_j}\approx c\lambda+jc\mu s'_{1}, \forall j=1,\dots,L-1$, Let $z=\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[\lambda(1-e^{-s'_j})+\mu(1-e^{-s'_j}(1+s'_j))]$, which implies that $0<z<\lambda+\mu$. Then from Lemma \[ul4\], we have $\frac{1}{L-1} \sum^{L-1}_{j=1} \frac{1}{p_j}\approx z'$, where $z'=\frac{z}{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}$ and $0<z'<\frac{\lambda+\mu}{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}$. Using the above results, we get $s'_{1}\approx \frac{2(z'-\lambda)}{\mu L}=\frac{d}{L}$, where $d=\frac{2(z'-\lambda)}{\mu}$. Let $a=c\mu
d=2(z'-\lambda)c$, then $s'_{1} \approx \frac{a}{c\mu L}$. Since $0<z'<\frac{\lambda+\mu}{\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av}}$, we have $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\frac{a}{L}=0$. From the definition of $z$ above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
z&=(\lambda+\mu)e^{-v_1}-\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} (e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})[(\lambda+\mu) e^{-s'_j}+\mu e^{-s'_j}s'_j]\nonumber\\
&\approx
e^{-c\lambda}[(\lambda+\mu)e^{-\frac{a}{L}}-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})(\lambda+\mu)\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
e^{-j(\frac{a}{L}+s'_1)}-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\mu s'_1 \sum^{L-1}_{j=1} je^{-j(\frac{a}{L}+s'_1)}]\nonumber\\
&\approx
e^{-c\lambda}[(\lambda+\mu)e^{-\frac{a}{L}}-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})(\lambda+\mu)\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
e^{-j\frac{b}{L}}-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{a}{c L} \sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
je^{-j\frac{b}{L}}]
\label{uk33}\end{aligned}$$ where $b=a+Ls'_1=a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu})$ and we also have $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\frac{b}{L}=0$. Since $\sum^{L-1}_{j=1} e^{-j\frac{b}{L}} =\frac{1-e^{-b}}{1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}}}-1$, and $\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
je^{-j\frac{b}{L}} =-\frac{e^{(-\frac{b}{L}-b)}(Le^{\frac{b}{L}}-e^b-L+1)}{(1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}})^2}$, (\[uk33\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
z & \approx
e^{-c\lambda}[(\lambda+\mu)(1-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{1-e^{-b}}{1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}}})-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{a}{c
L}\frac{e^{-\frac{b}{L}}(1-e^{-b})-Le^{-b}(1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}})}{(1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}})^2}
] \label{uk34}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\frac{a}{L}=0$ and $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty}\frac{b}{L}=0$, we have $1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}}\approx \frac{a}{L}$ and $1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}}\approx \frac{b}{L}$. And when $L\rightarrow \infty$, we approach the full CSI scenario, thus implying $\lambda \approx \lambda^f,
\mu \approx \mu^f$. Using these results in (\[uk34\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
z&\approx
e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[(\lambda_f^*+\mu_f^*)(1-\frac{a}{b}(1-e^{-b}))-\frac{a^2}{cb^2
}((1-\frac{b}{L})(1-e^{-b})-be^{-b}) ]\nonumber\\
&\approx
e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[(\lambda_f^*+\mu_f^*)(1-\frac{a}{b}(1-e^{-b}))-\frac{a^2}{cb^2
}(1-e^{-b}(1+b))]
\label{uk36}\end{aligned}$$ Since $z=(\lambda P_{av}+\mu Q_{av})z'=(\lambda P_{av}+\mu
Q_{av})(\lambda+\frac{a}{2c})\approx(\lambda_f^* P_{av}+\mu_f^*
Q_{av})(\lambda_f^*+\frac{a}{2c})$, we can obtain $a$ from the following approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
&(\lambda_f^* P_{av}+\mu_f^* Q_{av})(\lambda_f^*+\frac{a}{2c})e^{c\lambda_f^*}\nonumber\\
&\approx [(\lambda_f^*+\mu_f^*)(1-\frac{c\mu_f^*}{1+c\mu_f^*}(1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}))-\frac{c (\mu_f^*)^2}{(1+c\mu_f^*)^2
}(1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}(1+a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})))]
\label{uk37}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[uk37\]), with given $P_{av}$ and $Q_{av}$, $a$ is a constant. Then when $L$ is large, $$\begin{aligned}
P^L_{out}&\approx
1-e^{-v_1}+\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}(e^{-v_j}-e^{-v_{j+1}})e^{-s'_j}
\approx
1-e^{-c\lambda}[e^{-\frac{a}{L}}-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}
e^{-j\frac{b}{L}}]\nonumber\\
&=
1-e^{-c\lambda}[1-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{1-e^{-b}}{1-e^{-\frac{b}{L}}}]
\approx
1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[1-(1-e^{-\frac{a}{L}})\frac{1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}}{1-e^{-\frac{a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}{L}}}]\end{aligned}$$ and $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty} P^L_{out}=
1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}[1-\frac{1-e^{-a(1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*})}}{1+\frac{1}{c\mu_f^*}}]$.\
2) $\mu=0$: Let $y=\frac{v_1}{v_0}=\frac{v_1}{c\lambda}>1$, then again, from Lemma \[ul3\], we can get for $j=1,\dots,L-1$, $v_{j} \approx c\lambda y^j$. From Lemma \[ul4\], we have $e^{-c\lambda y}\approx \frac{\lambda
P_{av}}{L-1}\sum^{L-1}_{j=1}y^j=\frac{\lambda
P_{av}}{L-1}\frac{y^L-y}{y-1}$. With $x=y-1$, we have, $e^{-c\lambda (1+x)}\approx {\lambda
P_{av}}(1+x)\frac{(1+x)^{L-1}-1}{x(L-1)}$. Now, suppose $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} xL=\infty$. Since $(1+x)^{L-1}> 1+(L-1)x+\frac{1}{2}(L-2)(L-1)x^2$, we have $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{(1+x)^{L-1}-1}{(L-1)x}>
\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} 1+\frac{1}{2}(L-2)x=\infty$. Then taking the limit as $L\rightarrow\infty$, we have $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} e^{-c\lambda (1+x)}=\infty$, which contradicts $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty} e^{-c\lambda
(1+x)}< 1$, thus we must have $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}
xL= 0 \leq \beta<\infty$ (where $\beta$ is a constant), implying as $L\rightarrow\infty$, $x \rightarrow
\frac{\beta}{L}$. Applying this result, we get $e^{-c\lambda (1+\frac{\beta}{L})}\approx {\lambda
P_{av}}(1+\frac{\beta}{L})\frac{(1+\frac{\beta}{L})^{L-1}-1}{\frac{\beta}{L}(L-1)}$. After taking the limit as $L\rightarrow\infty$ on both sides of above equation, we have $e^{-c\lambda_f^*}\approx {\lambda_f^* P_{av}}\frac{e^{\beta}-1}{\beta}$, from which one can solve for $\beta$ approximately. Note that in the above approximation, we have used $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}(1+\frac{\beta}{L})^{L-1}=e^{\beta}$ and when $L$ is large, $\lambda\approx\lambda_f^*$. Therefore, when $L$ is large, $P^L_{out} =1-e^{-v_1}= 1-e^{-c\lambda (1+x)}\approx 1-e^{-c\lambda_f^* (1+\frac{\beta}{L})}$, $\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty} P^L_{out}= 1-e^{-c\lambda_f^*}$.
This completes the proof for Theorem \[ut1\].
[1]{}
url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
J.M. Peha, “Sharing Spectrum Through Spectrum Policy Reform and Cognitive Radio,” *Proc. of the IEEE*, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 708-719, Apr. 2009.
J. Mitola III, “Cognitive radio for flexible mobile multimedia communications,” *IEEE Int. Workshop on Mobile Multimedia Commun. (MoMuC)* , San Diego, CA, USA, Nov. 1999, pp. 3-10. A. Goldsmith, S.A. Jafar, I. Maric, and S. Srinivasa, “Breaking spectrum gridlock with cognitive radios: an information theoretic perspective,” *Proceedings of the IEEE*, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 894-914, May 2009. X. Kang, Y. Liang, A. Nallanathan, H.K. Garg and R. Zhang, “Optimal power allocation for fading channels in cognitive radio networks: Ergodic capacity and outage capacity,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 940-950, Feb. 2009. A. Ghasemi and E. S. Sousa, “Fundamental limits of spectrum-sharing in fading environments,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 649-658, Feb. 2007. H. A. Suraweera, J. Gao, P. J. Smith, M. Shafi and M. Faulkner “Channel capacity limits of cognitive radio in asymmetric fading environments ,” *IEEE International Conference on Commun. (ICC 2008)* , Beijing, China, May 2008, pp. 4048 - 4053 . L. Musavian and S. Aissa, “Capacity and power allocation for spectrum-sharing communications in fading channels,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 148-156, Jan. 2009. L. Musavian and S. Aissa, “Fundamental capacity limits of cognitive radio in fading environments with imperfect channel information,” *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 3472-3480, Nov. 2009. H.A. Suraweera, P.J. Smith and M. Shafi, “Capacity Limits and Performance Analysis of Cognitive Radio With Imperfect Channel Knowledge," [*IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology*]{}, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1811-1822, February 2010. K. Huang and R. Zhang “Cooperative feedback for multi-antenna cognitive radio networks ,” [*IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*]{}, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 747-758, February 2011. L. Zhang, Y-C. Liang, Y. Xin and H.V. Poor, “Robust Cognitive Beamforming with Partial Channel State Information," [*IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications*]{}, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4143-4153, August 2009. A.G. Marques, X. Wang and G.B. Giannakis, “Dynamic Resource Management for Cognitive Radios Using Limited-Rate Feedback," [*IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*]{}, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 3651-3666, September 2009. Y. Y. He and S. Dey “Power allocation in spectrum sharing cognitive radio networks with quantized channel information,” *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1644-1656, June 2011, S. Huang, X. Liu and Z. Ding, “Decentralized Cognitive Radio Control Based on Inference from Primary Link Control Information," [*IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications*]{}, vol. 29, no. 2, Feb. 2011.
K. Eswaran, M. Gastpar and K. Ramachandran, “Cognitive Radio Through Primary Control Feedback," [*IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications*]{}, vol. 29, no. 2, Feb. 2011. R. Zhang, “On peak versus average interference power constraints for protecting primary users in cognitive radio networks,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2112-2120, April 2009. J. C. Spall, “Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization,” *IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems*, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 817–823, Jul. 1998.
A. Khoshnevis and A. Sabharwal, “Performance of quantized power control in multiple antenna systems,” in *Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communication(ICC’04)*, Paris, France, Jun. 2004, pp. 803–807.
B. Khoshnevis and Wei Yu,“Joint Power Control and Beamforming Codebook Design for MISO Channels with Limited Feedback,” *IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference(GLOBECOM 2009)*, Honolulu, HI, USA, Dec. 2009, pp. 1 - 6. P. A. Chou, T. Lookabaugh and R. M. Gray “Entropy-Constrained Vector Quantization,” in *IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING*, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 31–42, Jan. 1989. M. A. Khojastepour, G. Yue, X. Wang and M. Madihian, “Optimal power control in [MIMO]{} systems with quantized feedback,” *IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications*, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 4859–4866, Dec. 2008.
![System model for narrowband spectrum sharing scenario with limited rate feedback[]{data-label="s1"}](s2)
![The ’stepwise structure’ of optimum quantization regions for $\mu>0$ case[]{data-label="r1"}](r1)
![Outage probability performance comparison between ZPiORA, MEPPR and optimal QPA[]{data-label="f1"}](f1)
![Outage probability performance comparison between ZPiORA and other possible suboptimal algorithm : GLASFA[]{data-label="f5"}](f5)
![Effect of increasing feedback bits on outage performance of SU[]{data-label="f2"}](f2)
![Comparison between asymptotic outage performance and QPA performance with $Q_{av}=0 dB$ []{data-label="f3"}](f3)
![Asymptotic outage behaviour versus the number of quantization level $L$[]{data-label="f4"}](f4)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[[$\backslash$\#1]{}]{}
After several decades of research efforts, electronic structure of late transition metal oxides lacks comprehensive understanding. The existence of exotic electronic, magnetic and optical properties such as high T$_c$ superconductivity as exhibited by the cuprates or colossal magnetoresistance as in the manganites or highly nonlinear optical responses as observed in the nickelates are believed to be related to the strong electron-electron Coulomb correlations in these systems \[1-4\]. This suggests the importance of a thorough study of their correlated charge dynamics. Angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) which probes the occupied electronic states in a momentum-resolved manner has been successful in characterizing the electronic structure of these oxides \[4-6\] whereas electron-energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) is limited to low momentum transfers due to multiple scattering effects arising from its strong coupling nature \[7\] and being surface sensitive both ARPES and EELS require extensive ultra-high vacuum (UHV) sample preparation \[4,7\]. Any bulk study of the momentum-resolved electronic structure specially the unoccupied bands is absent for these correlated insulators.
In last several years, with the advent of high brightness synchrotron facilities, inelastic x-ray scattering has been developing as a tool to study the BULK electronic structure of condensed matter systems \[4-10\]. X-ray scattering from the valence charge distribution is fairly weak thus difficult to distinguish from the total scattering signal especially in high-Z materials making such experiments quite difficult to perform. Recent experimental and theoretical investigations have shown that by tuning the incident energy near an x-ray absorption edge a large enhancement can be achieved making the study of valence excitations feasible in high-Z systems \[5,7-10\].
The observation of a low-energy charge-transfer gap has been reported recently with nonzero-**q** in a parent cuprate using inelastic x-ray scattering \[13,16\] and has extensively been studied by optical spectroscopies (with q $\sim$ 0 momentum transfer) \[17\]. A similar excitation band is also seen in EELS at low momentum transfers ($<$ 1 Å$^{-1}$) \[7\]. In this paper, we report some novel applications of inelastic x-ray scattering and discuss the information it can provide about electronic excitations in solids.
Experiments were performed at the X-21-A3 wiggler beamline at the National Synchrotron Light Source of Brookhaven National Laboratory with an overall energy resolution of 0.4 eV determined by fitting the elastic scattering and typical inelastic count rates from the sample were 20 to 30 counts per minute at energy losses of several electron volts around 250 mA ring current. The scattered light was reflected from a germanium analyzer and focussed onto a solid-state detector. Energy analysis was done by rotating the analyzer and translating the detector accordingly at the focus of the analyzer. Incident energy was kept fixed near the Cu K-edge (E$_0$ = 8995.8 eV) determined from the flourescence profile. The experiment was performed in horizontal scattering geometry where **q** was varied in the plane defined by the incident polarization. Background was measured by keeping track of scattering intensities on the energy gain side (several eV on the energy gain spectrum) which was about 1-2 counts per minute. The Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$ crystals used for this experiment were grown and characterized by techniques described previously \[18\]. Due to its extreme hygroscopic nature the crystal used for the experiment was always kept, prepared and preoriented for the mount under dry N$_2$ and chemical desiccant environments and the experiment was perfomed in a vacuum system with transparent capton windows.
Fig. 1(A) shows inelastic x-ray scattering spectra near Cu K-edge from parent cuprate Ca$_2$CuO$_2$Cl$_2$ with varying momentum transfers along the $<$110$>$ direction (45 degrees to the Cu-O bond direction) and Fig. 1(B) shows spectra with momentum transfers along the $<$100$>$ direction (the Cu-O bond direction). Elastic scattering has been removed by fitting and all the spectra in each panel were normalized near 8 eV energy-loss so the intensities reported here are relative. Each spectrum exhibits two features - one broad excitation band around 5.8 eV and a weak feature around 2.45 to 3.9 eV for different **q**-values. The broad feature centered around 5.8 eV changes shape with change of **q** (also the associated changes in polarization) but does not show any significant dispersion (compared to its width) in either of the directions. Nondispersive behavior exhibited by the feature for a change of **q** over a large range (1.4$\pi$ to 3.1$\pi$) strongly suggests that it has a highly local character. Based on electronic structure calculations the 5.8-eV feature is believed to be a charge transfer excitation from an occupied state with b$_1$ $_g$ symmetry to an empty state with a$_1$ $_g$ symmetry \[13,19\]. The lower energy feature, on the other hand, has a significant movement in changing **q** from (1.9$\pi$,1.9$\pi$) to (1.1$\pi$, 1.1$\pi$) as seen in Fig. 1(A). The feature disperses upward about 1.4 eV monotonically in this direction. Where as if the momentum transfer is along the bond direction it does not show much dispersion in going from (2.1$\pi$,0) to (2.5$\pi$, 0). But in going from (2.5$\pi$, 0) to (3.1$\pi$, 0) it disperses upward by about 0.5 eV. Dispersion behavior in two directions are compared in fig- 2(A) where we plotted the center of gravity of the spectral weights of the low-energy feature. Overall dispersion along the bond direction is much weaker than dispersion along the diagonal direction in the Cu-O lattice.
Inelastic x-ray scattering measures the dynamical charge-charge correlation function (charge fluctuations) which can be interpreted as particle-hole pair excitations in the range of momentum-transfers comparable to the size of the equivalent Brillouin zones of the system \[13-15\]. Near an absorption edge the measured dynamical response function gets modified due to the presence of a core hole and an excited electron (hence sensitivity to polarization of the incident x-ray) but it can still be interpreted as composites of pair excitations \[13-15\]. In the scattering process, the core-hole created by the X-ray photon near the absorption edge causes electronic excitations in the valence band which creates a hole in the occupied band and promotes an electron to the unoccupied band across the charge gap in an insulator. A scenario for the origin of the lower energy feature observed in our experimental data can consist of charge excitations across the characteristic gap in the system - the charge-transfer gap (effective Mott gap) which is related to the gap seen in optical experiments ($\sim$ 2 eV) \[17\].
In an effective single-particle band picture, one such possibility \[15\] is shown in Fig.-2(B), it is an excitation from the occupied band to the unoccupied band. Particle-hole pairs created through the scattering process absorb the energy and momentum lost from the X-ray photons \[14,15\]. Scanning the feature in ($\omega$, **q**) space reveals the detailed dynamics of the particle-hole pair in the system. From a series of ARPES experiments we know that the occupied band has a maximum near **k** = ($\pi$/2,$\pi$/2) \[4-6\]. In a single-electron-like band picture, if we assume that the unoccupied band as a mirror image of the occupied band across the gap, in a simplistic view, we may expect a folding in dispersion of particle-hole pair excitations near **q** $\sim$ (1.5$\pi$, 1.5$\pi$). Instead, we observe in the data a clear monotonic increase of the excitation gap along (1.9$\pi$, 1.9$\pi$) to (1.1$\pi$, 1.1$\pi$) and flatness from (2.1$\pi$, 0) to (2.5$\pi$, 0) and then monotonic increase again in going from (2.5$\pi$, 0) to (3.1$\pi$, 0). This dispersive behavior is an indication that charge-transfer or effective Mott excitations can not be viewed as composite single-particle excitations but should rather be viewed as a single correlated two-body excitation as argued by Tsutsui et.al. \[15\].
We also note that in the case of a hole having a Zhang-Rice singlet wavefunction \[20\] forming a pair with an electron (at the upper Hubbard band) would have different propagation probabilities along the Cu-O bond and 45 degrees to the Cu-O bond due to the antiferromagnetic correlation of the lattice. This difference can be relatively significant because of the large exchange interactions (a consequence of large Hubbard-U) exhibited by the undoped cuprate insulator. Dispersions observed in the experiment reflect the nature of the dispersive Hubbard bands and we can estimate the relevant bandwidth involved in the excitation process. The single-hole bandwidth in this system is fairly narrow ($\sim$ 0.35 eV) as known from ARPES \[4-6\]. We speculate that the coherent dispersion of the particle-hole pair ($\sim$ 1.4 eV) gains most contribution from the electron bandwidth on the upper Hubbard band. These results are consistent with numerical studies of Hubbard hamiltonian with long-range hopping \[15\]. Flatness along the bond direction, as seen in the data, is probably due to the fact that the lowest-energy state of the upper Hubbard band is shifted from **k** = ($\pi$/2, $\pi$/2) \[15,16\]. We postpone the extraction of quantitative details for the higher resolution experiments in near future.
These results demonstrate the feasibility of inelastic x-ray scattering to study electronic excitations at the gap edge of the Mott insulators and its potential in gaining important information about correlated electron systems. Momentum-resolved nature of the upper Hubbard band of charge-transfer or Mott insulators (parent high T$_c$ and CMR compounds) has so far been unknown but such information is crucial in understanding the fascinating Mott phenomena in a variety of other condensed matter systems. The anisotropy and direct/indirect nature of Mott gap can be studied in other insulating systems such as manganites in connection to CMR physics or Kondo insulators in connection to their non-Fermi liquid behavior. There have been many speculations about the possibility of highly **q**-dependent charge fluctuations such as the dynamical charge stripes in high T$_c$ cuprates \[21,22\]. Very high resolution inelastic x-ray scattering could possibly be used to study dynamic stripes because of the direct coupling of x-rays to the electronic charges (unlike neutrons which has so far been used to probe dynamical correlations either of the lattice or the spin directly). Similarly, the fluctuations of the orbitally ordered phases (orbital waves/orbitons) in orbitally degenerate systems such as manganese oxides can be studied using polrization dependent inelastic x-ray scattering near an atomic-core resonance\[23\]. Particle-hole excitations, in general, are fundamental to the transport phenomena so it is of importance to use two-particle spectroscopies in a momentum-resolved mode so that an understanding of the nonlocal and anisotropic interaction potentials can be developed which determine various groundstates of a correlated system. With the availability of high brightness synchrotron facilities a new frontier of understanding correlated systems would emerge through utilizing this class of scattering techniques.
We gratefully acknowledge P. Abbamonte, K. Tsutsui and C. Kao for useful suggestions. This work performed at the National Synchrotron Light Source of Brookhaven National Laboratory was jointly supported by the Department of Energy (BES/MSD) through Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab of Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California and Bell-Laboratories of Lucent Technologies, New Jersey.
N. F. Mott Proc.Phys.Soc.London A **62**, 416 (1949). J. Hubbard Proc.Phys.Soc.London A **277**, 237 (1964). J. Zaanen [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **55**, 418 (1985). Z. X. Shen [*et. al.*]{} Science **267**, 343 (1995). B. O. Wells [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 964 (1995). F. Ronning [*et. al.*]{}, Science **282**, 2067, (1998). Y. Y. Wang [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 1809 (1997). C. C. Kao [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 16 361 (1996) F. Sette [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 83 (1996). E. D. Isaacs [*et. al.*]{}, Rev. Lett. **76**, 4211 (1996). M. H. Krisch [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 2843 (1997). J. P. Hill [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 4967 (1998). P. Abbamonte [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 860 (1999). P. M. Platzman [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **57**, 11 107 (1998). K. Tsutsui [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 3705 (1999). M. Z. Hasan [*et. al.*]{}, Science **288**, 1811 (2000) S. L. Cooper [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 8233 (1993) L. L. Miller [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **41**, 1921 (1990). M. E. Simon [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **54**, R3780 (1996). F. C. Zhang [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B **37**, 3759 (1988). J. M. Tranquada [*et. al.*]{}, Nature **375**, 561 (1995). S. A. Kivelson [*et. al.*]{}, Nature **393**, 550 (1998). H. Kondo [*et. al.*]{}, cond-mat/0012353 (2000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we prove new identities for Bernoulli polynomials that extend Alzer and Kwong’s results. The key idea is to use the Volkenborn integral over $\mathbb Z_p$ of the Bernoulli polynomials to establish recurrence relations on the integrands. Also, some known identities are obtained by our approach.'
address:
- 'Division of Mathematics, Science, and Computers, Kyungnam University, 7(Woryeong-dong) kyungnamdaehak-ro, Masanhappo-gu, Changwon-si, Gyeongsangnam-do 51767, Republic of Korea'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Institute of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Jeonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do, 54896, Republic of Korea.'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Institute of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Jeonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeollabuk-do, 54896, Republic of Korea.'
author:
- 'Min-Soo Kim'
- Daeyeoul Kim
- Ji Suk So
bibliography:
- 'central.bib'
title: 'On Alzer-Kwong’s Identities for Bernoulli polynomials'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Bernoulli polynomials play fundamental roles in various branches of mathematics including combinatorics, number theory, special functions and analysis, see for example [@CS; @Ko; @Sc; @Su]. Let $\mathbb N=\{1,2,\ldots\}$ and $\mathbb N_0=\mathbb N\cup\{0\}.$ The Bernoulli polynomials $B_n(x)$ are usually defined by the generating function $$\label{Eu-pol}
\frac{te^{xt}}{e^t-1}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n(x)\frac{t^n}{n!} \quad \left( |t|< 2\pi\right).$$ And the Bernoulli numbers $B_n$ can be defined by $B_n=B_n(0).$ It is well-known that $B_n=0$ for any odd $n>1.$ These numbers appeared for the first time in Jakob Bernoulli’s book *Ars Conjectandi*, which was published posthumously in 1713. The polynomials $B_n(x)$ obey the relation $B_n(x)=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom njx^{n-j}B_j.$ Lehmer [@Lehm] showed that the Bernoulli polynomials satisfy the relations $B_n(1)=(-1)^nB_n(0)$ and $B_n(1-x)=(-1)^nB_n(x).$ It is well known that the Bernoulli polynomials have the binomial expansion $B_n(x+y)=\sum_{j=0}^n\binom njB_j(x)y^{n-j}.$
Alzer and Kwong’s [@AK] paper was inspired by interesting research note published by Kaneko [@Ka] in 1995. The aim of this paper is to prove the following new identities for Bernoulli polynomials that extend Alzer and Kwong’s results (see [@AK]). In Section \[proofs\], we prove the following result.
\[thm-new\]
1. For $m\in\mathbb N$ and $\nu \in \mathbb N_0$ with $0\leq \nu\leq m,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu}B_k(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}\binom{j+m}{\nu}\binom{j+m-\nu}{m-\nu}(j+m+1)x^{j}.
\end{aligned}$$
2. For $m\in\mathbb N$ with $0\leq \nu\leq m-1,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu-1}B_{k+1}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^{m}(-1)^{j+m}\binom m{j}\binom{j+m-1}{\nu}\binom{j+m-\nu-1}{m-\nu-1}(j+m)x^{j}.
\end{aligned}$$
3. For $m\in\mathbb N$ with $0\leq \nu\leq m-1$ and $0\leq\ell\leq m-\nu-1,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell}B_{k+m-\nu-\ell}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^{m}(-1)^{j+m}\binom m{j}\binom{j+m-1}{\nu}\binom{j+m-\nu-1}{\ell}\\
&\quad \times (j+m)x^{j+m-\nu-\ell-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
4. For $m\in\mathbb N$ with $0\leq \nu\leq m,$ and $0\leq \ell\leq m-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=\ell\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell+m-\nu}B_{k-\ell}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=\ell}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}\binom{j+m}{\nu}(j+m+1)x^{j-\ell}.
\end{aligned}$$
Setting $\nu=0$ in (3) and (4) of Theorem \[thm-new\], we can derive the following corollaries:
1. For $m\in\mathbb N$ and $0\leq\ell\leq m-\nu-1,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\ell}B_{k+m-\ell}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^{m}(-1)^{j+m}\binom m{j}\binom{j+m-1}{\ell}(j+m)x^{j+m-\ell-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
2. For $m\in\mathbb N$ and $0\leq \ell\leq m-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=\ell\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk \binom{k+m}{\ell+m}B_{k-\ell}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=\ell}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}(j+m+1)x^{j-\ell}.
\end{aligned}$$
Setting $\ell=0$ in (3) of Theorem \[thm-new\], we can derive the following identity of Alzer and Kwong [@AK Theorem 1]:
\[thm\] Let $m\in\mathbb N$ with $0\leq \nu\leq m.$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk&\binom{k+m}{\nu}B_{k+m-\nu}(x) \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^m(-1)^{j+m}\binom mj\binom{j+m-1}{\nu}(j+m)x^{j+m-\nu-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
By setting $x=0$ in (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Theorem \[thm-new\], since $0^j=1$ if $j=0$ and $0^j=0$ if $j\in\mathbb N,$ we take the following identities of of Alzer and Kwong [@AK Theorem 2]:
\[thm-1\]
1. For $0\leq \nu\leq m,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu}B_k=(-1)^{m+1}\frac{m(m+1)}{2}\binom{m}{\nu}.
\end{aligned}$$
2. For $0\leq \nu\leq m-1,$ we have $$\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-1-\nu}B_{k+1}=(-1)^m\frac m2\binom{m-1}\nu.$$
3. For $0\leq \ell\leq m-\nu-2,$ we have $$\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell}B_{k+m-\nu-\ell}
=0.$$
4. For $0\leq \ell\leq m-1$ and $0\leq \nu\leq m,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}\sum_{\substack{k=\ell\\ \ell+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk&\binom{k+m}{\nu}\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell+m-\nu}B_{k-\ell} \\
&=(-1)^{\ell+m+1}\frac{\ell+m+1}{2}\binom m{\ell+1}\binom{\ell+m}{\nu}.\end{aligned}$$
The following identity is due to Wu, Sun and Pan [@WSP Theorem 2, (6)].
\[thm2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{m} \binom mk B_{n+k}(x) = (-1)^{n+m} \sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom nk B_{m+k}(-x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ and $n$ are positive integers.
\[thm3\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{m+q} &\binom{m+q}{j}(n+q+j)B_{n+q+j-1}(x) \\
&\quad = -(-1)^{m+n} \sum_{k=0}^{n+q}\binom{n+q}{k}(m+q+k)B_{m+q+k-1}(-x),
\end{aligned}$$ where $q,m$ and $n$ are nonnegative integers and $m+n>0.$
Substituting $q=1$ and $x=0$ into Theorem \[thm3\], we can derive the extension of Kaneko’s [@Ka] given by Momiyama [@Mom]. It was proved by using a $p$-adic integral over $\mathbb Z_p.$ The Kaneko identity is stated a folllows $$\sum_{j=0}^{n+1}\binom{n+1}j \tilde{B}_{n+j}=0,$$ where $\tilde{B}_{n}=(n+1)B_n.$
\[thm4\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{m} &\binom{m}{j}\binom{n+j}{\nu}B_{n+j-\nu}(x) \\
&\quad = \sum_{k=0}^{n}(-1)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}\binom{m+k}{\nu}B_{m+k-\nu}(x+1),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu,m$ and $n$ are nonnegative integers and $m+n>0.$
Sun [@Su Theorem 1.2, (1.15)] derived the next identity on Bernoulli polynomials (see also [@CS Theorem 5.1]). This identity can be verified by our approach.
\[thm5\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^m\sum_{j=0}^m\binom mj x^{m-j}B_{n+j}(y)=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk x^{n-k}B_{m+k}(z),
\end{aligned}$$ where $x+y+z=1.$
Proofs of Theorem \[thm-new\], \[thm2\] and \[thm3\] {#proofs}
====================================================
Throughout this section $\Z,\Q$ and $\C$ will, respectively, denote the ring of $p$-adic integers, the field of $p$-adic rational numbers and the completion of algebraic closure of $\Q.$
For the fundamental properties of $p$-adic integrals and $p$-adic distributions, which are given briefly below, we may refer the references [@Ko; @Ro; @Sc] and the references cited therein.
The Volkenborn integral of a function $f:\mathbb Z_p\to\C$ is defined by $$\label{-q-e}
\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(t)dt=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac1{p^N}\sum_{j=0}^{p^N-1}f(j)$$ and that this limits exists if $f$ is uniformly (or strictly) differentiable on $\Z.$ A function $f:X\to\C$ is uniformly differentiable on $X\subset\C$ (assumed not to have isolated points), denoted by $f\in UD(\mathbb Z_p),$ if at all points $a\in X$ $$\label{st-dif}
\lim_{(x,y)\to(a,a)}\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y}$$ exists, the limit being restricted to $x,y\in X,x\neq y$ (see [@Ro p. 218]).
Let $S\subset\C$ be an arbitrary subset closed under $x\to x+t$ for $t\in\Z$ and $x\in S.$ That is, $S$ could be $\C\backslash\Z,\Q\backslash\Z$ or $\Z.$ Suppose $f:S\to\mathbb C_p$ is strictly differentiable on $S,$ so that for fixed $x\in S$ the function $t\to f(x+t)$ is uniformly differentiable on $\Z.$
For $f\in UD(\mathbb Z_p),$ the Volkenborn integral $$\label{fer-sim}
F(x)=\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(x+t)dt, \quad(x\in S)$$ is given then satisfied the equation $$\label{fer-sim}
F(x+1)-F(x)=f'(x)$$ (see, e.g., [@Ro p. 265] and [@Sc Proposition 55.5(ii)]). From (\[fer-sim\]), we can be written as $$\label{fer-sim-2}
F(x+q)-F(x+q-1)=f'(x+q-1),$$ where $x\in S$ and $q\in \mathbb N.$ It is easily checked that $$\label{fer-sim-3}
F(x+n)-F(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}f'(x+i)$$ with $x\in S$ and $n\in \mathbb N.$
In order to prove Theorem \[thm-new\], \[thm2\] and \[thm3\], we need the following lemmas. It should be noted that the following lemma was obtained by Schikhof in [@Sc Proposition 55.7].
\[lem1\] Let $f\in UD(\mathbb Z_p).$ Then we have the functional equation $$\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(-t)dt=\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(t+1)dt=\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(t)dt+f'(0).$$ In particular, if $f$ is an odd function, then $$\int_{\mathbb Z_p}f(t)dt=-\frac12f'(0).$$
It is worth nothing that the Witt’s formula for $B_n(x)$ is indeed efficient in deriving recurrence relations for the ordinary Bernoulli polynomials in an elementary way.
\[lem2\] For any $n\in\mathbb N_0,$ we have $$\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^ndt=B_n(x).$$
It is known that the Witt’s formula for $B_n(x)$ is a power tool in the study of the Bernoulli numbers, Bernoulli polynomials and its generalization, $p$-adic analytic number theory, etc. (see [@Ko; @Ro]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm-new\]
----------------------------
Note that $$\left( \frac{d}{dt}\right)^{\nu} t^m
=\begin{cases}
\nu!\binom{m}{\nu}t^{m-\nu} &\text{if } m\geq\nu, \\
0 &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ For $x\in S,$ we define $$R(t;x) :=(x+t)^m(x+t-1)^m$$ on $\mathbb Z_p.$ Thus, by the binomial expansion, we find $$R(t;x)=\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^{k+m}\binom mk(x+t)^{k+m}$$and $$R(t+1;x)=\sum_{k=0}^m\binom mk(x+t)^{k+m}.$$ Let $D_t$ be a differentiation operator. Then we set $$R^{(\nu)}(t;x)= D_{t}^{\nu} R(t;x)= \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)^{\nu}R(t;x).$$ It is clear from the definition that $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)&-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\\
&=\nu!\sum_{k=0}^m\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu(x+t)^{k+m-\nu}\left[1-(-1)^{k+m} \right].
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left[1-(-1)^{k+m} \right]=0$ if $k$ and $m$ have same parity, we have $$\label{3-1}
\begin{aligned}
R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)&-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\\
&=\begin{cases}
2\nu!\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu(x+t)^{k+m-\nu} &\text{if $k+m$ odd}, \\
0 &\text{if $k+m$ even}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, from $$\label{binom}
\binom{j+m}\nu (j+m-\nu)=\binom{j+m-1}\nu(j+m),$$ we have $$\label{3-2}
\begin{aligned}
R^{(\nu+1)}(0;x)&=R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)\biggl|_{t=0} \\
&=\nu!\sum_{j=0}^m(-1)^{j+m}\binom mj\binom{j+m}\nu (j+m-\nu) (x+t)^{j+m-\nu-1} \biggl|_{t=0}\\
&=\nu!\sum_{j=0}^m(-1)^{j+m}\binom mj\binom{j+m-1}\nu(j+m) x^{j+m-\nu-1}.
\end{aligned}$$
\(1) Let $k+m$ be an odd integer. Applying $D_{t}^{m-\nu}$ to both side of equation (\[3-1\]), we see that $$\label{3-1-1}
\begin{aligned}
&D_{t}^{m-\nu}\biggl[R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\biggl] \\
&\quad=2\nu!(m-\nu)!\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu}(x+t)^{k}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, recalling (\[3-2\]), we get $$\label{3-1-2}
\begin{aligned}
R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)&=\nu!\sum_{j=1}^{m}(-1)^{j+m}\binom m{j}\binom{j+m}\nu(j+m-\nu)(x+t)^{j+m-\nu-1}\\
&\quad+(-1)^m\nu!\binom m\nu(m-\nu)(x+t)^{m-\nu-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $m-\nu>m-\nu-1,$ the second term of right-hand side of (\[3-1-2\]) gives the identity $$D_{t}^{m-\nu}\left( (-1)^m\nu!\binom m\nu(m-\nu)(x+t)^{m-\nu-1}\right) =0.$$ Thus, from (\[3-1-2\]), we have $$\label{3-1-2-1}
\begin{aligned}
D_{t}^{m-\nu}\left[R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)\right]&=\nu!(m-\nu)!\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}\binom{j+m+1}\nu \\
&\quad\times\binom{j+m-\nu}{m-\nu}(j+m-\nu+1)(x+t)^{j}.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\label{3-1-2-2}
\begin{aligned}
D_{t}^{m-\nu}\left[R^{(\nu+1)}(0;x)\right]&=\nu!(m-\nu)!\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}\binom{j+m+1}\nu \\
&\quad \times\binom{j+m-\nu}{m-\nu}(j+m-\nu+1)x^{j}.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\label{3-1-3}
\int_{\mathbb Z_p}D_{t}^{m-\nu}\left[R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\right]dt=D_{t}^{m-\nu}\left[R^{(\nu+1)}(0;x)\right]$$ by using Lemma \[lem1\]. On expanding (\[3-1-3\]) by (\[3-1-1\]) and (\[3-1-2-2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}&\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu}
\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{k} dt \\
&=\frac12\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}(-1)^{j+m+1}\binom m{j+1}\binom{j+m}\nu\binom{j+m-\nu}{m-\nu}(j+m+1)x^{j},
\end{aligned}$$ since $$\binom{j+m+1}\nu(j+m-\nu+1)=\binom{j+m}\nu(j+m+1).$$ Therefore, Part (1) follows from Lemma \[lem2\].
\(2) From and , we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-2-1}
D_{t}^{m-v-1}& \left(R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\right) \\
&= 2\nu!(m-v-1)! \sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu-1}(x+t)^{k+1} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-2-2}
D_{t}^{m-v-1}\left( R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)\right)&= \nu!(m-\nu -1)! \sum_{j=0}^{m} (-1)^{j+m} \binom{m}{j} \binom{j+m-1}{\nu}\\
&\quad \times\binom{j+m-\nu-1}{m-\nu-1} (j+m) (x+t)^j. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining Lemma \[lem1\] with and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1} &\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{m-\nu-1}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{k+1} dt \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{m} (-1)^{j+m} \binom{m}{j} \binom{j+m}{\nu} \binom{j+m-1}{\nu}(j+m) x^j.\end{aligned}$$ So we have Part (2) by Lemma \[lem2\].
\(3) From and , we known that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-3-1}
D_{t}^{\ell} (R^{(\nu)}&(t+1;x)-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)) \\
&= 2\nu ! \ell! \sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell}(x+t)^{k+m-\nu -\ell} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \label{3-3-2}
D_{t}^{\ell}\left( R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)\right)&= \nu! \ell! \sum_{j=0}^{m} (-1)^{j+m} \binom{m}{j} \binom{j+m}{\nu}\binom{j+m-\nu-1}{\ell} \\
&\quad \times(j+m-\nu) (x+t)^{j+m-\nu-\ell-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining Lemma \[lem1\] with , and using , we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1} \binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{k+m-\nu-\ell} dt \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=0}^{m} (-1)^{j+m} \binom{m}{j}\binom{j+m-1}{\nu}(j+m) \binom{j+m-\nu-1}{\ell} x^{j+m-\nu-\ell-1},\end{aligned}$$ which implies Part (3) by using Lemma \[lem2\].
\(4) By and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-4-1}
&D_{t}^{\ell+m-\nu} \left(R^{(\nu)}(t+1;x)-R^{(\nu)}(t;x)\right) \\
&\quad = 2\nu ! (\ell+m-\nu)! \sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1}\binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell+m-\nu}(x+t)^{k-\ell} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-4-2}
D_{t}^{\ell+m-\nu}\left( R^{(\nu+1)}(t;x)\right)&= \nu !(\ell+m-\nu)! \sum_{j=\ell}^{m-1} (-1)^{j+m+1} \binom{m}{j+1} \binom{j+m+1}{\nu} \\
&\quad \times(m+j-\nu+1) (x+t)^{j-\ell}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining Lemma \[lem1\] with and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\substack{k=0\\ k+m~\text{odd}}}^{m-1} \binom mk\binom{k+m}\nu\binom{k+m-\nu}{\ell+m-\nu}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{k-\ell} dt \\
&\quad= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=\ell}^{m-1} (-1)^{j+m+1} \binom{m}{j+1}\binom{j+m}{\nu}(j+m+1) x^{j-\ell},\end{aligned}$$ the right hand side following from $$\binom{j+m+1}{\nu} (m+j-\nu+1) = \binom{j+m}{\nu}(j+m+1).$$ Hence, Part (4) is obtained by Lemma \[lem2\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm2\]
-------------------------
Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers. For $x\in S,$ we define $$G(t;x):=(-1)^m(x+t)^m(x+t-1)^n$$ on $\mathbb Z_p.$ By the binomial expansion, the formula $G(-t;x)$ and $G(t+1;x)$ can be rewritten as $$G(-t;x)= (-1)^{n}\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk (-x+t)^{m+k}$$and $$G(t+1;x)=(-1)^{m}\sum_{k=0}^m\binom mk(x+t)^{n+k}.$$ Applying Lemma \[lem1\] to the above two equations, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^m\sum_{k=0}^{m} \binom mk \int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{n+k} dt=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom mk \int_{\mathbb Z_p}(-x+t)^{m+k} dt.\end{aligned}$$ The proof now follows directly from Lemma \[lem2\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm3\]
-------------------------
Let $m,n$ and $q$ be nonnegative integers with $m+n>0.$ For $x\in S,$ we define $$H(t;x) :=(x+t)^{m+q}(x+t-1)^{n+q}+(-1)^{m+n}(-x+t)^{n+q}(-x+t-1)^{m+q}$$ on $\mathbb Z_p.$ By the binomial expansion, the formula $H(-t;x)$ and $H(t+1;x)$ can be rewritten as $$H(-t;x)= (-1)^{m+n}(-x+t)^{m+q}(-x+t+1)^{n+q}+(x+t)^{n+q}(x+t+1)^{m+q}$$and $$H(t+1;x)=(x+t+1)^{m+q}(x+t)^{n+q}+(-1)^{m+n}(-x+t+1)^{n+q}(-x+t)^{m+q}.$$
Since $H(-t;x)=H(t+1;x)$, we have $$-H'(-t;x) = H'(t+1;x),$$ where $H'=\frac{\partial H}{\partial t}.$ Hence, by Lemma \[lem1\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-\int_{\mathbb Z_p} H'(t+1;x) dt = \int_{\mathbb Z_p} H'(-t;x) dt = \int_{\mathbb Z_p} H'(t+1;x) dt.\end{aligned}$$ By the above equation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H'}
\int_{\mathbb Z_p} H'(t+1;x) dt = 0.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\label{H'-1}
\begin{aligned}
H'(t+1;x) = &\sum_{j=0}^{m+q} \binom{m+q}{j}(n+q+j)(x+t)^{n+q+j-1} \\
&\quad +(-1)^{m+n} \sum_{k=0}^{n+q}\binom{n+q}{k}(m+q+k)(-x+t)^{m+q+k-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ From equation and , we get $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\int_{\mathbb Z_p} H'(t+1;x) dt \\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{m+q} \binom{m+q}{j}(n+q+j)\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{n+q+j-1}dt \\
&\quad +(-1)^{m+n} \sum_{k=0}^{n+q}\binom{n+q}{k}(m+q+k)\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(-x+t)^{m+q+k-1} dt.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the result follows from Lemma \[lem2\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm4\]
-------------------------
We begin by proving some binomial coefficient identities. We start with the identity $$\begin{aligned}
0&=(x+t)^n(x+t+1)^m-(x+t+1)^m(x+t+1-1)^n \\
&=\sum_{j=0}^m\binom mj(x+t)^{n+j}-\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk(-1)^{n-k}(x+t+1)^{m+k},
\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\label{thm4-p1}
\sum_{j=0}^m\binom mj(x+t)^{n+j}=\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk(-1)^{n-k}(x+t+1)^{m+k}.$$ Differentiating both sides of the identity (\[thm4-p1\]) with respect to $t,$ $\nu$ times, leads to following relation $$\label{thm4-p2}
\sum_{j=0}^m\binom mj\binom{n+j}{\nu}(x+t)^{n+j-\nu}=\sum_{k=0}^n(-1)^{n-k}\binom nk\binom{m+k}{\nu}(x+t+1)^{m+k-\nu}.$$ Applying Lemma \[lem1\] to (\[thm4-p2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^m\binom mj&\binom{n+j}{\nu}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t)^{n+j-\nu}dt \\
&=\sum_{k=0}^n(-1)^{n-k}\binom nk\binom{m+k}{\nu}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(x+t+1)^{m+k-\nu}dt.
\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lem2\], this gives the formula of our theorem.
Proof of Theorem \[thm5\]
-------------------------
Let $x+y+z=1.$ For $x\in S,$ we define $$L(t;x) :=(-1)^m(y-1+t)^n(y+x-1+t)^m$$ on $\mathbb Z_p.$ By the binomial expansion, we have $$\label{thm5-p1}
L(t+1;x)=(-1)^m\sum_{j=0}^m \binom mj x^{m-j}(t+y)^{n+j},$$ and since $x+y+z=1,$ $$\label{thm5-p2}
\begin{aligned}
L(-t;x)&=(-1)^n(t+x+z)^n(t+z)^m \\
&=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^n \binom nk x^{n-k}(t+z)^{m+k}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[lem1\] to (\[thm5-p1\]) and (\[thm5-p2\]), we have $$\label{thm5-p3}
\begin{aligned}
(-1)^m\sum_{j=0}^m \binom mj& x^{m-j}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(y+t)^{n+j}dt \\
&=(-1)^n\sum_{k=0}^n \binom nk x^{n-k}\int_{\mathbb Z_p}(z+t)^{m+k}dt.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the result follows from Lemma \[lem2\].
[00]{}
H. Alzer and M.K. Kwong, *Identities for Bernoulli polynomials and Bernoulli numbers*, Arch. Math. (Basel) **102** (2014), no. 6, 521–529.
W.Y.C. Chen and L.H. Sun, *Extended Zeilberger’s algorithm for identities on Bernoulli and Euler polynomials*, J. Number Theory **129** (2009), 2111–2132.
M. Kaneko, *A recurrence formula for the Bernoulli numbers*, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A. Math. Sci. **71** (1995), 192–193.
N. Koblitz, *$p$-adic Numbers, $p$-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions*, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984.
D.H. Lehmer, *A new approach to Bernoulli polynomials*, Amer. Math. Monthly **95** (1988) 905–911.
H. Momiyama, *A new recurrence formula for Bernoulli numbers*, Fibonacci Quart. **39** (2001), no. 3, 285–288.
A.M. Robert, *A course in $p$-adic analysis*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 198, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.
W.H. Schikhof, *Ultrametric calculus. An introduction to $p$-adic analysis*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, **4**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
Z.-W. Sun, *Combinatorial identities in dual sequences*, European J. Combin. **24** (2003), no. 6, 709–718.
K.-J. Wu, Z.-W. Sun and H. Pan, *Some identities for Bernoulli and Euler polynomials*, Fibonacci Quart. **42** (2004) 295–299.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Francesco Aldà\
Horst Görtz Institute for IT Security\
and Faculty of Mathematics\
Ruhr-Universität Bochum\
Germany\
`[email protected]`\
Benjamin I.P. Rubinstein\
Dept. Computing and Information Systems\
The University of Melbourne\
Australia\
`[email protected]`\
title: |
The Bernstein Mechanism:\
Function Release under Differential Privacy\
---
\[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a simple proof of Voisin’s Theorem for general canonical curves. This completely determines the terms of the minimal free resolution of the coordinate ring of such curves. In the case of curves of even genus, we further enhance Voisin’s Theorem by providing a structure theorem for the last syzygy space.'
address: 'University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Mathematics, 480 Lincoln Dr `` WI 53706, USA'
author:
- Michael Kemeny
title: '[A Simple Proof of Voisin’s Theorem for Canonical Curves]{}'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we give a simple proof of a theorem of Voisin [@V1], [@V2] on the equations of general canonical curves. Using the techniques from our proof, we further give a substantial generalization of her result for curves of even genus. Recall that the classical Theorem of Noether–Babbage–Petri states that canonical curves are projectively normal, and that the ideal $I_{C/\PP^{g-1}}$ is generated by quadrics (with a few, well-understood, exceptions), see [@arbarello-sernesi-petri] for a modern treatment. In the 1980s, M. Green realized that these classical results about the equations defining canonical curves should be the first case of a much more general statement about higher syzygies, and he made a very influential conjecture [@green-koszul] in this direction.
Whilst the general case of Green’s Conjecture remains open, in 2002 Voisin made a breakthrough by proving the conjecture for *general* curves of even genus [@V1]. Voisin’s argument relies on an intricate study of the geometry of Hilbert schemes on a K3 surface. Recently, an algebraic approach to Voisin’s Theorem has been given, [@AFPRW]. In this proof, the authors degenerate the K3 surface to the tangent developable, a singular surface whose hyperplane sections are cuspidal curves. The authors then apply the representation theory of an $SL_2$ action present in this special situation to establish Green’s conjecture for rational cuspidal curves. Explicit plethysm formulae play the key role, involving a change of basis between elementary symmetric polynomials and Schur polynomials. Maps which are simple to describe in one basis become rather complicated in the other, making the proof quite technical, see [@AFPRW §5.5–5.7].
In this paper, we first give a simple proof of Voisin’s Theorem, using only basic homological algebra and without the need to degenerate. We further provide a structure theorem in the even genus case, describing in detail the extremal syzygy space. Our proof proceeds by direct computation on K3 surfaces. Let $X$ be a K3 surface over ${\mathbb{C}}$ with Picard group generated by an ample line bundle $L$ of even genus $g=2k$, i.e. $(L)^2=2g-2$. Define $\mathrm{K}_{p,q}(X,L)$ as the middle cohomology of Voisin’s Theorem states that $\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L)=0$, [@V1]. This single vanishing suffices to prove Green’s Conjecture for general canonical curves in even genus.
Our proof is short and direct. Let $E$ be the rank two *Lazarsfeld–Mukai bundle* associated to a $g^1_{k+1}$ on a smooth curve $C \in |L|$, see [@lazarsfeld-BNP]. The dual bundle $E^{\vee}$ fits into the exact sequence $$0 \to E^{\vee} \to \mathrm{H}^0(C,A) \otimes \mathcal{O}_X \to i_*A \to 0,$$ for $A$ a $g^1_{k+1}$ on $C$, where $i: C \hookrightarrow X$ is the inclusion. The vector bundle $E$ has invariants $\det(E)=L$, $h^0(E)=k+2$, $h^1(E)=h^2(E)=0$.
We deduce Voisin’s Theorem from the Künneth formula on $X \times \PP(\mathrm{H}^0(E))$. Our proof quickly reduces to showing that a certain square matrix is nonsingular. Since our matrix takes the form $\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G}) \to \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G})$, for some bundle $\mathcal{G}$, the desired nonsingularity is *automatic*, see the proof of Proposition \[auto-injectivity\].
A few years after her breakthrough for even genus curves, Voisin deduced the odd genus case of generic Green’s conjecture out of the even genus case. In Section \[odd-genus\], we use our methods to give a short and streamlined version of Voisin’s argument:
Let $C$ be a general curve of genus $g=2k$ or $g=2k+1$. Then $\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(C,\omega_C)=0$.
In fact, our approach proves much more than Voisin’s theorem. In Section \[sec2\], we prove the following structure theorem for the last nonzero syzygy space for K3 surfaces of even genus.
\[geo-thm-intro\] We have a natural isomorphism $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L) \simeq \mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)$.
Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\] implies the vanishing $\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L)=0$ by standard dimension computations, [@farkas-progress §4.1], and thus is an enhancement of Voisin’s vanishing theorem. One should compare Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\] to Schreyer’s Conjecture, as proven in [@lin-syz], describing the structure of the last syzygy space for curves of *non-maximal* gonality. Also note that it is possible to describe the map $\mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \to \mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L)$ explicitly, cf. [@aprodu-nagel §3.4].
The structural result given by Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\] implies a previously open conjecture known as the *Geometric Syzygy Conjecture* in even genus, see [@bothmer-Transactions] where the statement is proven for $g \leq 8$. Recall the following important result:
\[green-quads\] The ideal $I_{C/\PP^{g-1}}$ of a canonical curve of Clifford index at least two is generated by quadrics of rank four.
This provides an enhancement of Petri’s theorem stating that $I_{C/\PP^{g-1}}$ is generated by quadrics if $\mathrm{Cliff}(C) \geq 2$. To extend Theorem \[green-quads\] to higher syzygies, following [@bothmer-JPAA] one defines the *rank* of a syzygy $\alpha \in \mathrm{K}_{p,1}(X,L)$ as the dimension of the minimal subspace $V {\subseteq}\mathrm{H}^0(X,L)$ such that $\alpha$ is represented by an element of $\bigwedge^p V \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(X,L)$. Theorem \[green-quads\] states that $\mathrm{K}_{1,1}(C,\omega_C)$ is spanned by syzygies of the minimal possible rank two.
For $t\neq 0 \in \mathrm{H}^0(X,E)$, syzygies corresponding to $t^{k-2}$ have rank $k+1=\dim \mathrm{H}^0(L\otimes I_{Z(t)})$, [@bothmer-JPAA], [@aprodu-nagel §3]. Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\] thus implies $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L)$ is generated by syzygies of rank $k+1$. Restricting to $C \in |L|$, some of these syzygies drop rank by one, and the resulting syzygies continue to span $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(C,\omega_C)$, see [@V1 Prop. 7] and the unpublished [@bothmer-preprint §11]. Thus:
\[geo-cor\] Let $C$ be a general curve of even genus $g=2k$. Then $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(C,\omega_C)$ is generated by syzygies of the lowest possible rank $k$.
Corollary \[geo-cor\] therefore provides an extension of Green’s theorem on quadrics [@green-quadrics] to the space of linear syzygies of highest order.
It would appear to us to be very difficult to adapt degeneration methods to prove the structure Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\], as opposed to merely establishing the vanishing from Voisin’s original result. For instance, the construction of Lazarsfeld–Mukai bundles fails on the (non-normal) tangent developable, so that it is not even clear how the bundle $E$ degenerates to this surface.
There are no known conjectural candidates for an analogous result to Theorem \[geo-thm-intro\] in odd genus $g=2k+1$. In this case, the dimension of $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L)$ is not given by a binomial coefficient, so this space cannot be of the form $\mathrm{Sym}^p(V)$ for any vector space $V$. Furthermore, we no longer have uniqueness of the relevant Lazarsfeld-Mukai bundle in this situation.
The starting point for this paper is a *universal* version of the secant construction [@ein-lazarsfeld-asymptotic §3]. Our argument is largely formal, primarily using general results on vector bundles rather than a detailed study of the geometry of curves. As a result, we expect our approach to generalize well to the study of syzygies of higher dimensional varieties, for which previous approaches to Green’s conjecture do not seem applicable. See [@ein-laz-arb-dim] for an application of vector bundle methods to syzygies of varieties of arbitrary dimension.
The main difficulty in extending our results to positive characteristic is that there no longer exist K3 surfaces of Picard rank one in this setting, [@huybrechts-k3 Ch. 17].
**Acknowledgements** I thank C. Voisin for helpful explanations and G. Farkas for numerous discussions. I thank R. Lazarsfeld for encouragement and for detailed comments. I thank D. Erman, D. Huybrechts and R. Yang for feedback on a draft. The author is supported by NSF grant DMS-1701245.
Preliminaries
-------------
We gather here a few facts. Let $0 \to F_1 \to F_2 \to F_3 \to 0$ be a short exact sequence of vector bundles over ${\mathbb{C}}$. From [@weyman-sym-ext], for any $i$ we have exact sequences $$\begin{aligned}
&\ldots \to \bigwedge^{i-2} F_2 \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^2(F_1) \to \bigwedge^{i-1} F_2 \otimes F_1 \to \bigwedge^i F_2 \to \bigwedge^i F_3 \to 0, \\
&0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^i(F_1) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i}(F_2) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}(F_2) \otimes F_3 \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-2}(F_2) \otimes \bigwedge^2 F_3 \to \ldots\end{aligned}$$
We state two formulae which we use without specific mention. Let $f: X \to Y$ be a morphism of varieties and $\mathcal{F} \in \mathrm{Coh}(X)$ a sheaf. If $\mathcal{E}$ is a vector bundle on $Y$ then we have the *Projection Formula* $\mathrm{R}^if_*(\mathcal{F} \otimes f^* \mathcal{E}) \simeq \mathrm{R}^if_*\mathcal{F} \otimes \mathcal{E}$, [@hartshorne III, Ex. 8.3]. In particular, $f_*(\mathcal{F} \otimes f^* \mathcal{E}) \simeq f_*\mathcal{F} \otimes \mathcal{E}$. If $\mathrm{R}^if_*\mathcal{F}=0$ for all $ i>0$ then $\mathrm{H}^p(X,\mathcal{F}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^p(Y, f_* \mathcal{F})$ for $p \geq 0$, [@hartshorne III, Ex. 8.1 ].
If $X, Y$ are varieties and $\mathcal{F} \in \mathrm{Coh}(X), \mathcal{G} \in \mathrm{Coh}(Y)$ are sheaves, the *Künneth formula* states $$\mathrm{H}^{m}(X \times Y, \mathcal{F} \boxtimes \mathcal{G}) \simeq \bigoplus_{a+b=m} \mathrm{H}^a(X,\mathcal{F}) \otimes \mathrm{H}^b(Y, \mathcal{G}),$$ where $\mathcal{F} \boxtimes \mathcal{G}:=p^*\mathcal{F} \otimes q^* \mathcal{G}$, for projections $p: X \times Y \to X$, $q: X \times Y \to Y$.
Assume we have an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{G} \to \mathcal{H} \to 0$ of coherent sheaves on a quasi-projective variety, with $\mathcal{G}$ locally free. Assume either $\mathcal{H}$ is locally free or $\mathcal{H} \simeq \mathcal{O}_D$ for a Cartier divisor $D$. Then $\mathcal{F}$ is locally free. This follows from [@hartshorne III, Ex 6.5].
Voisin’s Theorem in Even Genus {#sec1}
==============================
Let $X$ be a K3 surface of Picard rank one and even genus $g=2k$. Consider the unique rank two, Lazarsfeld–Mukai, bundle $E$ on $X$ as in the introduction. For general $s \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, the zero-locus $Z(s)$ corresponds to a $g^1_{k+1}$ on a smooth $C \in |L|$. For *any* $s \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, $Z(s) {\subseteq}X$ is zero-dimensional and we have an exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \xrightarrow{s} E \xrightarrow{\wedge s} I_{Z(s)} \otimes L \to 0.$$ Set $\PP:=\PP(\mathrm{H}^0(E))\simeq \PP^{k+1}$. Consider $X \times \PP$ with projections $p: X \times \PP \to X$, $q: X \times \PP \to \PP$. Define $\mathcal{Z} {\subseteq}X \times \PP$ as the locus $\left\{ (x,s) \; | \; s(x)=0 \right\}$. Since $E$ is globally generated, $\mathcal{Z}$ is a projective bundle over $X$ and hence smooth. Further $ I_{Z(s)} \otimes L $ is globally generated, as it is a quotient of the globally generated bundle $E$. We have an exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \xrightarrow{\mathrm{id}} E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to 0,$$ where the first nonzero map is given by multiplication by $$\mathrm{id} \in \mathrm{H}^0\left(E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)\right) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(E)^{\vee} \simeq \mathrm{Hom}\left(\mathrm{H}^0(E), \mathrm{H}^0(E)\right).$$ Note that $\mathcal{Z} \to \PP$ is finite and flat, [@EGA Prop. 6.1.5].
As soon as there exists a nontrivial, effective divisor $C$ on $X$ with $\mathrm{H}^0(E(-C))$ nonzero, then $\mathcal{Z} \to \PP$ cannot be finite and flat. For this reason, it is essential that $\mathrm{Pic}(X) \simeq \mathbb{Z}[L]$.
Let $\mathcal{M}:=p^* M_L$, where $M_L$ is the Kernel Bundle $0 \to M_L \to \mathrm{H}^0(L)\otimes \mathcal{O}_X \to L \to 0.$ By the well-known Kernel Bundle description of Koszul cohomology [@ein-lazarsfeld-asymptotic §3], it suffices to show $$\mathrm{H}^1(X, \bigwedge^{k+1} M_L )=0.$$ Note $\mathrm{H}^1(X \times \PP,\bigwedge^{k+1}\mathcal{M}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^1(X, \bigwedge^{k+1}M_L) $ by the Künneth formula, as $\mathrm{H}^1(\mathcal{O}_X)=0$.\
We now adapt [@ein-lazarsfeld-asymptotic p. 615]. Let $\pi:B \to X \times \PP $ be the blow-up along $\mathcal{Z}$ with exceptional divisor $D$. Then $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_B \simeq \mathcal{O}_{X \times \PP}, \; \; \pi_* I_{D} \simeq I_{\mathcal{Z}} \; \; \text{and} \; \; \mathrm{R}^i \pi_*\mathcal{O}_B=\mathrm{R}^i\pi_* I_D=0 \; \text{for $i>0$},$ cf. [@hartshorne V, Prop. 3.4 and Ex. 3.1]. Set $p':=p \circ \pi$, $q':=q \circ \pi$. We have canonical identifications $$q'_*({p'}^*L \otimes I_D) \simeq q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}), \; \; \; \; \; \; \; q'_*{p'}^*L \simeq q_* p^*L.$$
Consider $\mathcal{W}:=\text{Coker}\left(q'_*({p'}^*L \otimes I_D) \to q'_*{p'}^*L\right)\simeq \text{Coker}\left(q_*({p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \to q_*{p}^*L\right).$
The sheaf $\mathcal{W}$ is locally free of rank $k$.
Applying $\mathrm{R}q_*$ gives the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{W} \to q_*(p^*L_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}}) \to \mathrm{R}^1q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})\to 0$. For any $s \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, we have $\mathrm{H}^1(X,L\otimes I_{Z(s)}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^2(\mathcal{O}_X)$. Thus $q_*(p^*L_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}}) $ and $\mathrm{R}^1q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})$ are locally free of ranks $k+1$ and $1$, by Grauert’s Theorem [@hartshorne III, §12]. The claim follows.
Since $D$ is a divisor, we have a rank $k$ vector bundle $\displaystyle{\Gamma:=\text{Ker}\left({q'}^*\mathcal{W} \twoheadrightarrow {p'}^*L_{|_D} \right).}$ As $L \otimes I_{Z_{s}}$ is globally generated for all $s \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, we have a natural surjection ${q}^* q_* ({p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \to {p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}$. Applying $\pi^*$ and noting that $I_D$ is a quotient of $\pi^*I_{\mathcal{Z}}$, we have a surjection ${q'}^* q'_* ({p'}^*L \otimes I_D) \to {p'}^*L \otimes I_D$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the vector bundle on $B$ defined by the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{S} \to {q'}^* q'_* ({p'}^*L \otimes I_D) \to {p'}^*L \otimes I_D \to 0.$$ We have an exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{S} \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0,$ giving the exact sequence $$\ldots \to \bigwedge^{k-1} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^2 \mathcal{S} \to \bigwedge^{k} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{S} \to \bigwedge^{k+1}\pi^* \mathcal{M} \to 0.$$
The Secant Sheaves defined in [@ein-lazarsfeld-asymptotic §3] are only torsion-free in general. To apply [@weyman-sym-ext], we need $\Gamma$ to be locally free and hence we must pass to the blow-up $B$.
To prove Voisin’s Theorem it suffices to show $$\mathrm{H}^i(B, \bigwedge^{k+1-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^i \mathcal{S})=0 \; \; \text{for $1 \leq i \leq k+1$}.$$ One readily shows these vanishings for $i <k+1$ (see Theorem \[main-thm\]). The crucial point is to show $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(B, \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{S})=0$. To ease the notation, we set $$\mathcal{G}:=q^*q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}).$$
\[first-iso\] We have $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(X \times \PP,\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G})=0$ as well as a natural isomorphism $$\mathrm{H}^k(X \times \PP,\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G})\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^k \mathrm{H}^0(E).$$
The exact sequence $0 \to q^*\mathcal{O}(-2) \to q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-1) \to \mathcal{G}\to 0$ gives the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^k q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k-2) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k-1) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{G} \to 0.$$ Since $q_*p^*E \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}$ is trivial, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{G}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathrm{Sym}^k q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k-2))\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^k \mathrm{H}^0(E)\end{aligned}$$ The vanishing $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G})=0$ follows from $$\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-1))=\mathrm{H}^{k+2}(\mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-2))=0,$$ using $\mathrm{H}^1(\mathcal{O}_X)=0$.
The next lemma is a similar computation to the previous one.
\[first-twist-lem\] We have a natural isomorphism $\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \simeq \mathrm{Sym}^k \mathrm{H}^0(E).$
We have the short exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\to \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1} q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k-1) \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k}q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k) \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \\
&\to \mathrm{Sym}^{k}\mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ as well as the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \to E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to 0.$\
By the Künneth formula, $\mathrm{H}^{k+2}(\mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-3))=0$. We have $$\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-3))=\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathrm{K}_{\PP}(-1)) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1))^{\vee}\simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E).$$ Further, $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-2)) \simeq \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(E \boxtimes \mathrm{K}_{\PP}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E).$ The map $$\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-3)) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-2))$$ is identified with $\mathrm{id}: \mathrm{H}^0(E) \to \mathrm{H}^0(E)$. Thus $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-1)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})=0.$ We likewise have $\mathrm{H}^{k}(L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-1)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})=0.$
Using that $q_*p^*E \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}$ is trivial, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) &\simeq \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^k q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k)\otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \\
&\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathrm{H}^0(E)\otimes \mathrm{H}^k(L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}).\end{aligned}$$ To finish the proof, it suffices to show that the boundary map $$\mathrm{H}^k(L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(q^*\mathrm{K}_{\PP})$$ is an isomorphism, which follows from the fact that $\mathrm{H}^i(E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(-k-1))=0$ for all $i$.
We now repeat the previous lemma, twisting instead by $\mathcal{G}:=q^*q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})$.
\[second-twist-lem\] The evaluation morphism $\mathcal{G} \twoheadrightarrow p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) .$$
We have the short exact sequences $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1} q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k-1) \otimes \mathcal{G} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k}q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k) \otimes \mathcal{G} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k}\mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G} \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ and $0 \to q^*\mathcal{O}(-2) \to q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-1) \to \mathcal{G} \to 0.$
Using the second sequence, $\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\mathcal{G} \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-1))=\mathrm{H}^{k}(\mathcal{G} \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k-1))=0$ and $\mathrm{H}^k(\mathcal{G} \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-k))\xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(q^*\mathrm{K}_{\PP})$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^k q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-k)\otimes \mathcal{G}) \simeq \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathrm{H}^0(E)\end{aligned}$$ and the evaluation map gives an isomorphism $\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k}\mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}).$
As a corollary, we now deduce:
\[auto-injectivity\] The natural map gives an isomorphism $$\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G}) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}).$$
By the previous lemmas, it suffices to show that the natural morphism $$\mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{G}) \to \mathrm{H}^k(\mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{G})$$ is injective. For a vector bundle $\mathcal{F}$ the composition $\mathrm{Sym}^i \mathcal{F} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}\mathcal{F} \otimes \mathcal{F} \to \mathrm{Sym}^i \mathcal{F}$ of natural maps is just multiplication by $i$. This completes the proof.
We now complete the proof that $\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L)=0$.
\[main-thm\] We have $\mathrm{H}^i(B, \bigwedge^{k+1-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^i \mathcal{S})=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k+1$.
Observe $\pi^*\mathcal{G}\simeq {q'}^*q'_*({p'}^*L \otimes I_{D})$. From the defining sequence for $\mathcal{S}$, we have an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ses-S}
0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i}\mathcal{S} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i} \pi^* \mathcal{G} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \pi^*\mathcal{G} \otimes {p'}^*L \otimes I_{D} \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the projection formula, and recalling the identities $\pi_*\mathcal{O}_B \simeq \mathcal{O}_{X \times \PP}$, $\pi_* I_{D} \simeq I_{\mathcal{Z}}$ and $\mathrm{R}^j \pi_*\mathcal{O}_B=\mathrm{R}^j\pi_* I_D=0$ for $j>0$, we may identify $$\mathrm{H}^{\ell}(B, \mathrm{Sym}^{i} \pi^* \mathcal{G}) \to \mathrm{H}^{\ell}(B,\mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \pi^*\mathcal{G} \otimes {p'}^*L \otimes I_{D})$$ with the natural map $\mathrm{H}^{\ell}(X \times \PP, \mathrm{Sym}^{i} \mathcal{G}) \to \mathrm{H}^{\ell}(X \times \PP,\mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \mathcal{G} \otimes {p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})$, for any $\ell$. Taking the long exact sequence of cohomology for the sequence (\[ses-S\]) for $i=k+1$ and applying the previous lemmas, we immediately see $\displaystyle \mathrm{H}^{k+1}(B,\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{S})=0.$
To complete the proof, it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{H}^i (\bigwedge^{k+1-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i} \pi^* \mathcal{G})=\mathrm{H}^{i-1}(\bigwedge^{k+1-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \pi^* \mathcal{G} \otimes {p'}^*L \otimes I_{D} )=0, \; \; \text{for $1 \leq i \leq k$}.\end{aligned}$$ The first vanishing follows from the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-i-1) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i}q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-i) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i}\mathcal{G}\to 0,$$ together with $\mathrm{H}^i(\bigwedge^{k+1-i} M_L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-i))=\mathrm{H}^{i+1}(\bigwedge^{k+1-i}M_L \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-i-1))=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$.
Next, from the exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-2} q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-i) \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-i+1) \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}\\ &\to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}\mathcal{G} \otimes p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ it suffices to show $\mathrm{H}^{i-1}(\bigwedge^{k+1-i} M_L (L)\boxtimes \mathcal{O}(-i+1)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})=\mathrm{H}^{i}(\bigwedge^{k+1-i} M_L(L) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(-i) \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k.$ This follows from $0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \to E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to 0,$ as $\mathrm{H}^0(X,M_L)=0$ if $i=k$.
The Geometric Syzygy Conjecture {#sec2}
===============================
In this section, we use the techniques used in our proof of Voisin’s Theorem to resolve the Geometric Syzygy Conjecture for extremal syzygies of generic curves of even genus. We stick with the notation from Section \[sec1\]. As before, we consider the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{S} \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0.$
\[real-thm\] The natural morphism $\mathrm{H}^1(B, \wedge^k \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes {p'}^*L) \to \mathrm{H}^1(B, \wedge^k \Gamma \otimes {p'}^*L)$ is surjective.
From the exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\ldots \to \mathcal{S} \otimes \wedge^{k-1} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes {p'}^*L \to \wedge^k \mathcal{M} \otimes {p'}^*L \to \wedge^k \Gamma \otimes {p'}^*L \to 0,\end{aligned}$$ it suffices to show $\mathrm{H}^{1+i}(\mathrm{Sym}^i \mathcal{S} \otimes \wedge^{k-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes {p'}^*L)=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k$. From the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i} \mathcal{S} \to \mathrm{Sym}^i\left({q'}^*q'_*({p'}^*L \otimes I_D)\right) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}\left({q'}^*q'_*({p'}^*L \otimes I_D)\right)\otimes {p'}^*L \otimes I_D \to 0$$ it suffices to have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{H}^{1+i}\left(X \times \PP,\mathrm{Sym}^i\left({q}^*q_*({p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})\right) \otimes \wedge^{k-i} \mathcal{M} \otimes {p}^*L\right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^i\left(X \times \PP,\mathrm{Sym}^{i-1}\left({q}^*q_*({p}^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})\right)\otimes \wedge^{k-i} \mathcal{M} \otimes {p}^*L^{\otimes 2} \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ By taking $\mathrm{Sym}^i$ of the exact sequence $$0 \to q^*\mathcal{O}(-2) \to q^*q_*p^*E \otimes q^*\mathcal{O}(-1) \to q^*q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}})\to 0$$ it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{H}^{2+i}\left(X \times \PP, \wedge^{k-i} M_L (L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i-1) \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{1+i}\left(X \times \PP, \wedge^{k-i} M_L (L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^i \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i) \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{1+i}\left(X \times \PP, \left(\wedge^{k-i} M_L (2L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-2} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i) \right)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{i}\left(X \times \PP, \left(\wedge^{k-i} M_L (2L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i+1) \right)\otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $q_*p^*E \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}$, the first two claims follow from the Künneth formula, for $1 \leq i \leq k$. For the last two claims, we use the short exact sequence $$0 \to L^{-1} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(-2) \to E(L^{-1}) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}(-1) \to I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to 0,$$ so it suffices to have the four vanishings $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{H}^{2+i}\left(\wedge^{k-i} M_L (L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-2} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i-2) \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{1+i}\left( \wedge^{k-i} M_L \otimes E(L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-2} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i-1) \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{1+i}\left( \wedge^{k-i} M_L (L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i-1) \right)=0,\\
&\mathrm{H}^{i}\left(\wedge^{k-i} M_L \otimes E(L) \boxtimes \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \left(q_*p^*E \right)(-i) \right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ This follows from the Künneth formula, using $\mathrm{H}^1(X,L)=0$ if $i=k$ in the first vanishing.
The Geometric Syzygy Conjecture in even genus now follows readily from Theorem \[real-thm\].
With notation as in Section \[sec1\], we have $\wedge^k \Gamma \simeq I_D \otimes {q'}^* \mathcal{O}(k)$.
By taking determinants of the exact sequence $0 \to \Gamma \to {q'}^* \mathcal{W} \to {p'}^* L_{|_D} \to 0$, it suffices to show $\det \mathcal{W} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k)$. From $0 \to q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \to q_*p^*L \to \mathcal{W} \to 0$, we see $\det \mathcal{W}=\det (q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}))^{-1}$. We now deduce the claim from the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \to q_*p^*E \otimes \mathcal{O}(-1) \to q_*(p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}}) \to 0.$$
We have a natural isomorphism $\mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \simeq \mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L)$.
We have $\mathrm{H}^1(B, I_D \otimes {q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k))\simeq \mathrm{H}^1(X \times \PP, I_{\mathcal{Z}} \otimes {q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k))$. From $$0 \to \mathcal{O} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \to E \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to p^*L \otimes I_{\mathcal{Z}} \to 0,$$ we obtain an isomorphism $\mathrm{H}^1(B, \wedge^k \Gamma \otimes {p'}^*L) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k-2)) \simeq {\mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)}^{\vee}$. Theorem \[real-thm\] then gives a surjective map $\mathrm{K}_{k-1,2}(X,L) \to {\mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)}^{\vee}$. Applying duality we have an injective map $\mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \to \mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L).$ But, Voisin’s Theorem in even genus, as proven in Section \[sec1\], implies $\dim \mathrm{Sym}^{k-2}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) = \dim \mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,L)$, [@farkas-progress §4.1], which completes the proof.
We end this section with a remark. From the sequence $0 \to \mathcal{S} \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0$, the isomorphism $\psi: \mathrm{H}^1( \wedge^k \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes {p'}^*L) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^k \Gamma \otimes {p'}^*L)$ is Serre dual to $$\psi^{\vee} \; : \; \mathrm{H}^{k+2}( \wedge^k \mathcal{S} \otimes \omega_B) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+2}( \wedge^k \pi^* \mathcal{M}\otimes \omega_B).$$
Voisin’s Theorem in Odd Genus {#odd-genus}
=============================
In this section we prove Green’s Conjecture for generic curves of odd genus $g=2k+1 \geq 9$, following a simplified version of the strategy of [@V2]. Let $X$ be a K3 surface of Picard rank two, with $\text{Pic}(X)$ generated by a big and nef line bundle $L'$ with $(L')^2=2g$ together with a smooth rational curve $\Delta$ with $(L' \cdot \Delta)=0$.
Set $L_n:=L'-n\Delta$ for $0 \leq n \leq 3$. Then $L_n$ is base-point free and is further ample for $0<n \leq 2$. Furthermore, the linear system $|L_n|$ cannot be written as a sum of two pencils. In particular, smooth curves $C \in |L_n|$ are Brill–Noether general.
Since $(L_n)^2 \geq 0$ and $(L_n \cdot L')>0$, we see $\dim |L_n|>0$ by Riemann–Roch. We claim $L_n$ is nef, i.e. there is no rational, base component $R \sim aL'+b\Delta $ of $L_n$ with $(L_n \cdot R)<0$. Otherwise, $R$ and $L_n-R$ would be effective and $a \neq 0$ so $a =1$, but then $\dim |L_n|=\dim|L_n-R|=0$. Since $(\alpha \cdot \beta)$ is even for all $\alpha, \beta \in \mathrm{Pic}(X)$, there are no divisors $E$ with $(L_n \cdot E)=1$, hence the nef bundles $L_n$ are base-point free, [@mayer Prop. 8]. If $L_n$ is not ample for $n \neq 0$, there is a rational curve $R\sim aL'+b\Delta$ with $(L_n \cdot R)=0$. Then $b=\frac{-ag}{n}$ with $a>0$, so $(R)^2=-2a^2g(\frac{g}{n^2}-1)<-2$.
For the last claim it suffices to show that we cannot write $L_n=A_1+A_2$ for divisors $A_i$ with $h^0(A_i)\geq 2$, $i=1,2$, [@lazarsfeld-BNP]. Writing $A_i=a_i L'+b_i \Delta$, we must have $a_j=0$ for some $j\in \{1,2 \}$. But then $h^0(A_j)=1$ which is a contradiction.
Setting $L:=L_1=L'-\Delta$, a general $C \in |L|$ is a curve of genus $g=2k+1$. To verify Green’s conjecture for $C$, it suffices to show $\mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^{k+1}M_L)=\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L)=0$. We have an exact sequence $0 \to M_L \to M_{L'} \to \mathcal{O}(-\Delta) \to 0$ of vector bundles on $X$. This gives an exact sequence $$0 \to \wedge^{k+1}M_L \to \wedge^{k+1}M_{L'} \to \wedge^k M_L (-\Delta) \to 0.$$ The induced map $pr_{k}: \; \mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^{k+1}M_{L'}) \to \mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^k M_L (-\Delta))$ is called the *projection map*.
\[proj-crit\] Suppose the projection map $pr_k$ is injective. Then $\mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^{k+1}M_L)=0$.
Indeed $\mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^k M_L (-\Delta)){\subseteq}\mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^k M_L)=0$.
We have a rational resolution of singularities $\mu : X \to \hat{X}$, contracting $\Delta$ to a du Val singularity $p$ on a nodal K3 surface $\hat{X}$. Then $\hat{X}$ admits a line bundle $\hat{L}$ with $\mu^*{\hat{L}}=L'$. We have $\mathrm{Pic}(\hat{X})=\mathrm{Cl}(\hat{X})\simeq \mathrm{Cl}(X\setminus \Delta)$, so $\mathrm{Cl}(\hat{X})=\mathbb{Z}[\hat{L}]$ and $\hat{X}$ is factorial. Consider the rank two Lazarsfeld–Mukai bundle $\hat{E}$ on $\hat{X}$ induced by a $g^1_{k+2}$ on a general $C \in |\hat{L}|$. Set $E:=\mu^*\hat{E}$, which is a rank two bundle on $X$ induced by a $g^1_{k+2}$ on a general $C \in |L'|$.
\[green-pic2\] We have $\mathrm{K}_{k+1,1}(X,L')=0$. Further, there is a natural isomorphism $$\mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \simeq \mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L').$$
Set $\PP=\PP(\mathrm{H}^0(\hat{X}, \hat{E}))$ and let $\hat{\mathcal{Z}} {\subseteq}\hat{X} \times \PP$ be the locus defined by $\{ (x,s) \; | \; s(x)=0 \}$. Then $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}$ is a projective bundle over $\hat{X}$, is a local complete intersection in $\hat{X} \times \PP$ and is finite and flat over $\PP$. As in Sections \[sec1\] and \[sec2\] we see $\mathrm{K}_{k+1,1}(\hat{X}, \hat{L})=0$, and $\mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(\hat{E}) \simeq \mathrm{K}_{k,1}(\hat{X},\hat{L})$. Since $\hat{X}$ has rational singularities, $\mathrm{H}^0(X,nL') \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(\hat{X}, n\hat{L})$ for all $n$, and the claim follows.
We will prove that we have a natural injection $\mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^k M_L (-\Delta))$. By the above lemma, this implies injectivity of $pr_k$, so that Voisin’s Theorem follows.
\[decomposable\] The natural map $d: \wedge^2 \mathrm{H}^0(E) \to \mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^2 E)=\mathrm{H}^0(L')$ does not vanish on decomposable elements.
Suppose $v_1, v_2 \in H^0(E)$ with $v_1 \wedge v_2 \neq 0$, $d(v_1 \wedge v_2)=0$. Then $v_1, v_2$ generate a rank one subsheaf $H_1 {\subseteq}E$ with at least two sections. Let $H_2:=E/H_1$ and $M_2:=H_2/\mathrm{T}(H_2)$, where $\mathrm{T}(H_2)$ denotes the torsion subsheaf. We have a short exact sequence $0 \to M_1 \to E \to M_2 \to 0$, with $M_1,M_2$ rank-one, torsion-free sheaves and $h^0(M_1) \geq 2$. Then $M_i=N_i \otimes I_i$, for $N_i$ a line bundle and $I_i$ an ideal sheaf of a $0$-dimensional scheme for $i=1,2$. Since $E$ is globally generated with $h^2(E)=0$, we have $h^0(N_2) \geq 2$. But then $\det(E)=L'=N_1 \otimes N_2$ is a sum of line bundles with at least two sections. We have already seen that this cannot occur.
To set things up, we need a lemma.
The bundle $E(-\Delta)$ is isomorphic to the Lazarsfeld–Mukai bundle $F$ corresponding to a $g^1_{k}$ on a general $C' \in |L-\Delta|$. In particular, $E(-\Delta)$ is globally generated.
We claim that $F$ is $\mu$-stable with respect to $L-\Delta$. Otherwise, we have a filtration $$0 \to M \to F \to N \otimes I_{\zeta} \to 0$$ where $M, N$ are line bundles, $I_{\zeta}$ is the ideal sheaf of a $0$-dimensional scheme of length $k-(M \cdot N)$, where $h^0(N) \geq 2$ and with $\mu(M) \geq \mu(F)=g-4 \geq \mu(N)$, cf. [@lelli-chiesa]. We have $h^2(M)=0$ since $\mu(M)>0$ and further $(M)^2=\mu(M)-(M\cdot N)\geq (g-4)-k \geq 0$. Thus $h^0(M) \geq 2$ by Riemann–Roch, contradicting that $L-\Delta=\det(F)$ cannot be written as a sum of two pencils.
The rank two bundle $E(-\Delta)$ is simple with $\det E(-\Delta)=L-\Delta$ and $\chi(E(-\Delta))=k+1$. We claim that $E(-\Delta)$ is stable with respect to $L-\Delta$. Since $F$ is the unique stable bundle with these invariants, $E(-\Delta) \simeq F$. If $E(-\Delta)$ is not stable, choose a filtration $0 \to M' \to E(-\Delta) \to N' \otimes I_{\zeta'} \to 0$ as above. We again have $h^0(M') \geq 2$, and since $N'(\Delta) \otimes I_{\zeta'}$ is a quotient of the globally generated bundle $E$ and $h^2(E)\neq 0$, $h^0(N'(\Delta)) \geq 2$. This contradicts that $L$ cannot be written as a sum of two pencils.
Let $N$ denote the rank $k-1$ kernel bundle fitting into the sequence $$0 \to N \to \mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta))\otimes \mathcal{O}_X \to E(-\Delta) \to 0.$$ For any $t \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, we have a map $\wedge \, t :\mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta)) \to \mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^2 E (-\Delta))=\mathrm{H}^0(L)$, inducing a map $N \to M_L$. This globalizes to a vector bundle morphism $$r: \; N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M} ,$$ on $X \times \PP$, where $\PP:=\PP(\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)) \simeq \PP^{k+2}$, where $p: X \times \PP \to X$, $q: X \times \PP \to \PP$ are the projections and $\mathcal{M}:=p^*M_L$.
From Lemma \[decomposable\], $r$ fails to be injective *on fibres* precisely at points in the locus $$\mathcal{Z}:=\left \{ (x,s) \in X \times \PP\left(\mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta))\right) \; | \; s(x)=0 \right\}.$$ Thus $\mathrm{Coker}(r)$ fails to be locally free along $\mathcal{Z} {\subseteq}X \times \Lambda$, where $\Lambda:=\PP\left(\mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta))\right) {\subseteq}\PP$.\
We recify the failure of $\mathrm{Coker}(r)$ to be locally free through a standard construction. Define $\pi: B \to X \times \PP$ as the blow-up along the codimension four locus $\mathcal{Z}$ and let $p':=p\circ \pi$, $q':=q \circ \pi$. Let $j: D \hookrightarrow B$ be the exceptional divisor. For any vector bundle $A$ on $X \times \PP$, $\mathrm{H}^j(B,\pi^*A (nD))\simeq \mathrm{H}^j(B,\pi^*A )$ for any $j$ and for $1 \leq n \leq 3$.
For $p=(x,t) \in \mathcal{Z}$, the kernel of $r \otimes k(p)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{C}}\langle t\rangle {\subseteq}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)$. Thus $$\mathrm{Ker}(r_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}})\simeq ({q}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2))_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}},$$ where the inclusion $({q}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2))_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}} \hookrightarrow (N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1))_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}}$ is given by the section $u \in \mathrm{H}^0(\mathcal{Z},N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)){\subseteq}\mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0({q}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)_{|_{\mathcal{Z}}})$ obtained by restricting $id \in \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0({q}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1))$ to $\mathcal{Z}$.
We now perform an *elementary transformation* on $N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)$. Define $S$ as the dual bundle to $\mathrm{Im}({\pi^*r}^{\vee})$. Then $S^{\vee}$ is a vector bundle of rank $k-1$ fitting into the exact sequence $$0 \to S^{\vee} \to \pi^* (N^{\vee} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)) \to {{q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(2)}_{|_D} \to 0.$$ From the definition of $S$, we have an exact sequence $$0 \to S \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0,$$ where $\Gamma$ is locally free of rank $k+2$.
We have a natural isomorphism $\mathrm{H}^2(B, \wedge^{k+2} \Gamma ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)^{\vee}$.
We have $\det \Gamma \simeq {p'}^*(L^{\vee}) \otimes \det S^{\vee}$ so that $\wedge^{k+2} \Gamma ({p'}^*\Delta)\simeq {q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k-1)(-D)$. Thus $\mathrm{H}^2(B, \wedge^{k+2} \Gamma ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))\simeq \mathrm{H}^2({q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k-1))\simeq \mathrm{H}^2(B,{q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(k-1)) \simeq \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(X,E)^{\vee}$.
We have natural isomorphisms $$\mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,-\Delta, L)\simeq \mathrm{H}^1(\wedge^k M_L(-\Delta))\simeq \mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^{k-1}M_L (L-\Delta)),$$ [@ein-lazarsfeld-asymptotic §3]. We have $\mathrm{H}^0(\wedge^{k-1}M_L (L-\Delta))^{\vee} \simeq \mathrm{H}^2(\wedge^{k+2}M_L(\Delta))$, since $\wedge^{k-1}M_L^{\vee} \simeq \wedge^{k+2}M_L(L)$.
Taking exterior powers of $0 \to S \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0$ and twisting by $\mathcal{O}_{B}(D+{p'}^*\Delta)$ induces $$\phi \; : \; \mathrm{H}^2(\wedge^{k+2}M_L(\Delta)) \to \mathrm{H}^2(\wedge^{k+2} \Gamma ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(E)^{\vee}.$$ To show $\phi$ is surjective, it suffices to prove $$\mathrm{H}^{2+i}(\bigwedge^{k+2-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^i(S) ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0, \; \; \text{for $1 \leq i \leq k+2$}.$$
The blow-up of a projective space $\PP(V)$ along a subspace $W {\subseteq}V$ is a projective bundle over $\PP(V/W)$, [@3264 §9.3.2]. Thus $B$ is a projective bundle $\PP(\mathcal{H})$ over $\PP(\mathcal{F})$, where $\mathcal{F}:=\mathrm{Coker}(N \hookrightarrow \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_X)$. The projection morphism $\displaystyle{\chi: B \to \PP(\mathcal{F})}$ is defined over $X$ with $$\chi^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(1) \simeq {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)(-D).$$ To describe $\mathcal{H}$, let $f: \PP(\mathcal{F}) \to X$ be the projection and define $\mathcal{P}$ by the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{P}^{\vee} \to f^*f_* \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(1) \to \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(1) \to 0.$ We have a surjection $\mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})} \to \mathcal{P}$. The rank $k$ bundle $\mathcal{H}$ is defined by the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{H} \to \mathrm{H}^0(E) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}\to \mathcal{P} \to 0.$$ We have a short exact sequence $$0 \to f^* N \to \mathcal{H} \to \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1) \to 0.$$ The isomorphism $B \simeq \PP(\mathcal{H})$ gives an identification $\mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{H})}(1) \simeq {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)$.
We have $S \simeq T_{\chi} \otimes {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2)$, where $T_{\chi}$ is the relative tangent bundle.
We have the relative Euler sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{H})} \to \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{H})}(1) \otimes \chi^* \mathcal{H} \xrightarrow{\alpha} T_{\chi} \to 0.$$ Twisting by $\mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{H})}(-2)$, we have the composite map $\pi^*(N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)) \to \chi^*\mathcal{H} \otimes {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)\xrightarrow{\alpha} T_{\chi}(-2).$ Dualizing, we obtain an exact sequence $$0 \to \Omega_{\chi}\otimes {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(2) \to \pi^*(N^{\vee} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)) \to {{q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(2)}_{|_D} \to 0,$$ and comparison with the defining sequence for $S^{\vee}$ gives $S^{\vee} \simeq \Omega_{\chi}\otimes {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(2)$.
With these preparations, all but one of the required vanishings are immediate.
We have $\mathrm{H}^{2+i}(\bigwedge^{k+2-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^i(S) ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq k+2$, $i \neq k+1$.
Our proof is analogous to [@V2 Lemma 6]. The Euler sequence $0 \to {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2) \to \chi^* \mathcal{H} \otimes {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to S \to 0$ gives exact sequences $$0 \to \chi^* \mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \mathcal{H} (-i-1) \to \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{i} \mathcal{H} (-i) \to \mathrm{Sym}^i(S) \to 0,$$ where we have simplified notation by writing $(j)$ for twists by ${q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(j) $. We first claim $$\mathrm{H}^{2+i}(\bigwedge^{k+2-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{i} \mathcal{H} (-i)({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0, \; \; \text{for $1 \leq i \leq k$}.$$ The fibres of $\chi$ are projective spaces of dimension $k-1$ and $D$ has degree one on these fibres. Hence $R^j \chi_* {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-i)(D)=0$ for all $j$ and $2 \leq i \leq k$.
For $i=1$, the claim states $\mathrm{H}^3(\bigwedge^{k+1} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathcal{H} (-1)({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0$. We have $\omega_B \simeq {q'}^* \omega_{\PP}(3D)$, so that this is equivalent to $$\mathrm{H}^{k+1}(\bigwedge^{k+1} \pi^* \mathcal{M}^{\vee} \otimes \chi^*\mathcal{H}^{\vee}\otimes {q'}^*(\omega_{\PP}(1)) (-{p'}^*\Delta)(2D))=0$$ The claim now follows from the exact sequence $ 0 \to {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(1)(-D) \to \chi^* \mathcal{H}^{\vee} \to {p'}^*N^{\vee} \to 0.$
To finish the proof in the case $1 \leq i \leq k$, it suffices to have $$\mathrm{H}^{3+i}(\bigwedge^{k+2-i} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{i-1} \mathcal{H} (-i-1)({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0, \; \; \text{for $1 \leq i \leq k$}.$$ This is immediate as above unless $i=k$. For $i=k$, we need $$\mathrm{H}^{3+k}(\bigwedge^{2} \pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{k-1} \mathcal{H} (-k-1)({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0,$$ which is Serre dual to $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{H}^1(\bigwedge^{2} \pi^* \mathcal{M}^{\vee}\otimes \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{k-1} \mathcal{H}^{\vee}(-2)(2D-{p'}^*\Delta))\\
=&\mathrm{H}^1(\PP({\mathcal{F}}),f^*(\wedge^2M^{\vee}_L(-\Delta)) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1} \mathcal{H}^{\vee} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP({\mathcal{F}})}(-2)).\end{aligned}$$ This space is isomorphic to $H^1(B,\bigwedge^{2} \pi^* \mathcal{M}^{\vee}(k-3)(2D-{p'}^*\Delta))=0,$ as $\chi_*{q'}^* \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(n)\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^n \mathcal{H}^{\vee}$.
We are left with the case $i=k+2$. The inclusion $$\pi^*( \mathrm{Sym}^{k+2}N(\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-(k+2))) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Sym}^{k+2}(S)({p'}^*\Delta)$$ is an isomorphism off $D$. Since $\dim D=k+3$, it suffices to show $$\mathrm{H}^{k+4}(X \times \PP^{k+2}, \mathrm{Sym}^{k+2}N(\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-(k+2)))=0.$$ This follows from the Künneth formula.
It remains to deal with the case $i=k+1$. The following lemma, stated in [@V1], Proof of Prop. 6, was explained to us by C. Voisin.
\[LM-mult-map\] The multiplication map $\mathrm{H}^0(X,E(-\Delta)) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(X,L-\Delta) \to \mathrm{H}^0(X,E(L-2\Delta))$ is surjective.
Let $C \in |L-\Delta|$ be a smooth curve. It suffices to prove surjectivity of the restricted multiplication map $\mathrm{H}^0(E_{|_C}(-\Delta)) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C) \to \mathrm{H}^0(E_{|_C}(\mathrm{K}_C-\Delta))$, [@gallego-purnaprajna Observation 2.3]. Now $\mathrm{H}^0(E_{|_C}(-\Delta)) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(B) \oplus \mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C-B)$ where $B$ is a $g^1_k$ on $C$, [@voisin-wahl]. The statement now follows from the following: for any base-point free line bundle $M$ on $C$ with $h^0(M) \geq 2$, the multiplication map $\mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(M) \to \mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C+M)$ is surjective. Indeed, if $h^0(M)=2$, this follows immediately from the base-point free pencil trick. Otherwise, let $Z$ be a general effective divisor of degree $h^0(M)-2$. Thus $\mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(M-Z) \to \mathrm{H}^0(\mathrm{K}_C+M-Z)$ is surjective. Since this holds for any general such divisor, this proves the claim.
We will make use of the following direct consequence of the previous lemma.
\[mult-maps\] We have $\mathrm{H}^2(X,M_L(\Delta) \otimes N)=\mathrm{H}^2(M_L(\Delta))=0$.
From the exact sequence $$0 \to N \to H^0(E(-\Delta)) \otimes \mathcal{O}_X \to E(-\Delta)\to 0,$$ it suffices to show $\mathrm{H}^2(M_L(\Delta))=0$ and $\mathrm{H}^1(M_L(E))=0$. The first vanishing follows immediately from the defining sequence for $M_L$.
The vanishing $\mathrm{H}^1(M_L(E))=0$ is equivalent to surjectivity of the multiplication map $\mathrm{H}^0(L) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(E) \to \mathrm{H}^0(E(L))$. We have surjectivity of $\mathrm{H}^0(L-\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta)) \to \mathrm{H}^0(E(L-2\Delta))$ by Lemma \[LM-mult-map\]. For a *general* $s \in \mathrm{H}^0(E)$, we have the exact sequence $0 \to \mathcal{O}_X \to E \to L'\otimes I_{Z(s)} \to 0$. This implies $E_{|_{\Delta}} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\Delta}^{\oplus 2}$ is trivial. Thus $\mathrm{H}^0(L-\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(E_{|_{\Delta}}) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{H}^0(E_{|_{\Delta}}(L-\Delta))$. This shows $\mathrm{H}^0(L-\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{H}^0(E) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{H}^0(E(L-\Delta))$. Since $H^0(L_{|_{\Delta}}) \otimes H^0(E) \twoheadrightarrow H^0(E_{|_{\Delta}}(L))$, using the triviality of $E_{|_{\Delta}}$, we obtain the vanishing $\mathrm{H}^1(M_L(E))=0$.
We now prove the remaining vanishing.
\[green-odd-main\] We have $\mathrm{H}^{k+3}(B,\pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}(S) ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0$. In particular we have a surjection $\phi:\; \mathrm{H}^2(\wedge^{k+2}M_L(\Delta)) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(E)^{\vee}$.
We write $(j)$ for twists by ${q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(j) $. We have the short exact sequence $$0 \to \chi^* \mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{H} (-k-2) \to \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{H} (-k-1) \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}(S) \to 0.$$ We firstly claim that $$\mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^* \mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{H} (-k-2) ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))\to \mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1} \mathcal{H} (-k-1) ({p'}^*\Delta)(D))$$ is surjective. We have $\mathcal{O}(D) \simeq \mathcal{O}(1)\otimes \chi^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)$ and further $\omega_{\chi}\simeq \chi^*\det \mathcal{H}^{\vee}(-k)$. The map can thus be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&H^4(\PP(\mathcal{F}),f^*M_L(\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes R^{k-1}\chi_*\mathcal{O}(-(k+1))\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)) \to \\
&H^4(\PP(\mathcal{F}),f^*M_L(\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{H} \otimes R^{k-1}\chi_*\mathcal{O}(-k)\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)) .\end{aligned}$$ Using relative duality, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&H^4(\PP(\mathcal{F}),f^*M_L(\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)\otimes \det \mathcal{H}) \to \\
&H^4(\PP(\mathcal{F}),f^*M_L(\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)\otimes \det \mathcal{H})),\end{aligned}$$ since $\chi_*\mathcal{O}(n)\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^n\mathcal{H}^{\vee}$. This map is surjective, since the composite $ \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{H} \to \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H} \to \mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}\mathcal{H} $ of natural maps is multiplication by $k+1$.
To conclude, it suffices that $\mathrm{H}^{k+4}(\pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^* \mathrm{Sym}^{k} \mathcal{H} (-k-2)({p'}^*\Delta)(D))=0$, or, equivalently $$H^5(\PP(\mathcal{F}),f^*M_L(\Delta) \otimes \mathrm{Sym}^k\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP(\mathcal{F})}(-1)\otimes \det \mathcal{H}))=0.$$ The same argument identifies this space with $\mathrm{H}^{k+4}(\pi^* \mathcal{M} \otimes \chi^*\mathcal{H} (-2k-1+{p'}^*\Delta)(D))$, using $\chi_*\mathcal{O}(n)\simeq \mathrm{Sym}^n\mathcal{H}^{\vee}$ again. The required vanishing then follows from the exact sequence $$0 \to {p'}^*N \to \chi^* \mathcal{H} \to {q'}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)(D) \to 0,$$ plus Lemma \[mult-maps\].
Note that we do not need the geometry of Grassmannians, unlike [@V2 §3, Fourth step].
Let $\psi^{\vee}: \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(E) \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L+\Delta)$ and $\phi^{\vee}: \mathrm{Sym}^{k-1}\mathrm{H}^0(E) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{K}_{k-1,1}(X,-\Delta, L)$ be the duals to the maps from Lemma \[green-pic2\] and Proposition \[green-odd-main\]. By Lemma \[proj-crit\], to complete the proof of Voisin’s Theorem, it only remains to show that $\phi^{\vee}=pr_k \circ \psi^{\vee}$.
By duality and from the sequence $0 \to \mathcal{S} \to \pi^* \mathcal{M} \to \Gamma \to 0,$ we identify $\phi^{\vee}$ with $$\mathrm{H}^{k+2}(B, \wedge^{k-1} \mathcal{S}\otimes \pi^*(L-\Delta \boxtimes \omega_{\PP})(2D)) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+2}(B, \pi^*\wedge^{k-1}M_L(L-\Delta) \boxtimes \omega_{\PP})(2D)),$$ which can, in turn, be identified with the natural map $$\phi^{\vee} \; : \; \mathrm{H}^{k+2}(X \times \PP, \wedge^{k-1}N (L-\Delta) \boxtimes \omega_{\PP}(1-k)) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+2}(X \times \PP, \wedge^{k-1}M_L(L-\Delta) \boxtimes \omega_{\PP}).$$
With notation as above, we have $\mathrm{K}_{k,1}(X,L)=0$.
We need to show $\phi^{\vee}=pr_k \circ \psi^{\vee}$. To relate $\psi^{\vee}$ and $\phi^{\vee}$, let $\tilde{\pi}: \widetilde{B} \to X \times \PP$ denote the blow-up in the codimension two locus $\widetilde{\mathcal{Z}}:=\{ (x,s) \; | s(x)=0 \}$. Let $\widetilde{D}$ denote the exceptional divisor. Define $\tilde{p}:=p \circ \tilde{\pi}$ and $\tilde{q}:=q \circ \tilde{\pi}$. We have the exact sequence $$0 \to \tilde{\pi}^*(\mathcal{O}_X(-\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2))(\widetilde{D}) \to \tilde{\pi}^*(E(-\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)) \to {\tilde{p}}^* L \otimes I_{\widetilde{D}} \to 0.$$ We have $\tilde{q}_*({\tilde{p}}^* L \otimes I_{\widetilde{D}}) \simeq \mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta)) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)$. Define $\tilde{S}_{L'}$ and $\tilde{S}_L$ by exact sequences $$\begin{aligned}
0 \to &\tilde{S}_{L'} \to {\tilde{q}}^*{\tilde{q}}_*({\tilde{p}}^* {L'} \otimes I_{\widetilde{D}}) \to {\tilde{p}}^* L' \otimes I_{\widetilde{D}} \to 0, \\
0 \to &\tilde{S}_L \to \mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta)) \otimes {\tilde{q}}^*\mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1) \to {\tilde{p}}^* L \otimes I_{\widetilde{D}} \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\psi^{\vee}$ is the natural map $$\psi^{\vee} \; : \; \mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\wedge^{k+1}\tilde{S}_{L'} \otimes \omega_{\widetilde{B}}) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\tilde{\pi}^*(\wedge^{k+1}M_{L'} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}) \otimes \omega_{\widetilde{B}}).$$ By taking exterior powers of the exact sequence $$0 \to \tilde{\pi}^*(N \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-1)) \to \tilde{S}_L \to \tilde{\pi}^* (\mathcal{O}_X(-\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}(-2))(\widetilde{D}) \to 0$$ and using $\mathrm{H}^0(X,\wedge^{k-2}N(L-2\Delta))=\mathrm{H}^0(N^{\vee}(-\Delta))=\mathrm{H}^2(N(\Delta))=0$, identify $\phi^{\vee}$ with $$\mathrm{H}^{k+2}(\wedge^{k-1} \tilde{S}_L (L-\Delta) \otimes {\tilde{q}}^* \omega_{\PP}) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+2}(\tilde{\pi}^*\wedge^{k-1}M_L (L-\Delta) \boxtimes \omega_{\PP}),$$ induced by $\tilde{S}_L \hookrightarrow \tilde{p}^* M_L$. Using exterior powers of the defining sequence for $\tilde{S}_L$, this can be further identified with $$\phi^{\vee} \; : \; \mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\wedge^k \tilde{S}_L(-{\tilde{p}}^*\Delta) \otimes \omega_{\widetilde{B}}) \to \mathrm{H}^{k+3}(\tilde{\pi}^*(\wedge^k M_L(-\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}) \otimes \omega_{\widetilde{B}}),$$ using $\mathrm{H}^0(\mathcal{O}_X(-\Delta))=\mathrm{H}^1(\mathcal{O}_X(-\Delta))=0$.
Let $U {\subseteq}\widetilde{B}$ be the complement of the codimension two locus $\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(X \times \PP(\mathrm{H}^0(E(-\Delta)))$. We have an exact sequence $0 \to \tilde{S}_{L_{|_U}} \to \tilde{S}_{L'_{|_U}} \to \mathcal{O}_U(-\tilde{p}^*\Delta) \to 0$, giving a commutative diagram where $q: \tilde{\pi}^*(\wedge^{k+1}M_{L'} \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP}) \to \tilde{\pi}^*(\wedge^k M_L(-\Delta) \boxtimes \mathcal{O}_{\PP})$ is the projection. This diagram extends uniquely to $\widetilde{B}$, giving the claim.
[aaaaaa]{} M. Aprodu and J. Nagel, [*[Koszul cohomology and algebraic geometry]{}*]{}, University Lecture Series **52**, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2010).
A. Andreotti and A. L. Mayer, [*[On period relations for abelian integrals on algebraic curves]{}*]{}, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa **21** (1967),189-238. M. Aprodu, G. Farkas, S. Papadima, C. Raicu and J. Weyman, [*[Koszul modules and Green’s conjecture]{}*]{}, Inventiones Math. **218** (2019), 657-720.
E. Arbarello and E. Sernesi, [*[Petri’s approach to the study of the ideal associated to a special divisor]{}*]{}, Inventiones Math. **49** (1978), 99-119.
H-C Graf v Bothmer, [*[Geometric syzygies of canonical curves of even genus lying on a K3 surfaces]{}*]{}, arXiv:math/0108078.
H-C Graf v Bothmer, [*[Generic syzygy schemes]{}*]{}, J. Pure and Applied Algebra **208** (2007), 867-876. H-C Graf v Bothmer, [*[Scrollar syzygies of general canonical curves with genus $\le8$]{}*]{}, Transactions AMS **359** (2007), 465-488. D. Eisenbud and J. Harris, [*[3264 and all that: A second course in algebraic geometry]{}*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
L. Ein and R. Lazarsfeld, [*[Syzygies and Koszul cohomology of smooth projective varieties of arbitrary dimension]{}*]{}, Inventiones Math. **111** (1993), 51-67. L. Ein and R. Lazarsfeld, [*[Asymptotic Syzygies of Algebraic Varieties]{}*]{}, Inventiones Math. **190** (2012), 603-646. G. Farkas, [*[Progress on syzygies of algebraic curves]{}*]{}, Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana **21** (Moduli of Curves, Guanajuato 2016), 107-138. G. Farkas and A. Ortega, [*[Higher rank Brill–Noether theory on sections of K3 surfaces]{}*]{}, International J. Math. **23**(2012), 1250075.
G. Farkas and M. Kemeny, [*[Linear syzygies for curves of prescribed gonality]{}*]{}, Advances Math. **356** (2019), 106810.
M. Green, [*[Koszul cohomology and the cohomology of projective varieties]{}*]{}, J. Differential Geo. **19** (1984), 125-171.
M. Green, [*[Quadrics of rank four in the ideal of a canonical curve]{}*]{}, Inventiones Math. **75** (1984), 85-104. F. Gallego and B. Purnaprajna, [*[Projective normality and syzygies of algebraic surfaces]{}*]{}, J. Reine Angewandte Math. **506** (1999), 145-180.
A. Grothendieck, [*[Éléments de géométrie algébrique : IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas, Seconde partie]{}*]{}. Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS **24** (1965), 5-231. A. Grothendieck, [*[Local Cohomology]{}*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg 1967. R. Hartshorne, [*[Algebraic Geometry]{}*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics **52**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. D. Huybrechts, [*[Lectures on K3 surfaces.]{}*]{}, Cambridge University Press **158**, 2016.
R. Lazarsfeld, [*[Brill-Noether-Petri without degenerations]{}*]{}, J. Differential Geo. **23** (1986), 299-307. M. Lelli-Chiesa, [*[Stability of rank 3 Lazarsfeld-Mukai bundles on K3 surfaces]{}*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. **107** (2013), 451-479.
A. Mayer, [*[Families of K3 surfaces]{}*]{} Nagoya Math J. **48** (1972), 1-17.
C. Voisin, [*[Sur l’application de Wahl des courbes satisfaisant la condition de Brill-Noether-Petri]{}*]{}, Acta Math. **168** (1992), 249-272.
C. Voisin, [*[Green’s generic syzygy conjecture for curves of even genus lying on a $K3$ surface]{}*]{}, J. European Math. Society **4** (2002), 363-404. C. Voisin, [*[Green’s canonical syzygy conjecture for generic curves of odd genus]{}*]{}, Compositio Math. **141** (2005), 1163-1190. J. Weyman, [*[Resolutions of the exterior and symmetric powers of a module]{}*]{}, J. Algebra **58** (1979), 333-341.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
R. Aggleton\
University of Southampton, UK\
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK\
Bristol university, UK\
E-mail:
- |
D. Barducci\
SISSA and INFN, Sezione di Trieste, via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, Italy\
E-mail:
- |
\
University of Agder, Norway\
E-mail:
- |
S. Moretti\
University of Southampton, UK\
E-mail:
- |
C. Shepherd-Themistocleous\
University of Southampton, UK\
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK\
E-mail:
title: Status and discovery prospects for light pseudoscalars in the NMSSM
---
Introduction
============
Five years after the discovery of the Higgs-boson, we have seen nothing but Standard Model (SM) physics from the LHC. So should we expect anything more, and if so, what?
The only problem we have that is really pointing towards new physics at the electroweak (EW) scale, is the hierarchy problem; other problems, like dark matter, may have its solution at this scale too, but nothing points specifically towards something discoverable at the LHC[^1]. As far as solutions to the hierarchy problem are concerned, Supersymmetry (SUSY) sticks out; the absence of sparticles at the LHC is becoming more and more of a problem, but one should remember that all other theories for new physics have the exact same problem, and hence it is fair to say that SUSY is still our best bet for the future, although it is getting more likely that nothing new will show up and we have misunderstood something fundamental.
One necessary ingredient in the superpotential of SUSY models, is a $\mu$ term, $\mu \widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d$, where $\mu$ is a dimensional parameter that needs to be at the EW scale in order for the EW symmetry breaking to work. Although $\mu$ is far from the only dimensional parameter in SUSY theories, it is special as it respects SUSY; all other mass parameters are soft SUSY breaking terms.
This poses a problem, why should $\mu$, that has nothing to do with SUSY breaking, have the same scale as the SUSY breaking terms?
One solution is offered by the Next to Minimal SUSY SM (NMSSM) [@Ellwanger:2009dp]; forbid the $\mu \widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d$ term and instead introduce a singlet complex scalar field $S$ and the term, $\lambda \widehat{S}\widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d$. By giving $S$ a VEV — which comes from soft SUSY breaking terms and is hence naturally at the EW scale — we then get an effective $\mu$ term, $\lambda \langle S\rangle{H}_u{H}_d$.
The additional singlet superfield introduces two terms into the superpotential, $$\label{eq:SuperPot}
W_{\mathrm{NMSSM}} \supset \lambda \widehat{S}\widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d + \frac{\kappa}{3}\widehat S^3,$$ where $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ are dimensionless coupling constants.
In addition the soft SUSY breaking potential needs to be supplemented with, $$\label{eq:SoftHiggs}
%\begin{split}
V^\mathrm{NMSSM}_{\mathrm{soft}} \supset m_{S}^2 | S |^2 + \left( \lambda A_\lambda H_u H_d S + \frac{\kappa}{3} A_{\kappa}S^3 + \mathrm{h.c.}\right)\; , \\
%\end{split}$$ where $m_S$, $A_\lambda$ and $A_\kappa$ are dimensionful mass and trilinear parameters. The singlet mass term, $m_{S}^2 | S |^2$ is traded for an effective $\mu$ term and hence the set of parameters relevant for the scalar sector used in the following scans are, $\lambda,\kappa,\mu_{\rm eff}, \tan\beta, A_\lambda$ and $A_\kappa$, where $A_\kappa$ in some scans have been replaced by the diagonal entry of the pseudoscalar mass matrix, $M_p$, more details on the scan procedures can be found in [@Aggleton:2016tdd].
Light pseudoscalars
===================
Even though many parameters do affect the pseudoscalar mass, it is mostly driven by $A_\kappa$. Since $A_\kappa$ is basically unconstrained by other observables, we can put it close to zero in order to get a light pseudoscalar. This means that in most of parameter space, a light pseudoscalar is easily achieved.
Such light pseudoscalars are always very singlet-like and hence hard to produce, which is why they may have escaped detection so far. The only direct production channel of interest is associated production, $b\bar b a_1$ with $a_1$ being the lightest pseudoscalar, but whether this channel is usable is still an open question [@Bomark:2014gya].
The most promising searches look for pseudoscalars in the decay of other particles, especially heavier scalars. Which scalar one should best assume to start such a chain is not clear, but since the only one actually known to exist is the $h_{125}$, that is a good place to start.
In the following we will therefore look at the channel $gg\to h_{125}\to a_1a_1$.
Limits on Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1$)
=================================
The most important value for this channel is Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1$), the production cross section $\sigma(gg\to h_{125})$ does not change much throughout the parameter space and the branching ratios for the decay channels of the pseudoscalars are pretty much fixed once the mass is known. Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1$) on the other hand, can vary all the way from 0 to 1.
Since a large Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1$) will suppress the other branching ratios of $h_{125}$, the most important experimental constraints here are the signal rate constraints for the 125 GeV Higgs. In NMSSMTools [@Ellwanger:2005dv; @Belanger:2005kh] these are implemented as three separate constraints on the $ZZ$, $\gamma\gamma$ and $b\bar
b$ reduce couplings, taken from Lilith [@Bernon:2015hsa]. HiggsSignals [@Bechtle:2013xfa] on the other hand, does an overall fit to all channels simultaneously.
The result is that NMSSSMTools allows Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1)<0.2$ while HiggsSignals allows Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1)<0.5$!
Which of these values is most trustworthy is hard to say, so we leave that as is and show both options when comparing to data.
![Plots of $\sigma \times BR(gg \to h_{125} \to 2a_1 \to 4\mu)$ (left) and $\sigma \times BR(gg \to h_{125} \to 2a_1 \to 4\tau)$ (right) versus $m_{a_1}$ for various Higgs assignments in the NMSSM. Dark green/blue points are only required to satisfy Higgs rate constraints from HiggsSignals, whilst lighter green/blue points must also pass NMSSMTools Higgs rate constraints. All points pass a “relaxed” set of constraints, i.e. all other NMSSMTools constraints, but ignoring $(g-2)_\mu$ and only an upper limit on relic density. Overlaid are observed exclusion regions from the relevant analyses. []{data-label="fig:Limits"}](xsec_br_4mu.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Plots of $\sigma \times BR(gg \to h_{125} \to 2a_1 \to 4\mu)$ (left) and $\sigma \times BR(gg \to h_{125} \to 2a_1 \to 4\tau)$ (right) versus $m_{a_1}$ for various Higgs assignments in the NMSSM. Dark green/blue points are only required to satisfy Higgs rate constraints from HiggsSignals, whilst lighter green/blue points must also pass NMSSMTools Higgs rate constraints. All points pass a “relaxed” set of constraints, i.e. all other NMSSMTools constraints, but ignoring $(g-2)_\mu$ and only an upper limit on relic density. Overlaid are observed exclusion regions from the relevant analyses. []{data-label="fig:Limits"}](xsec_br_4tau_highermass.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
Experimental limits
===================
Which final state to look for depends on the pseudoscalar mass. Below $2m_\tau$ looking for muons is rather promising. In the left panel of figure \[fig:Limits\], we can see that the $4\mu$ searches [@Khachatryan:2015wka] puts serious pressure on the parameter space.
If we move to the range $2m_\tau<m_{a_1}<2m_b$, one can still exploit the detectability of muons as well as taus. As can be seen in figure \[fig:Limits\], searches for $2\tau2\mu$ [@Aad:2015oqa] are starting to cut into the parameter space, though the impact is not that large yet.
In the higher end, $2m_b<m_{a_1}$, the presence of $b$-quarks in the final state makes detection harder, but from the right panel of figure \[fig:Limits\], we can see that $2b2\mu$ searches [@CMS-PAS-HIG-14-041] are starting to have an impact, at least if we accept Br($h_{125}\to a_1a_1$) up to 0.5 as HiggsSignals does.
All in all there is an impressive experimental effort to constrain also these low mass new states.
Conclusions
===========
Light scalars and pseudoscalars are possible in well motivated theories for new physics, especially in the NMSSM. This presents a different kind of challenge for the LHC experiments as compared to the standard heavy new physics.
Since such light particles would interact very weakly, they can easily have escaped detection and for the same reason will be hard to find at the LHC. One of our best options to find them, is by looking at cascade decays of heavier particles, especially looking for $h_{125}\to a_1a_1$.
While these searches are difficult because of the soft final states and the fact that pseudoscalars above 10 GeV mostly decays to $b$-quarks, both ATLAS and CMS are making progress towards constraining this parameter space and some of the low mass searches are already excluding regions of parameter space.
[99]{}
U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**496**]{} (2010) 1–77, \[[[0910.1785]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0910.1785)\].
R. Aggleton, D. Barducci, N. E. Bomark, S. Moretti and C. Shepherd-Themistocleous, [*JHEP*]{} [**02**]{} (2017) 035, \[[[1609.06089]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0910.1785)\]. N.-E. Bomark, S. Moretti, S. Munir, and L. Roszkowski, [*JHEP*]{} [**02**]{} (2015) 044, \[[[1409.8393]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1409.8393)\].
U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**175**]{} (2006) 290–303, \[[[hep-ph/0508022]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0508022)\].
G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, C. Hugonie, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, [*JCAP*]{} [**0509**]{} (2005) 001, \[[[hep-ph/0505142]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0505142)\].
J. Bernon and B. Dumont, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C75**]{} (2015), no. 9 440, \[[[1502.04138]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1502.04138)\].
P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C74**]{} (2014), no. 2 2711, \[[[1305.1933]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1305.1933)\].
Collaboration, V. Khachatryan [*et. al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B752**]{} (2016) 146–168, \[[[1506.00424]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1506.00424)\].
Collaboration, G. Aad [*et. al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D92**]{} (2015), no. 5 052002, \[[[1505.01609]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1505.01609)\].
Collaboration, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-14-041, CERN, Geneva, 2016.
[^1]: But what about the WIMP miracle you may ask, does it not point to EW scale dark matter?\
Maybe, but there are many other perfectly fine possibilities for dark matter and WIMPs may not necessarily show up at the LHC either. Also the popularity of the WIMP is related to the expectation of new physics at the EW scale due to the hierarchy problem.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We carry out a project to independently measure the distances of supernova remnants (SNRs) in the first quadrant of the Galaxy. In this project, red clump (RC) stars are used as standard candles and extinction probes to build the optical extinction (A$_V$) - distance(D) relation in each direction of extinction-known SNRs. The distances of 15 SNRs are well determined. Among them, the distances of G65.8-0.5, G66.0-0.0 and G67.6+0.9 are given for the first time. We also obtain 32 upper/lower limits of distances, and the distances to G5.7-0.1, G15.1-1.6, G28.8+1.5 and G78.2+2.1 are constrained. Most of the distances measured by the RC method are consistent with previous results. The RC method provides an independent access to the distances of SNRs.'
author:
- 'S.S. Shan'
- 'H. Zhu'
- 'W.W. Tian'
- 'M.F. Zhang'
- 'H.Y. Zhang'
- 'D. Wu'
- 'A.Y. Yang'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Distances of the Galactic Supernova Remnants Using Red Clump Stars
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Supernova remnants (SNRs) play key roles in the final evolution of stars, reshaping and heating the interstellar medium, and the birth of the high-energy cosmic rays. Reliable distances to SNRs are essential to constrain their physical parameters such as age, physical size, expansion velocity and explosion energy of the progenitor supernovae, which reveal the evolutionary process of SNRs. However, obtaining reliable distances of SNRs is a really challenging job. About 20% of Galactic SNRs have distance measurements [@Green2014b].
There are several popular methods to measure the distances to Galactic SNRs. Firstly, the kinematic method is based on the flat rotation curve of the Milky Way. By combining 21 cm HI absorption with CO emission, @Tian2007 developed an improved way to measure the distances of the extended radio sources by minimizing the possibility of a false absorption spectrum. Their methods have been applied to several SNRs, e.g., SNRs Kes 69 &75, Tycho’s SNR [@Tian2008; @2011Tian]. Secondly, distance determinations to the shell-type SNRs can be inferred by the relation between the mean surface brightness ($\Sigma$) at a specific radio frequency and physical diameter (D) of an SNR, $\Sigma$=aD$^{\beta}$. Distance is the ratio of physical diameter and the angular diameter [e.g. @Clark1976; @Milne1979; @Case1998]. $\Sigma$-D relation is frequently used since $\Sigma$ is easy to be observed in radio bands for most radio SNRs. Thirdly, the distances can be accessible when SNRs are associated with the objects with known distances like OB associations [e.g. @Cha1999 Vela remnant] or pulsars [e.g. @Cordes2002]. Additionally, the proper motion and the shock velocity can be used to calculate the distance [e.g. @Vink2008; @Katsuda2008 Kepler’s SNR]. For the shell-type SNRs in the adiabatic phase, distances can be calculated by the X-ray flux and thermal temperature of X-ray -emitting gas [@Kassim1994]. Finally, the extinction measurements can also indicate distances [e.g. @Chen2017; @Zhao2018], which this paper focuses on.
Red clump (RC) stars are characterized by an obvious concentration region in the colour-magnitude diagram (CMD). They are usually low-mass stars in the early stage of core He-burning. Their helium cores almost have the same mass. Meanwhile their absolute magnitude weakly depends on metal abundance and ages in the K band [@Alves2000]. Hence, RC stars are good enough to be standard candles in the infrared band. Assuming that intrinsic colour of RC stars is homogeneous, then their CMD spread along the colour is just caused by interstellar extinction traced by RC stars. @Zhu2015 applied a similar measurement to determine the distance of SNR G332.5-5.6.
We closely follow the RC method and systematically measure the distances to 47 SNRs with known extinction in the first Galactic quadrant, with the aim of enlarging the reliable distance sample of SNRs. In Section 2, the method is described in detail. We summarize methods of measuring the optical extinction, the hydrogen column density and the distances of SNRs compiled from the literature in Section 3. The uncertainties of this method are analyzed in Section 4. In Section 5, we discuss our results and make a comparison with distances measured by other methods. Finally, a brief summary is given.
Build A$\rm _v$-D Relation
==========================
![Colour-magnitude diagram for 21032 stars within 0.5 deg$^2$ of G29.7-0.3, the grey colours denote stellar densities in the logarithmic scale. The red dot and lines show the fitted location of the RC peak density and its extent with $1\sigma$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](./fig/fig1.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![Histogram of the $\rm J-K$ values of the selected stars in the $\rm 11.1 <K < 11.4$. The black curve is the best fit to this histogram to obtain the value of $\rm J-K$ for the peak density of RC stars. The red dotted curves are the Gaussian and power-law components, respectively.[]{data-label="fig2"}](./fig/fig2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
To better illustrate this method, we start with G29.7-0.3 as an example. We extract the stars from the 2MASS All-sky Point Source Catalog in the J and $\rm K_{ S}$ (hereafter K) bands [@Skrutskie2006] centered on the SNR in $ 1^{\circ}$ $\times$ $ 0.5^{\circ}$ ($\bigtriangleup l\,$ $\times$ $\bigtriangleup b \,$) area. The reason why we choose the size of 0.5 deg$^2$ will be discussed later in this section. Their magnitudes in J and K bands are used to construct the CMD (K vs. J-K) since the RC stars are easy to be identified on CMDs [e.g. @Gao2009]. In Figure \[fig1\], RC stars are concentrated in the middle of the CMD. The bulk of stars in the left region of the CMD are predominantly main-sequence stars; those in the right are mainly dwarfs and red-giant-branch stars.
In principle, there is a maximal density of RC stars in each range of K apparent magnitude. We divide the stars sample into a number of horizontal strips in K through the CMD. The locations of the RC stars in different strips indicate different distances and reddening. The width of each strip is usually 0.3 mag and it will be extended to 0.5 mag or 0.7 mag when the counts of the RC’s peak density are less than 10. The length of each strip in $J-K$ is fixed by the RC’s distribution in order to include most of the RC stars and minimize the contamination of the stars of other types. For each strip, we apply an empirical function to fit the histogram of star counts [@Durant2006]: $$\rm y=A_{RCs}exp\{ \frac{-[(J-K)-(J-K)_{peak}]^2}{2\sigma ^2}\}+A_{C}(J-K)^{\alpha}
\label{eq1}$$ Where ($\rm J-K$) represents the stellar colour, $\rm A_{RCs}$ and $\rm A_{C}$ stand for the normalizations of the RC stars and the contaminant stars, respectively. The first term is a Gaussian of $(J-K)_{\rm peak}$ and the width $\sigma$ to fit the RC stars distribution; the second term is a power law to fit the contaminant stars. For instance, Figure \[fig2\] shows the best fit for the $\rm 11.1 < K < 11.4$ strip: the stellar colour ($\rm J-K$) at the peak density of the RC stars $\rm (J-K)_{peak}$ is 1.56 mag and the $\sigma$ is 0.19 mag. The $(J-K)_{\rm peak}$ value is applied to calculate the average extinction of this field as equation (2). We assume that the intrinsic colour $\rm (J-K)_0$ is 0.63 mag and the mean absolute magnitude of RC stars in K band is $-1.61$ mag. We discuss further in section \[sec:uncertain\]. Then the extinction and the corresponding distance are derived from the following functions[@Indebetouw2005]: $$\rm A_K=0.67 \times[(J-K)_{peak}-(J-K)_{0}]$$ $$\label{f2}
\rm \frac{A_K}{A_V}=0.1615-\frac{0.1483}{R_V}$$
$$\rm D(kpc)=10^{[0.2(m_K-M_K+5-(0.1137\pm0.003) \times A_V)]}/1000$$
Where $\rm A_{V}$ and $\rm A_K$ are extinction in V and K bands, $\rm R_V=3.1\pm0.18$ (we discuss the value of $\rm R_V$ in Section \[rv\] ). In Equation \[f2\], the conversion from $\rm A_K$ to $\rm A_{V}$ follows the empirical relation of @Cardelli1989, which contributes an uncertainty of $\sim$3% to the optical extinction.
This process is repeated for all strips until the 2MASS observational limit is reached. Since the extinction grows with the increasing distance in a given line of sight, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the extinction and distance. Hence, the distance of G29.7-0.3 is obtained by overlapping its extinction value on the $\rm A_V-D$ relation in its direction.
![The red curve associated with the extinction uncertainties is established by RC stars within 0.5 deg$^2$. (a) The $\rm A_V$-D relations in the direction of G29.7-0.3 within different bins. The black curve associated with the extinction uncertainties is established by stars within 0.0625 deg$^2$. (b) The $\rm A_V$-D relations in the direction of G34.7-0.4 within different bins.[]{data-label="fig3"}](./fig/fig3_1.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The red curve associated with the extinction uncertainties is established by RC stars within 0.5 deg$^2$. (a) The $\rm A_V$-D relations in the direction of G29.7-0.3 within different bins. The black curve associated with the extinction uncertainties is established by stars within 0.0625 deg$^2$. (b) The $\rm A_V$-D relations in the direction of G34.7-0.4 within different bins.[]{data-label="fig3"}](./fig/fig3_2.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We tempt to find an optimal bin size for each SNR. On the one hand, a larger bin size can help increase the accuracy in determining the extinction. This would enlarge the amount of the RC stars, then decrease the uncertainty of RC’s colour $\rm (J-K)_{peak}$. Meanwhile it would allow a narrow horizontal strip in $m_K$ that is used to perform the fits of Equation \[eq1\], then yield a better sampling of the pairs of extinction and distance. On the other hand, a smaller bin sizes can decrease the dispersion of extinction in the line of sight.
We present two typical examples (one with high stellar density, the other one with low stellar density ) to illustrate how to select the bin sizes. For the SNR with high stellar density in the sightlines, the $\rm A_V$-D relations are constructed within the bin sizes of 0.5 deg$^2$ ($1.0^{\circ}$ $\times$ $0.5^{\circ}$), 0.125 deg$^2$ ($0.5^{\circ}$ $\times$ $0.25^{\circ}$), 0.0625 deg$^2$ ($0.25^{\circ}$ $\times$ $0.25^{\circ}$, the smallest possible area around the target), respectively (See Figure \[fig3\] (a) ). It is found that the three $\rm A_V$-D relations are fully consistent with each other. In this case, the effect of bin sizes can be neglected when deriving the distance of SNRs. For the one with low stellar density , the $\rm A_V$-D relations are constructed within the bin sizes of 1.5 deg$^2$ ($\bigtriangleup l\, 1.5^{\circ}$ $\times$ $\bigtriangleup b \, 1^{\circ}$), 0.5 deg$^2$ ($1.0^{\circ}$ $\times$ $0.5^{\circ}$), 0.125 deg$^2$ ($0.5^{\circ}$ $\times$ $0.25^{\circ}$,the smallest possible area around the target), respectively (See Figure \[fig3\] (b) ). The numbers of sampling points are 9, 7, 6, respectively. The $\rm A_V$-D relations of 0.5 deg$^2$ and 0.125 deg$^2$ are almost the same while the data points of 1.5 deg$^2$ are systematically lower. As equation (2) shows, $\rm A_V$ is determined by the stellar colours of RC stars located in the peak density $\rm (J-K)_{peak}$. The lower $\rm A_V$ for 1.5 deg$^2$ is a result of 1.5 deg$^2$ concentrating in stellar colour($\rm J-K)_{peak}$ lower than those of 0.5 deg$^2$ and 0.125 deg$^2$. The $\rm A_V$-D relations indicate that extending the area to 1.5 deg$^2$ might enlarge extinction dispersion. In principle, we choose a larger size of bin when the dispersion of extinctions is at the same level. The of 0.5 deg$^2$ is a good balance for the two examples. Then, we test the bin sizes of 0.5 deg$^2$ and 0.125 deg$^2$ for the objects almost at an interval of 15$^{\circ}$ in the longitude. In addition to Figure \[fig3\], Figure \[binsize\] presents the results in the four typical directions. In each of the panels, the two curves are consistent with each other, except for the number of sampling points within 0.125 deg$^2$ is less than that of 0.5 deg$^2$ for some objects. Hence, we usually build the $\rm A_V$-D curve within 0.5 deg$^2$ when deriving the distance of an SNR.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
In recent years, both theory and observations have shown the fine structure of RC, which includes two subclass stars, the main RC stars and the secondary RC stars (SRCs) . The main RC stars with low mass that we usually take as standard candles have almost the same luminosity and electronic-degenerate core; while the SRCs whose luminosity are greatly changed contain non-degenerate He-cores [@Girardi1999]. The largest sample of RC stars identified based on LAMOST survey DR3 [@Wan2015; @Wan2017] shows the ratio of the main and secondary RC stars is about 3:1. To investigate the effects of the SRCs for this method, we test to use a double Gaussian function to fit the distribution of RC stars of each strip. No apparent secondary Gaussian component can be found. Hence, the effects of the SRCs can be neglected in this method.
Compilation of A$_{\rm V}$, N$_{\rm H}$ and D
==============================================
Drawing from the catalogs of @Green2014a and @Ferrand2012, we investigate each of 161 SNRs in the first Galactic quadrant. Among them, 47 SNRs have access to the optical extinction or hydrogen column density data in the literatures. We collect their parameters on optical extinction A$_{\rm V}$, hydrogen column density N$_{\rm H}$ and the distance D, then discuss the methods for determing determine the three parameters. The three parameters and the corresponding methods are listed in Tables \[tab1\] and \[tab2\] .
---------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------- --
[1]{}[l]{}[Source]{} [1]{}[c]{}[$\rm A_{V}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{known}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{this paper}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Ref.]{}
[1]{}[l]{}[Name ]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(mag)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(kpc)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(kpc)]{} [1]{}[l]{}
G54.1+0.3 7.3$\pm$0.4 associated stars 6.2 kinematic measurement 6.3$_{-0.7}^{+0.8}$ 1, 2, 3
G65.8-0.5 2.4$\pm$0.4 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ - - 2.4$_{-0.5}^{+0.3}$ 4
G66.0-0.0 2.0$\pm$0.2 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ - - 2.3$\pm$0.3 4
G67.6+0.9 1.9$\pm$0.2 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ - - 2.0$\pm$0.2 4
G67.7+1.8 1.7$\pm$0.7 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 7-17 $\Sigma$-D+Extiction $2.0_{-0.5}^{+3.7}$ 5, 6
G69.0+2.7 2.5$\pm$0.3 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 1.5, 3$\pm2$ kinematic measurement 4.6$\pm0.8$ 7, 8, 9
G82.2+5.3 2.8$\pm$0.2 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 1.6, 2.0 $\Sigma$-D, HII distance 3.2$\pm$0.4 10-12
G89.0+4.7 1.6$\pm$0.3 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 0.8-1.7 kinematic measurement 1.9$_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$ 7, 13, 14
---------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------- --
Reference. (1) @Kim2013, (2) @Leahy2008, (3) @Lu2002, (4) @Sabin2013, (5) @Sezer2008, (6) @Hui2009, (7) @Zhu2017, (8) @Leahy2012, (9) @Verbiest2012, (10) @Mavromatakis2004b, (11) @Uyaniker2003, (12) @Rosado1981, (13) @Byun2006, (14) @Tatematsu1990.
---------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- --
[1]{}[l]{}[Sourse]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm N_{H}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm A_{V}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Model$^a$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{known}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{this paper}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Ref.]{}
[1]{}[l]{}[Name ]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(10$^{21}Hcm^{-2}$)]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(mag)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(kpc)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(kpc)]{} [1]{}[l]{}
G5.7-0.1 13.0$\pm$1.0 6.4$\pm0.5$ TP 3.1 or 13.7 kinematic measurement 2.9$\pm0.3$ 1, 2
G11.0-0.0 $8.0\pm3.0$ 3.9$\pm1.5$ PL 2.6 absorption column 2.4$\pm0.7$ 3
G18.0-0.7 10.0$\pm$2.0 4.9$\pm1.0$ PL 3.9$\pm$0.4 pulsar distance 3.1$\pm0.2$ 4, 5
G18.9-1.1 8.3$\pm0.5$ 4.1$\pm0.2$ TP 2.0 kinematic measurement $1.8\pm0.2$ 6, 7
G34.7-0.4 13.0$\pm$2.0 6.4$\pm1.0$ TP+PL 2.6-3.2,2.5 kinematic measurement 2.1$\pm0.2$ 8-10
G49.2-0.7 17.0 8.3$\pm$1.7 TP 4.3,5.6 kinematic measurement 5.7$_{-0.8}^{+0.7}$ 11-13
G85.4+0.7 8.3 4.1$\pm0.8$ TP 2.5-4.5 kinematic measurement 4.4$\pm0.8$ 14, 15
---------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- --
$^a$Model abbreviations: TP: thermal plasma, PL: power law, BB: black body, TT:a two-component thermal model.
Reference: (1) @Jounert2016, (2) @Hewitt2009, (3) @Bamba2003, (4) @Gaensler2003, (5) @Cordes2002, (6) @Harrus2004, (7) @Aschenbach1991, (8) @Uchida2012, (9) @Park2013, (10) @Frail2011, (11) @Hanabata2013, (12) @Tian2013, (13) @Koo1995, (14) @Jackson2008, (15)@Kothes2001.
Optical extinction A$_{\rm V}$ {#rv}
------------------------------
The interstellar extinction is the absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation by dust and gas. The most common method to obtain optical extinction A$_{\rm V}$ is measuring the reddening via the intensity ratios between the two emission lines and converting the reddening into the colour excess $\rm E_{B-V}$. Then we gain the extinction values $\rm A_V=R_V\times E_{B-V}$. The total to selective extinction ratio $\rm R_V$ is $\sim$ 3.1 for the diffuse interstellar medium in the Milky Way, which is widely used [e.g. @Fitzpatrick1999; @Draine2003; @Schlafly2011]. @Schlafly2016 measured the reddening of 37,000 stars in the Galactic disk based on APOGEE, PS1, 2MASS and WISE data, then determined the uncertainty of the $\rm R_V$, $\sim$ 0.18. Although $\rm R_V$ has significant variance in some regions, there is a wide wedge of intermediate $\rm R_V$ in the first quadrant (see the Figure 3 of the @Schlafly2017). Hence it is robust to adopt $\rm R_V=3.1\pm 0.18$. T he uncertainties of $\rm A_V$ are approximately estimated as $\rm A_V\times \sqrt{(\frac{\sigma(R_V)}{R_V})^2+(\frac{\sigma(E(B-V))}{E(B-V)})^2}$.
The frequently used line ratio we present in Table \[tab1\] is H$_{\alpha}$(6563Å)/H$_{\beta}$(4861Å) based on the Blamer decrements, which are strong enough to be resolved in optical band. Other line ratios involve \[S \]($\sim$10320Å)/\[S \]($\sim$4068Å), \[Fe \]($\sim$1.6435 $\mu$m)/ \[Fe \]($\sim$4068$\mu$m). The group lines from the transition with the same upper level weakly depend on the physical conditions such as temperature and density of the gas. Hence, they are feasible to estimate the extinction to the extended sources [e.g. @oliva1989 SNRs and pulsar wind nebulae]. And another approach is to measure the extinction of the individual stars with known distances that are associated with an SNR.
N$_{\rm H}$
-----------
Hydrogen column density N$_{\rm H}$ is usually used to approximately denote X-ray extinction which is caused by any element not fully ionized, especially the abundant heavy elements when energy is above 0.25 [[keV]{}]{}. The dust grains of the same abundant heavy elements also contribute to the optical extinction $\rm A_V$ [@Tolga2009]. Both theoretical and observational studies for decades have indicated that there should be a reasonable correlation of $\rm A_V$ and N$_{\rm H}$. We adopt the latest value ${N_{\rm H}}/{A_V}=\left(2.04\pm0.05\right)\times10^{21}{\,{\rm H}}{\,{\rm cm}}^{-2}{\,{\rm mag}}^{-1}$ for the first and fourth Galactic quadrants [@Zhu2017].The conversion error is approximately estimated as $\rm \frac{N_H}{2.04}\times \sqrt{(\frac{\sigma(N_H)}{N_H})^2+(\frac{\sigma({N_{\rm H}}/{A_V})}{{N_{\rm H}}/{A_V}})^2}$.
More than half of SNRs have been detected in X-ray band [@Ferrand2012]. About 30% of SNRs are associated with optical emission [@Green2014a]. Therefore, we can obtain more $\rm A_V$ values transformed from the N$_{\rm H}$.
N$_{\rm H}$ is usually derived from the best fitting of X-ray spectrum. Here we only collect the N$_{\rm H}$ derived from solar abundances [@AG89] to keep interstellar abundances consistent in the whole transition. If the uncertainty of N$_{\rm H}$ has not been given in the literature, we use the average errors of the $\rm N_H$, 20%, which are derived from our sample with known uncertainties.
Distance
--------
The distance measurements of SNRs mainly include the $\Sigma$-D relation, the kinematic method, the proper motion measurements, extinction measurements, Sedov estimates, and associated objects with known distance. Due to different distance measurements with varying uncertainties, we select distances of SNRs in the literature with the following priority: kinematic method, proper motion estimates, associated objects with known distance, Sedov estimates and $\Sigma$-D relation.
Uncertainty analysis {#sec:uncertain}
====================
The uncertainties of the derived distances to SNRs are mainly attributed to the errors of the SNRs’ $A_V$ and the RC’s distances. The errors of SNRs’ $A_V$ are calculated by a standard deviation formula. Here, we focus on the discussion on the errors caused by RC stars. The errors of RC’s distances mainly include the dispersion of absolute magnitude and extinction traced by RC stars.
The absolute magnitude M$_{\rm K}$ of RC stars is extensively studied from the perspective of observations, especially in the K band [e.g. @Alves2000; @van2007; @Groenewegen2008; @Laney2012; @Yaz2013]. In this work, we assume that the mean value of M$_{\rm K}$ is -1.61 mag, which is consistent with M$_{\rm K}$=-1.61$\pm$0.03 from @Alves2000 from a sample of 238 Hipparcos RC stars in the solar neighborhood, with M$_{\rm K}$=-1.61$\pm$0.04 mag derived by @Grocholski2002 based on 14 open clusters, and also with the latest value M$_{\rm K}$=-1.61$\pm$0.01 mag determined by @Hawkins2017 based on the 2MASS, Gaia and WISE data. However, @van2007 estimated a larger value of RC stars M$_{\rm K}$ =-1.57 $\pm0.05$ mag from 2MASS data on 24 open clusters, which is in agreement with the value M$_{\rm K}$=-1.54$\pm$0.04 mag measured by @Groenewegen2008 based on the revised Hipparcos parallaxes. Taking all of these studies into consideration, the variance of the absolute magnitude M$_{\rm K}$ leads to a systematic uncertainty of 0.1 mag that contributes about 5% error in the mean distance calculated by equation (3).
The uncertainties of extinction are caused by the dispersion of intrinsic colour and the random errors of the Gaussian fitting. The absolute magnitudes of RC stars are more sensitive to $\rm [Fe/H]$ and age in the J band than the K band, which leads to the variation of the intrinsic colour $\rm (J-K)_0$ [@Tolga2010]. The values of intrinsic colour $\rm (J-K)_0$ for RC stars concentrate in the range from 0.5 to 0.75 mag [e.g. @Yaz2013; @Grocholski2002]. We adopt $\rm (J-K)_0$ as 0.63 mag, and assume that its dispersion is 0.1 mag which leads to about 3% uncertainty in the distance, according to equations (2) and (3). Meanwhile we estimate the uncertainty of mean colour on the peak density location of RC stars : $\rm \sigma_{J-K}=\sigma N_{RC}^{-1/2}$, where $\rm N_{RC}=A_{RC}\sigma \sqrt{2\pi}$ is the sum of RC stars in each magnitude strip [@Durant2006]. It is a good estimate if the Gaussian fit is valid and the contamination is not significant. The typical error of the mean colour is about 0.05 mag, which brings $\sim$ 2% uncertainties in distance estimation.
In summary, the systematic uncertainties of the distances traced by the RC stars are about 10% in total.
Results and Discussion
======================
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
We measure the run of reddening along distance using the RC method in each line of sight of 47 SNRs in the first Galactic quadrant. Among them, 32 SNRs’ extinctions are beyond the range of $\rm A_V$ traced by the RC method, hence the upper/lower limits of distances are obtained. Fortunately, there are 15 SNRs’ extinction bands overlapping with the extinction measured by the RC stars, which provides an opportunity to estimate the distance accurately and with precision. Figure \[fig5\] presents the CMDs with the locations of RC’s peak density for each of the 15 SNRs. Figure \[fig6\] shows the corresponding A$_{\rm V}$-D relations and the probability distribution over distance to the SNRs.
Derive the Distances of SNR
---------------------------
To determine the distances of SNRs, we calculate the probability distribution of distance using the product of two probability distributions and marginalizing over the extinction : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pp}
P(D)= \int P_{SNR}(A_{K})P_{RC}(D|A_{V})dA_{V}.\end{aligned}$$
where $\rm P_{SNR}(A_{V})$ presents the probability distribution of an SNR’s extinction. We assume $\rm P_{RC}(D|A_{V})=P_{RC}(A_{V}|D)$. $\rm P_{RC}(A_{V}|D)$ presents the distribution of the extinction traced by RC at each distance bin. Both distributions are denoted as Gaussian functions.
In Figure \[fig6\] (right column), the panels show the probability distributions over distance calculated by equation \[pp\]. Then, we fit these distributions with a Gaussian function, yielding the distance with the highest probability. For the objects with good Gaussian fitting, the uncertainty of the distance is equal to the standard deviation of the Gaussian. However, for some objects there are apparent and sudden decreases in the distance probability. The red lines mark such decreases (see Figure \[fig6\]). In this case, the uncertainty of distance reflects the cut-off distance. The results are listed in Tables \[tab1\] and \[tab2\].
Summarize the results
----------------------
We obtain 15 new distances, three of which are given for the first time. G65.8-0.5[^1], G66.0+0.0 and G67.6+0.9 are identified as SNRs by @Sabin2013. We estimated their distances as 2.4 kpc, 2.3 kpc, 2.0 kpc, respectively. Note that G66.0+0.0 is not detected in the most sensitive Galactic Plane surveys [@Anderson2017]. Maybe more observations are needed for its classification.
We have also given 20 lower distance limits and 12 upper distance limits. Among them, the distances of 4 SNRs have been further constrained by combining the lower or upper limits inferred by the RC method and the previous results.
The distance of G5.7-0.1 is ambiguous, at either 3.1 or 13.7 kpc, as inferred by the OH maser velocity [@Hewitt2009]. The RC method’s distance is about 2.9 kpc. Therefore, we predict its distance is around 3 kpc.
@Boumis2008 suggested a lower limit distance of 2.2 kpc for G15.1-1.6. The RC method gives an upper limit distance of 2.1 kpc. Hence, we conclude that the distance of G15.1-1.6 is around 2.2 kpc.
The distance to G28.8+1.5 is estimated to be less than 3.9 kpc by @Schwentker1994. We obtain its lower limit as 2.8 kpc, so we suggest a distance of G28.8+1.5: 3.4$\pm0.6$ kpc.
The distance to G78.2+2.1 is around 1.7-2.6 kpc by HI absorption [@Schwentker1994]. Our result is less than 2 kpc. Therefore, the distance of G78.2+2.1 is 1.9$\pm0.2$ kpc.
Discussion
----------
We have estimated distances for 15 SNRs and upper or lower limits for 32 SNRs using the RC method.
-- --
-- --
To further understand the precision of the distances indicated from the RC method, we compare these results with the previous studies by two steps. Firstly, we compare 8 new SNRs’ RC distances with their kinematic distances. The kinematic distances are denoted as $\rm D_{Kinematic}$. When the corresponding uncertainties are not given by the literature, we will empirically assume 20% of their distances as uncertainties. The distances measured by the RC method are denoted as $\rm D_{RC}$. Assuming that each measurement with no errors for the same source, then regression function will be $\rm D_{RC}=D_{Kinematic}$. The MPFITXY routine based on the MPFIT package is used to fit a straight line via data with errors in both coordinates [@Markwardt2009; @Williams2010]. In Figure \[fig7\](a), the fitted regression equation, $\rm D_{RC}=(1.0\pm0.1)\times D_{Kinematic}$, means the RC distances of SNRs are highly consistent with their kinematic method within the range of uncertainty. Secondly, we compare 44 distances constrained by the RC method with the corresponding distances measured by other methods. As Figure \[fig7\] (b) shows, all distances estimated by the RC method are all in the range of 1.5-8 kpc, which is consistent with our expectations. All 20 lower limits of SNRs’ distances coincide with the trend of the fitting lines, while 6 of the 12 upper limits are in agreement with other distance measurements. We conclude that most of RC distances are in agreement with the previous measurements, and the lower limit distances are more reliable. Therefore, SNRs’ distances can be independently constrained by the RC method.
We analyse the reasons why the RC method only can trace either upper or lower limits. For 20 relatively distant SNRs, we only draw their lower limits for two reasons. One restricted condition is the 2MASS Survey completeness limit as J=15.8, $\rm K_S$=14.3 mag. The other is that the RC stars are likely mixed with the highly reddening main-sequence stars in CMDs when the apparent magnitudes begin to be fainter than 13 mag (see Figure \[fig5\]). For 12 relatively closer SNRs, we only obtain their upper limits because the sample of RC stars is not enough for statistics when their apparent magnitudes are brighter than 9 mag in most cases. Hence, the RC method based on 2MASS data can be effective in the range from 1.5-8 kpc and the specific range of distance it can trace depends on the RC stars sample in a given direction.
We next check the seven discrepant measurements. First, the differences between old and new distances for G32.8-0.1, G39.7-2.0, G73.9+0.9 are less than 30%, which may be caused by the uncertainties of the two different methods. Then, the key investigation is conducted on the other four SNRs. The optical extinction values towards SNRs G13.3-1.3, G85.9-0.6 are smaller than 1 mag. We expect that the extinction values are not sensitive to the distance when extinction is extremely slight in the line of sight. For G32.1-0.9, the difference between RC and kinematic distance is greater than 50% likely due to the large error of $\rm N_H$ that is up to 40%. Note the distance of G67.7+1.8 listed in Table \[tab1\] is not reliable since its probability distribution over distance is not well fitted by a Gaussian function. It might be product of the broad range of the SNR’s $\rm A_V$ and the slight extinction which is much lower than the average magnitudes of extinction per kiloparsec ($\rm c_V \sim0.7 mag$ $\rm kpc^{-1}$ ) along the line of sight [@Indebetouw2005]. These discrepant results suggest that the slight extinction or large uncertainties of extinction might significantly affect the accuracy of the RC method.
SUMMARY
=======
We have taken advantage of the RC stars from 2MASS data to construct the A$_{\rm V}$-D relations along the directions of 47 SNRs in the first Galactic quadrant. In total, 15 distances and 32 upper or lower limit distances of SNRs have been obtained by overlapping their extinction values on the A$_{\rm V}$-D relations. Among them, the distances of SNRs G65.8-0.5, G66.0-0.0 and G67.6+0.9 are estimated as 2.4 kpc, 2.3 kpc, and 2.0 kpc for the first time. Distances of SNRs G5.7-0.1, G15.1-1.6, G28.8+1.5 and G78.2+2.1 have been better constrained as about 3 kpc, 2.2 kpc, 3.4 kpc, and 1.9 kpc, respectively.
By comparison, distances estimated by the RC method are consistent with other measurements within the range of the allowed errors. In addition, the RC method tends to give a reliable lower limit distance. In addition, we analyze the possible reasons why six upper limits are incompatible with the previous results. Finally, we highlight the RC method can independently constrain distances of SNRs in the range of 1.5 kpc to 8 kpc and the distances can be well determined by this method when the samples of RC stars are relatively abundant along the line of sight.
We all acknowledge supports from NSFC program (11473038, 11603039, U1831128). We appreciate it that the referee provided constructive comments and useful suggestions. We also thank Dr. Liu Chao, Dr. Xiang Mao-Sheng, Dr. Chen Bing-Qiu and Dr. Wan Jun-Chen for helpful discussion. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey and
Supplementary data
==================
---------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------- --
[1]{}[l]{}[Source]{} [1]{}[c]{}[$\rm A_{V}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{known}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{this paper}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Ref.]{}
[1]{}[l]{}[Name ]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(mag)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[kpc]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[kpc]{} [1]{}[l]{}
G6.4-0.1 3.3$\pm$0.4 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 1.9$\pm$0.3 kinematic measurement $\leq2.3$ 1, 2
G11.2-0.3 13.0$\pm$1.9 Fe ratio 7.2, 5 kinematic measurement, pulsar distance $>4.5$ 3, 4, 15
G13.3-1.3 0.5$\pm0.1$ H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 2-4 CO absorbtion $<1.5$ 6
G15.1-1.6 3.1$\pm$0.6 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ $>2.2$ Blast wave energy $<2.1$ 7
G39.2-0.3 19$\pm$2.3 Fe ratio 6.2 kinematic measurement $>5.3$ 8, 9
G39.7-2.0 2.3$\pm$0.3 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 4.5$\pm$0.2, 5.5-6.5 proper motion, kinematic measurement $<3.5$ 10, 11, 12
G53.6-2.2 3.4$\pm$0.5 S ratio 3.8-6.3, 2.3$\pm0.8$ $\Sigma$-D, kinematic measurement $>5.3$ 13, 14
G59.5+0.1 3.1$\pm$0.7 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 11, 2.3 $\Sigma$-D, kinematic measurement $<3.0$ 15, 16, 17
G73.9+0.9 1.7$\pm$0.4 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 4,4.3-4.5 $\Sigma$-D, kinematic measurement $<3.0$ 18, 19
G78.2+2.1 3.4$\pm$0.6 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 1.7-2.6 kinematic measurement $<2.0$ 1, 20
G85.9-0.6 0.7$\pm$0.1 H$_{\alpha}$/H$_{\beta}$ 4.8$\pm$1.6 kinematic measurement $<2.1$ 21, 22
---------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------- --
Reference: (1) @Zhu2017; (2) @Velazquez2002; (3) @Koo2007; (4) @Kilpatrick2016; (5) @Green1988; (6) @Seward1995; (7) @Boumis2008; (8) @Lee2009; (9) @Su2011; (10) @Boumis2007; (11) @Marshall2013; (12) @Lockman2007 (13) @Long1991; (14) @Giacani1998; (15) @Sezer2008; (16) @Xu2012; (17) @Guseinov2003; (18) @Mavromatakis2003; (19) @Zdziarski2016; (20) @Leahy2013; (21) @Gok2009; (22) @Jackson2008.
---------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- --
[1]{}[l]{}[Sourse]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm N_{H}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Model$^1$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{known}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Method]{} [1]{}[l]{}[$\rm D_{this paper}$]{} [1]{}[l]{}[Ref.]{}
[1]{}[l]{}[Name ]{} [1]{}[l]{}[(10$^{21}Hcm^{-2}$)]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[kpc]{} [1]{}[l]{} [1]{}[l]{}[kpc]{} [1]{}[l]{}
G1.0-0.1 75.0$\pm$15.0 TP 8.0 proper motion $>3.3$ 1, 2
G5.4-1.2 $35.0_{-10.0}^{+7.6}$ TP 5.2$\pm0.5$ pulsar distance $>3.3$ 3, 4
G8.7-0.1 12.0 TP 4.5, 4.4 kinematic measurement, pulsar distance $\ge 2.9$ 3, 5
G12.8-0.0 100.0$\pm$20.0 PL 4.8 kinematic measurement $>2.6$ 6, 7
G15.9+0.2 39.0$\pm$2.0 TP 8.5 kinematic measurement $>3.7$ 8, 7
G20.0-0.2 41.0$_{-13.0}^{+24.0}$ PL 4.5 kinematic measurement $>3.0$ 9, 10
G21.5-0.9 22.4$\pm$0.3 PL 4.8 kinematic measurement $>2.9$ 11, 12
G26.6-0.1 4.9$\pm$1.7 TP 1.3 absorption column $<2.9$ 13
G27.4+0.0 26.0$_{-3.0}^{+4.0}$ TT 8.7$\pm1.2$ kinematic measurement $>6.8$ 14, 15
G28.6-0.1 37.0 TP 7.0 absorption column $>5.0$ 13
G28.8+1.5 20.0 PL $<3.9$ Sedov estimates $>2.8$ 16, 17
G29.7-0.3 29.0 TP 6.3$\pm$1.2,5.8$^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$,10.6 kinematic measurement $\geq3.4$ 15, 18-20
G32.1-0.9 2.3$_{-0.8}^{+1.1}$ TP 4.6 Sedov estimates $<2.0$ 21
G32.4+0.1 52.0$\pm$13.0 PL 17.0 absorption column $>5.3$ 22
G32.8-0.1 8.1$\pm$0.7 TP 4.8 kinematic measurement $<3.4$ 18,23
G41.1-0.3 31.0$_{-3.0}^{+2.0}$ TP 10.3 kinematic measurement $>5.4$ 24, 25
G42.8+0.6 23.0$\pm$10 PL+BB 7.7 PSR distance $>2.8$ 26, 27
G43.3-0.2 51.8$\pm$0.5 TP 10.0 kinematic measurement $>4.5$ 28-30
G65.7+1.2 2.6$_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ BB 1$\pm0.4$ kinematic measurement $<3.6$ 31, 32
G74.9+1.2 13.8$\pm$1.7 PL 6.1$\pm$0.9 extinction measurement $>6.1$ 33, 34
G76.9+1.0 17.0$\pm$3.0 PL 8.0, 10.0 pulsar distance $\geq3.6$ 35, 36
---------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------- --
$^1$Model abbreviations: TP: thermal plasma, PL: power law, BB: black body, TT:a two-component thermal model. Reference: (1)@Nobukawa2009; (2) @Reid1993; (3) @Hewitt2009; (4) @Kaspi2001; (5)@Verbiest2012; (6) @Funk2007; (7) @Kilpatrick2016; (8) @Reynolds2006; (9) @Petriella2013; (10) @Petriella2013; (11) @Safi-Harb2001; (12) @Tian2008; (13) @Bamba2003; (14) @Kumar2014; (15) @Tian2008b; (16) @Misanovic2010; (17) @Schwentker1994; (18) @Zhu2017; (19) @Verbiest2012; (20) @Su2009; (21) @Folgheraiter1997; (22) @Yamaguchi2004; (23) @Zhou2011; (24) @Safi-Harb2000; (25) @Jiang2010; (26) @Fox2001; (27) @Lorimer2000; (28) @Keohane2007; (29) @Zhu2014; (30) @Brogan2001; (31) @Karpova2015; (32) @Kothes2008; (33) @Matheson2013; (34) @Kothes2003 (35) @Arzoumanian2011; (36) @Kargaltsev2010.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: @Anderson2017 suggested that G65.8-0.5 is likely an HII region.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Germanium is an extremely important material used for numerous functional applications in many fields of nanotechnology. In this paper, we study the crystallization of amorphous Ge using atomistic simulations of critical nano-metric nuclei at high temperatures. We find that crystallization occurs by the recurrent transfer of atoms via a diffusive process from the amorphous phase into suitably-oriented crystalline layers. We accompany our simulations with a comprehensive thermodynamic and kinetic analysis of the growth process, which explains the energy balance and the interfacial growth velocities governing grain growth. For the $\langle111\rangle$ crystallographic orientation, we find a degenerate atomic rearrangement process, with two zero-energy modes corresponding to a perfect crystalline structure and the formation of a $\Sigma3$ twin boundary. Continued growth in this direction results in the development a twin network, in contrast with all other growth orientations, where the crystal grows defect-free. This particular mechanism of crystallization from amorphous phases is also observed during solid-phase epitaxial growth of $\langle111\rangle$ semiconductor crystals, where growth is restrained to one dimension. We calculate the equivalent X-ray diffraction pattern of the obtained nanotwin networks, providing grounds for experimental validation.'
author:
- Luis Sandoval
- Celia Reina
- Jaime Marian
bibliography:
- 'Biblio.bib'
title: 'Formation of Nanotwin Networks during High-Temperature Crystallization of Amorphous Germanium'
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Growth of semiconductor crystals from glassy or vapor phases is an extremely important process for many applications in (nano) technology[@greene1983review; @shay2013ternary]. In general, crystallization from a disordered structure is ultimately a diffusive process[@jonsson2000theoretical; @bourgoin1984solid] and –as such– strongly temperature dependent. Growth, however, is highly susceptible to the formation of crystal defects, which can be copious, mediated by imperfections, both related to the environmental variables of the physico-chemical treatment [@hurle2004brief], and to structural heterogeneities associated with the substrate, such as impurities, lattice mismatch, etc. [@drosd1982some]. Defect formation is typically also temperature dependent and thus a compromise must be found to balance reasonable growth rates while keeping acceptably-low defect concentrations. Since the early times of solid-phase crystallization, great emphasis has been placed on suppressing the emergence of these imperfections[@brown1988theory; @dash1959growth], as many properties of crystallized systems strongly depend on achieving pristine structures and a defect-free finish [@kohn1958; @hwang1995solid].
Among the panoply of possible defects found during crystal growth, growth twins stand out as one of the more prolific ones due to low formation energies and a variety of possible genesis pathways [@donnelly1967; @drosd1982some; @bulling1956growth]. In this work we are concerned with twinning in diamond-cubic structures, such as Si and Ge, whose growth, solidification, and recrystallization have been studied extensively[@drosd1982some; @brown1988theory; @billig1955growth; @cullis1971epitaxial]. It is believed that twinning may appear as a consequence of internal transformations to rotate the crystal structure towards energetically favorable interfacial orientations[@bulling1956growth; @carstens1968]. However, twinning is also observed during epitaxial recrystallization in Si, Ge, and their alloys, particularly along the $\langle111\rangle$ growth direction[@darby2013]. The chief difficulty in studying twin nucleation in these systems is that it is generally impossible to see them form *in situ*. Several authors have hypothesized twins form at a very early stage, when the crystal nucleus is extremely small. However, twinned overgrowth may also be observed forming on a nucleus of relatively-large size[@donnelly1967; @carstens1968]. In both of these cases, atomistic simulation suggests itself as the ideal avenue to unravel the nature of twin nucleation and growth.
Here we report molecular dynamics simulations of Ge recrystallization from amorphous substructures at high homologous temperatures (fraction of the melting temperature $T_m$). Our simulations are framed within the study of amorphization-crystallization ($a$$\rightarrow$$c$) processes in laser spot heating of GST-based[^1] phase-changing materials (PCMs)[@Nikolova2010; @Nikolova2013]. In GST materials, the main role of Ge is to accelerate the recrystallization process, and thus here we study pure Ge as the point of reference for Ge-based PCMs [@Wuttig2012]. We start from a critical nucleus of crystalline Ge ($c$-Ge) embedded in an amorphous ($a$-Ge) medium at an initial temperature of $T_0=1100$ K, which is representative of the conditions found within the laser spot. We find that grain growth is characterized by the formation of intricate twin networks facilitated by near zero surface and stacking fault energies[@posselt2009]. We accompany our simulations with a full thermodynamic analysis to explain the mechanisms behind the observed behavior.
\[sec:simul\]Simulation details
===============================
Molecular dynamics simulations {#subsec:md}
------------------------------
We use a Stillinger-Weber potential parameterized by Posselt and Gabriel for Ge[@posselt2009], which reproduces the experimental values for the cohesive energy and lattice constant for the diamond-cubic structure, and yields reasonable values for the energetics of other crystalline phases and the structure of the liquid \cite{}. Our simulations are run in the isobaric-isenthalpic ensemble $NpH$ –where $N$ is the number of particles, $p$ is the pressure and $H$ is the enthalpy– using periodic boundary conditions in three dimensions. The $NpH$ ensemble was chosen to allow for local temperature increases due to latent heat release during the crystallization process. To simulate the effect of laser spot heating, the system is equilibrated to an initial temperature of $T_0=1100$ K, which is approximately the temperature at the center of the spot[@Nikolova2013]. The starting configuration is generated from a perfect diamond structure with lattice constant $a_0 = 0.5654$ nm, corresponding to the value at $1100$ K, oriented along the $[100]$, $[011]$, and $[0\bar{1}1]$ directions. The simulation comprises $62a_1\times 44a_2\times 44a_3$ supercell ($\approx$35 nm per side, where $a_1=a_0$, $a_2=a_3=a_0\sqrt{2}$) containing 1,920,512 atoms. The central spherical region of radius of 2 nm (the nucleus) is then kept frozen, while the outer region is melted by fixing the temperature at 3000 K using a Langevin thermostat during 100 ps and then quenched. At the same time the $NpH$ ensemble maintains zero pressure globally. Finally, the entire system (the $a$-Ge block containing the $c$-Ge nucleus) is further equilibrated at 1100 K during an additional 10 ps. The thermostat is then turned off during the subsequent crystallization simulations. We have shown that this results in a glass transition temperature of approximately 810 K, in good agreement with laboratory experiments for Ge[@Angell2000]. The procedure just described was used by @Reina2014 to generate planar $a/c$ interfaces to calculate free energies and interface mobilities.
Calculation of the critical nucleus size {#sec:critical}
----------------------------------------
In classical nucleation theory, the critical nucleus size $r^{\ast}$ is governed by the balance between the volumetric and interfacial driving forces expressed, respectively, as the derivative of the net free energy release $\Delta G_{0,a\rightarrow c}$ and a surface energy penalty $\Delta G_s$ with respect to the radius of the nucleus. In principle, this balance must also account for the expansion of Ge upon crystallization, which is approximately 10% less dense than its amorphous counterpart (cf. Figure 3b in @Reina2014) at $p=0$ and $T_0=1100$ K. However, the procedure detailed in the previous section to seed an amorphous matrix with crystalline grains removes any differential strains by construction. This allows us to write: $$\Delta G=\Delta G_{0,a\rightarrow c}+\Delta G_s=\frac{4\pi r^3}{3}\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}+4\pi r^2\gamma{\color{blue},}
\label{delta}$$ where $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}$ is the volumetric free energy density at zero pressure, and $\gamma$ is the surface (free) energy density, which is orientation dependent: $\gamma\equiv\gamma(\theta)$, with $\theta$ representing the surface normal with respect to the crystal orientation. We have calculated the atomic free energy densities $g_{0,a}$ and $g_{0,c}$ of the amorphous and crystalline phases using thermodynamic integration, see @Reina2014 for details. The variation of $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}=g_{0,a}-g_{0,c}$ with temperature in units of energy per atom is provided in Figure \[energies\]. When this difference is zero, there is phase coexistence, which by definition occurs at the melting point, here $T_m=1350$ K. The driving force per unit volume for the $a$$\rightarrow$$c$ transformation at zero pressure is readily obtained as: $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}=\rho_c\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}$. From the figure, at $T_0=1100$ K, $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}=-0.073$ eV per atom, while the atomic density of the crystalline phase at the same temperature is $\rho_c=4.36\times10^{28}$ m$^{-3}$ (after @Reina2014). From this, $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}\approx -5.07\times10^8$ J$\cdot$m$^{-3}$.
![\[energies\] Temperature dependence of $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}$ expressed on a per atom basis (referred to the left vertical axis). Also shown are the internal energies $u$ of both amorphous and crystalline Ge as a function of temperature (right vertical axis). The heat capacity $C_p$ is calculated from the slope of $u(T)$, which for $c$-Ge results in a value of $\approx2.69\times10^{-4}$ eV$\cdot$K$^{-1}$ per atom ($\approx0.36$ J$\cdot$g$^{-1}$$\cdot$K$^{-1}$), in excellent agreement with experimental measurements [@okhotin].](deltag.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
As mentioned earlier, $\Delta G_s$ is orientation dependent. However, crystalline Ge displays cubic symmetry, which allows us to reduce the orientation space to that contained in the standard stereographic triangle whose vertices in the first octant are the intersects of the unit sphere with the $[001]$, $[110]$, and $[111]$ directions[@Reina2014]. Thus, we restrict our study of the orientation dependence of $\gamma(\theta)$ to those three orientations[^2]. The interfacial free energies are shown in Figure \[surface\] as a function of temperature, where a surface orientation anisotropy can be clearly distinguished at low temperatures. At $T_0$ however, this anisotropy is smeared out by the high thermal diffusivity of the amorphous phase above the glass transition temperature, cf. Figure 2 in @Reina2014, and we find an orientation-independent value of $\gamma\approx0.08$ J$\cdot$m$^{-2}$.
![\[surface\] Surface free energy as a function of temperature for the three surface normals representing the vertices of the standard triangle.](InterfaceEnergy_Temperature_b.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The critical grain size is found by minimizing eq. : $d\Delta G/dr=0$, which results in $$r^{\ast}=-\frac{2\gamma}{\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}}{\color{blue}.}$$ Replacing $\gamma$ and $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}$ for their respective values, we obtain that $r^{\ast}\approx0.32$ nm. This value is approximately 55% of the magnitude of the lattice constant $a_0$ and suggests stable crystalline grains with only a handful of atoms in them, probably implying that very localized fluctuations suffice to produce crystal growth seeds.
[\[inter\]]{}Interface mobility
-------------------------------
The growth rate of the crystalline phase at the expense of the amorphous phase is governed by the schematic energy landscape shown in Figure \[scheme\]. The excess atomic flux $a$$\rightarrow$$c$ relative to $c$$\rightarrow$$a$ transitions is governed by $\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}$ (shown in the figure) and results in net interface velocity $v(T)$ and grain growth. Mathematically, this can be expressed to first order as[@bourgoin1984solid; @liu2014multi]: $$v(T)=v_0\exp\left(-\beta E_B\right)\left(1-\exp\left(-\beta\Delta g_{0,a\rightarrow c}\right)\right)$$ where $v_0$ is a prefactor and $E_B$ is an activation energy for the transformation (shown in the figure). $E_B$ represents the energy for the detachment/reattachment process, which is diffusive in nature. We have devised a special procedure to calculate $E_B$, for which a value of 0.42 eV was obtained for the $[100]$ orientation[@Reina2014] at 0 K. A low value of $E_B$ may result in faster growth speeds at low temperatures, but it also results in faster detachment ($a$$\leftarrow$$c$) at higher temperatures, where the difference of free energies decreases, resulting in lower effective growth speeds.
![\[scheme\] (Free) energy landscape governing the crystallization process.](schem.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The interface velocities can also be obtained by direct atomistic simulation as described by @Reina2014. Figure \[intvel\] shows results for four distinct orientations at $T_0$ with the $\langle111\rangle$ being the slowest one, which ultimately controls grain growth.
![\[intvel\] Interface velocity as a function of surface orientation at the initial (1100 K) and final (1250 K) simulation temperatures.](IntVel.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[\[results\]]{}Simulation results
=================================
Next we present the simulations of supercritical grain growth at $T_0$. While the critical radius calculated earlier suggests a very small stability threshold, we have found that –in practice– a minimum radius of 2 nm was needed to have positive grain growth on the timescales captured in the MD simulations. The discrepancy can be attributed to a number of factors, chief of which is the magnitude and frequency of thermal fluctuations at these high temperatures and small volumes, which lead to low signal-to-noise ratios in terms of the stable critical size. Other factors such as nonsphericity, and finite size effects, may also play a non-negligible role. Consequently, in the following we show results of 2-nm radius supercritical $c$-Ge nuclei in an amorphous medium.
Three-dimensional growth of critical grains
-------------------------------------------
In a 3D (spherical) nucleus, in principle all growth orientations are sampled, which means that in materials with sizable interface energy anisotropies and/or interface velocities, some growth directions will be preferred over others. A complete animation of the grain growth process starting from (super)critical nuclei is provided in the Supporting Information. A snapshot of the simulation at the point of maximum growth –which occurs 9.1 ns after the system is equilibrated at $T_0$– is shown in Figure \[snapshot\]. Atoms in the image are colored using structure analysis as implemented in the OVITO visualization package [@ovito], which assigns dark blue to atoms with diamond cubic structure and orange to atoms with hexagonal diamond crystal structure.
Closer examination of the atoms with hexagonal diamond structure reveals that they belong to $\langle111\rangle$ twin ($\Sigma3$) boundaries, typical of the diamond cubic lattice structure. Figure \[zoom\] shows a region around one such boundary in local detail, where the mirror symmetry characteristic of twin plates can be clearly identified.
![\[zoom\] $[0\bar{1}1]$ view of the atomistic configuration of a twinned region.](snapshot3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Moreover, using boundary analysis available in OVITO, we have examined the atomistic structures in Figures \[subfig1\] and \[zoom\] and find the emergence of a network of twinned regions, as showcased in Figure \[subfig2\]. The figure shows a through-thickness view of the entire grain at the exact same time as Fig. \[subfig1\]. As depicted, in the lower half of the grain twins are elongated along $\langle211\rangle$ directions, while in the upper half a three-dimensional arrangement is formed.
As discussed earlier, grain growth is controlled by the magnitude of the driving force and the interface mobility. Both of these quantities are temperature dependent. The exothermic nature of the $a$$\rightarrow$$c$ reaction (i.e. internal energy density difference $\Delta u_{a\rightarrow c}<0$) results in a local energy deposition that increases the global system temperature. Thus, the temperature of the system correlates directly with the volume of material transformed. Such correlation is clearly visible in Figure \[temp\], where both quantities are exactly proportional to each other with a proportionality constant of $\approx8.01\times10^{-27}$ m$^3$ K$^{-1}$. The temperature is seen to increase from $T_0$ to a final value of approximately 1250 K. This effectively arrests the growth process, as dictated by the sharp decrease in mobility at such temperature (cf. Figure \[intvel\]). We remark that this arrest is partially an artifact of the simulations which limits unrestricted heat flow due to periodic boundary effects.
![\[temp\] Evolution of the temperature with time during growth of a critical nucleus under $Nph$ simulations conditions. The crystallized volume is also shown as a function of time. Selected snapshots of the grain structure corresponding to three distinct instants (2, 5, and 8 ns) are shown.](Temperature_Volume.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Analysis of growth of $a/c$ bicrystals
--------------------------------------
The appearance of twins during the growth stage of critical Ge grains may obey the energetics of two different scenarios. On the one hand, there is ample evidence in the literature that in Ge twinning emerges if the growth direction deviates appreciably from the preferred growth direction, understood as that which results in the lowest interfacial energy. Twins would then appear to alter the internal crystal orientation and bring it closer to the preferred one [@billing1954; @kohn1958]. However, other works have pointed out that if a new facial orientation was the only advantage gained by twinning, twinned crystals should not be much larger than twice the size of a single crystal, something at odds with observations of twinned crystals being more than ten times as large as untwinned ones [@carstens1968]. This hypothesis is strongly weakened by the lack of a noticeable surface energy anisotropy at 1100 K according to our calculations (cf. Figure \[surface\]).
The alternative scenario is that twins are a manifestation of a growth mode that relies on the indistinct formation of ordered atomic layers with the correct stacking sequence and stacking faults. This is the same growth mode observed under the so-called *solid-phase epitaxial recrystallization* (SPER) process of $\{111\}$-oriented crystals, as well as by *liquid* epitaxial growth of crystals with the same orientation via chemo-physical vapor deposition. There is ample evidence of twin formation in the literature for both of these processes in Ge, particularly at high temperatures [@cor2008; @darby2012; @epitaxy-book]. This mechanism is controlled by the value of the stacking fault energy $\gamma_{\rm SF}$[^3], which ranges between 0.07 and 0.09 J$\cdot$m$^{-2}$ according to several measurements[@1963ApPhL; @gomez1975; @denteneer1987]. By contrast, the interatomic potential employed in our simulations predicts zero stacking fault energy[@posselt2009]. Evidently then, the model for Ge employed here offers no impediment to the favorable formation of epitaxial twins. However, while at low temperatures this might clearly result in an overestimation of the volume fraction of stacking faults and/or twins when conditions are conducive to their formation [@biswas2012; @Nguyen2013], it is reasonable to assume that values of $\gamma_{\rm SF}$ on the order of the experimentally-measured ones result in zero effective stacking fault energy at a temperature of 1100 K via thermal softening.
To ascertain which mechanism is responsible for the observed formation of nanotwin networks, next we carry out MD simulations of $a/c$ bi-crystals at $T_0$ oriented along three selected directions: $[111]$ (low mobility, cf. Figures \[surface\] and \[intvel\]), and $[100]$ and $[110]$ (high mobility). These are qualitatively similar to other simulations of the SPER process using atomistic methods[@george1993; @akis2007; @bragado2012]. The three surface orientations simulated here are schematically shown in Figure \[red\] relative to a $[1 \bar{1}0]$ view of the Ge diamond cubic lattice.
![Schematic view along the $[1\bar{1}0]$ direction of the Ge diamond cubic lattice, with the $(11\bar{1})$ plane highlighted. Image obtained with `Wolfram CDF Player`[@WolframAlpha].[]{data-label="red"}](DiamondLattice_complete.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
### $[111]$ amorphous/crystalline bi-crystals {#111}
The starting microstructures ($a/c$ bi-crystals) are generated in the manner described by @Reina2014. The computational cell has dimensions of $20.8\times19.4\times39.2$ nm containing 698,880 atoms. The system is again equilibrated at 1100 K and let to evolve in the $NpH$ ensemble. Two animations illustrating the process are provided in the Supporting Information. Growth of the crystalline phase proceeds via the formation of an intricate twin network, an image of which is shown in Figure \[twin111\]. Twin boundaries are shown as green-colored surfaces, and are seen to form a quasi-hexagonal network as demanded by the topological structure of a set of interconnected $\{111\}$ surfaces. The structures are reminiscent of coral-like porous networks in synthesized ceramic materials [@caruso1998].
![\[twin111\] Twinning network formed from the growth of a crystalline Ge half-crystal along the $[111]$ direction.](111_twin_net.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
### $[100]$ and $[110]$ amorphous/crystalline bi-crystals
The size of the computational cells employed to study growth along the \[100\] and \[110\] directions was $20.4\times20.4\times39.6$ nm with 725,760 atoms, and $20.4\times20.8\times40.0$ nm with 748,800 atoms, respectively. As shown in the corresponding animations (Supporting Information), crystallization along these directions results in growth of a homogeneous Ge crystal, forming essentially no defects. Here, atom rearrangements from the amorphous into the crystalline phase occurs by forming atomic planes with the correct stacking sequence.
### XRD analysis
An important part of the analysis of the simulations is their experimental validation. Ge crystals can be examined by a variety of sources, from transmission electron microscopy (TEM), to Raman spectroscopy (RS), and X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD). However, twin boundaries are not sources of strain and are thus difficult to detect via conventional TEM analysis. In contrast, they act as scattering agents to X-rays and do leave an imprint on diffraction patterns. Therefore, we have calculated the equivalent XRD signature for pure crystalline and amorphous samples, as well as for the multitwinned structure shown in Fig. \[twin111\], using the `Debyer` code[@debyer] considering a X-ray source with wave length of 1.542 Å at 0 K. The resulting pattern is shown in Figure \[diffraction\], where the intensity peaks represent the different scattering directions. The figure reveals clear differences in the footprints of the three structures considered, namely, no structure for the amorphous system, well marked peaks for the ideal crystal, and softened peaks for the twinned crystal.
![\[diffraction\]Diffraction patterns for amorphous, perfect crystal and twinned Germanium. The atomic structures were minimized before being analized with `Debyer`[@debyer] considering a X-ray source with wave length of 1.542 Å.](diffraction_patterns_new2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The XRD pattern showed in the Figure is in excellent agreement with experimental results for pure crystalline Ge but only in modest agreement for amorphous Ge [@choco2009]. This may indicate that the generated amorphous structures may not be fully optimized in terms of their atomic configuration, likely a result of using unphysically-high heating and cooling rates to entrap a liquid structure into a disordered solid. With regard to multitwinned structures, Fig. \[diffraction\] provides a pathway for their detection in future experiments.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
Although it is clear from the literature that twinned Ge crystals may emerge during crystallization at low temperatures to favor low energy interface orientations (and thus decrease the critical nucleus size), our simulations conclusively show that the origin of the twinning network observed during crystallization of Ge grains from amorphous structures at $T_0$ lies in the energetic degeneracy observed for the stacking sequence of $\{111\}$ planes. Although this effect is favored by construction in our simulations (due to a zero stacking fault energy predicted by our atomic model), the overall effect of $\gamma_{SF}$ in materials such as Ge at these high temperatures is likely to be negligible in any case. The result is the spontaneous formations of multiply twinned structures along each of the three equivalent $\langle111\rangle$ directions.
The other notable observation is that grain growth at 1100 K is controlled by low interface mobilities. This together with a small critical radius for stable crystalline nuclei, suggests the development of nano crystalline or very fine-grained structures, as is indeed the case experimentally. The reason for this is that 1100 K is near the tipping point where the mobility sharply decreases from its maximum value. This is compounded by latent heat deposition released during the exothermic $a$$\rightarrow$$c$ process, which increases the temperature beyond that tipping point. The phenomenon where crystallization is fueled by the intrinsic latent heat release is well known and referred to as *explosive* crystallization[@leamy1980; @grigor2006; @Nikolova2014]. For this, however, an increase in temperature should result in growth acceleration by a surge in interface velocity, which is not the case in the temperature regime considered here. In all, high nucleation rates due to small critical radii, slow mobilities due to high temperatures, plus high-twinning propensities result in the notoriously fine-grained nanostructures reported for laser-induced Ge crystallization [@grigor2006; @kuo2008; @Nikolova2013; @Nikolova2014]. We have recently proposed a thermodynamically-consistent phase field model to predict these microstructures [@Reina2014]. However, intrinsic twinning was not a feature of those simulations and we believe that the present atomistic simulations provide a new piece of physics that must be incorporated into such higher-level models.
Twin boundaries may also act as scattering agents for elastic and electromagnetic waves, and may impact the value of fundamental constants such as the thermal conductivity or electric susceptibility. Indeed, it has been observed that the appearance of twins during epitaxial growth of Si wafers resulted in faulty devices, while for other defects, such as [*e.g.*]{} extrinsic stacking faults, it did not [@lee2006; @checos2012; @china2013] (albeit perfect Ge crystals have been grown in the $[111]$ direction as well[@Nguyen2013]). This may be of importance in GST materials where high contrast between amorphous and crystalline phases in terms of these properties is desired.
:
We thank the DTEM group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for useful suggestions and guidance. This work was partially performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. LLNL is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. DOE, under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. LANL is operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. DOE, under contract DE-AC52-O6NA25396.
Animations referred to in the text as ‘Supporting Information’ will be made available online.
{width="0.35\linewidth"}
Twinning network formed during high temperature Ge crystallization.
[^1]: Ge-Sb-Te
[^2]: Suitable interpolation schemes within the standard triangle can be adopted for a general orientation $\theta$.
[^3]: Twin boundaries correspond to ‘half’ a stacking fault and so the twinning propensity correlates directly with the stacking fault energy
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We construct a new infinite series of irreducible components of the Gieseker-Maruyama moduli scheme $\mathcal{M}(k), ~ k \geq 3$ of coherent semistable rank 2 sheaves with Chern classes $c_1=0,~ c_2=k,~ c_3=0$ on $\mathbb{P}^3$ whose general points are sheaves with singularities of mixed dimension. These sheaves are constructed by elementary transformations of stable and properly $\mu$-semistable reflexive sheaves along disjoint union of collections of points and smooth irreducible curves which are rational or complete intersection curves. As a special member of this series we obtain a new component of $\mathcal{M}(3)$.
[**2010 MSC:**]{} 14D20, 14J60
[**Keywords:**]{} Rank 2 stable sheaves, Reflexive sheaves, Moduli space.
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
National Research University Higher School of Economics\
6 Usacheva Street\
119048 Moscow, Russia
author:
- 'Aleksei Ivanov-Viazemsky'
title: 'New series of moduli components of rank 2 semistable sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ with singularities of mixed dimension'
---
Introduction
============
Let $\mathcal{M}(0,k,2n)$ be the Gieseker-Maruyama moduli scheme of semistable rank-2 sheaves with Chern classes $c_1=0,\ c_2=k,\ c_3=2n$ on the projective space $\mathbb{P}^3$. Denote $\mathcal{M}(k)=\mathcal{M}(0,k,0)$. By the singular locus of a given $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3}$-sheaf $E$ we understand the set $\mathrm{Sing}(E)=\{x\in\mathbb{P}^3\ |\ E$ is not locally free at the point $x\}$. $\mathrm{Sing}(E)$ is always a proper closed subset of $\mathbb{P}^3$ and, moreover, if $E$ is a semistable sheaf of nonzero rank, every irreducible component of $\mathrm{Sing}(E)$ has dimension at most 1. For simplicity we will not make a distinction between a stable sheaf $E$ and corresponding isomorphism class $[E]$ as a point of moduli scheme. Also by a general point we understand a closed point belonging to some Zariski open dense subset.
Any semistable rank-2 sheaf $[E] \in \mathcal{M}(k)$ is torsion-free, so it fits into the exact triple $$0 \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow E^{\vee \vee} \longrightarrow Q \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $E^{\vee \vee}$ is a reflexive hull of $E$ and $\text{dim}~Q \leq 1$. Conversely, take a reflexive sheaf $F$, a subscheme $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$, an $\mathcal{O}_{X}$-sheaf $Q$ and a surjective morphism $\phi: F \twoheadrightarrow Q$, then one can show that the kernel sheaf $E:=\text{ker}~\phi$ is semistable when $F$ and $Q$ satisfy some mild conditions. We call a sheaf $E$ an *elementary transform* of $F$ along $X$. In general, an elementary transform of a sheaf $F$ can be defined as follows.
An elementary transform of a sheaf $F$ along an element $[F \overset{\phi}{\twoheadrightarrow} Q] \in \emph{Quot}^{P}(F)$ is a sheaf $E:=\emph{ker}~\phi$.
In fact, all known irreducible components of the moduli schemes $\mathcal{M}(k)$ general points of which correspond to non-locally free sheaves are constructed by using elementary transformations of stable reflexive sheaves.
More precisely, in [@JMT2] there were found two infinite series $\mathcal{T}(k,n)$ and $\mathcal{C}(d_1,d_2,k-d_1 d_2)$ of irreducible components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$ which (generically) parameterize stable sheaves with singularities of dimension 0 and pure dimension 1, respectively. general points of components of the first series are elementary transforms of stable reflexive sheaves along unions of $n$ distinct points in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$, while those of the second series are elementary transforms of instanton bundles of charge $k - d_1 d_2$ along smooth complete intersection curves of degree $d_1 d_2$.
Next, in [@IT] there were constructed three components of $\mathcal{M}(3)$ parameterizing sheaves with singularities of mixed dimension. general sheaves of these components are elementary transforms of stable reflexive sheaves with Chern classes $(c_2, c_3)=(2, 2), \ (2, 4)$ along a disjoint union of a projective line and a collection of points in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$. This approach was generalized in [@AJT] by doing elementary transformations of stable reflexive sheaves with other Chern classes along a disjoint union of a projective line and a collection of points in order to construct infinite series of components of $\mathcal{M}(-1,c_2,c_3)$.
Also it is worth to note that in [@JMT1] there were constructed the certain collections of divisors of the boundaries $\partial \mathcal{I}(k)=\overline{\mathcal{I}(k)} \setminus \mathcal{I}(k)$ of instanton components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$ for each $k$. general sheaves of these divisors are elementary transforms of instanton bundles along rational curves.
The present paper is devoted to further generalization of these results. Namely, we construct an infinite series of irreducible moduli components which includes the components parameterizing non-locally free sheaves constructed in [@JMT1; @JMT2; @IT] as special cases. Similar to the construction in *loc. cit.*, the general sheaves $E$ of the new components are obtained by the elementary transformations of the following form $$0 \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow L \oplus \mathcal{O}_{W} \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $F$ is a stable or properly $\mu$-semistable reflexive (non-locally free) rank-2 sheaf, $L$ is a line bundle on a smooth connected curve $C$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ which is either rational or complete intersection curve, $W \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$ is a collection of points. In order to simplify computations we require that $C \cap W = \emptyset$ and $\text{Sing}(F) \cap (C \sqcup W) = \emptyset$. One can show that the singularity set of the sheaf $E$ is $\text{Sing}(F) \sqcup C \sqcup W$, so it has mixed dimension. Moreover, $\text{Sing}(E)$ does not coincide with any other singularity set of the sheaves from the known components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$, so the components of the proposed series are really new.
Since a complete enumeration of components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$ for small values of $k$ is of particular interest, it is worth to note that this series contains a new component of $\mathcal{M}(3)$. In short, the dense subset of this component can be obtained by doing elementary transformations of properly $\mu$-semistable reflexive rank-2 sheaves $F$ with $(c_1, c_2, c_3) = (0, 1, 2)$ along the sheaf $L = \mathcal{O}_{C}(2)$, where $C \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$ is a smooth conic.
The paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2 we recall the necessary facts about moduli spaces of stable and $\mu$-semistable reflexive sheaves. Section 3 is devoted to the description of the new series of moduli components. Finally, in Section 4 we prove that the described components are irreducible.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The work was supported in part by Young Russian Mathematics award and by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘‘5-100’’. I would like to thank A. S. Tikhomirov for usefull discussions and D. Markushevich for the opportunity to give a talk about results of this paper on the conference “Integrable systems and automorphic forms” (University of Lille-1, 2019).
Reflexive rank-2 sheaves
========================
The moduli scheme $\mathcal{R}(0,m,2n)$ parameterizing stable reflexive rank-2 sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ with Chern classes $c_1=0, \ c_2=m, \ c_3=2n$ can be considered as open subset of the Gieseker-Maruyama moduli scheme $\mathcal{M}(0,m,2n)$, so it is a quasi-projective scheme (see [@SRS]). It is known that for $(m,n)=(2,1), \ (2,2), (3,4)$ this scheme is smooth, irreducible and rational; for $(m,n) = (3,2)$ it is irreducible and reduced at general point; for $(m,n)=(3, 1), \ (3,3)$ the corresponding reduced scheme is irreducible (see [@Chang]).
In the paper [@JMT2] the infinite series of irreducible components $\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ of the moduli schemes $\mathcal{R}(0,m,2n)$ is described. Sheaves from these components fit into the following exact triple $$\label{reflexive series}
0 \rightarrow a \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3}(-3) \oplus b \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3}(-2) \oplus c \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3}(-1) \rightarrow (a+b+c+2) \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3} \rightarrow F(k) \rightarrow 0,$$ where $a,~ b,~ c$ are arbitrary non-negative integers such that $3a+2b+c$ is non-zero and even, $k:=\frac{3a+2b+c}{2}$. The corresponding Chern classes of these sheaves can be expressed through the integers $a,~ b,~ c$ in the following way $$\label{pol m}
c_2(F)=\frac{1}{4}(3a+2b+c)^{2}+\frac{3}{2}(3a+2b+c)-(b+c),$$ $$\label{pol n}
c_3(F)=27 {a+2 \choose 3} + 8 {b+2 \choose 3} + {c+2 \choose 3} +$$ $$+ 3(3a + 2b +5)ab + \frac{3}{2}(2a+c+4)ac + (2b+3c+3)bc + 6abc.$$ The components $\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ are smooth. Moreover, they have expected dimension $8m-3$ which implies that $\text{Ext}^{2}(F,F) = 0$ for any sheaf $[F] \in \mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ (see [@JMT2 Lemma 5]).
Also we can construct a scheme $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ parameterizing some reflexive properly $\mu$-semistable sheaves with the corresponding Chern classes in the following way. Consider the Hilbert scheme $\text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3})$ of smooth space curves of degree $m$ and genus $g$; let $n=g+2m-1$. Now denote by $\mathcal{Z} \hookrightarrow \text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3}) \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$ the corresponding universal curve and $\text{pr}: \text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3}) \times \mathbb{P}^{3} \longrightarrow \text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3})$ the projection onto the first factor. Also introduce the following definition
Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a coherent $\mathcal{O}_{S}$-sheaf. We denote by *$\textbf{P}(\mathcal{E}):=\text{Proj}(\text{Sym}_{\mathcal{O}_{S}}(\mathcal{E}))$* the Proj construction of the sheaf of graded *$\mathcal{O}_{S}$*-algebras *$\text{Sym}_{\mathcal{O}_{S}}(\mathcal{E})$*.
We define the scheme $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ as an open subset of $\textbf{P}((\text{pr}_{*}\omega_{\mathcal{Z}}(4))^{\vee})$ the points $(Y, \ \mathbb{P}\xi) \in \textbf{P}((\text{pr}_{*}\omega_{\mathcal{Z}}(4))^{\vee})$ of which satisfy the following property $$\xi \in \text{H}^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4)) \ \text{generates} \ \omega_{Y}(4) \ \text{except at finitely many points}.$$ By the construction we have the formula for the dimension of this scheme $$\label{dim_strictmu}
\text{dim}~\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n) = \text{dim}~\text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3}) + \text{dim}~\mathbb{P}(\text{H}^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4))) =$$ $$= h^{0}(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + h^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4)) - 1,$$ where $Y$ is an arbitrary curve from $\text{Hilb}_{m,g}(\mathbb{P}^{3})$. Next, note that due to the isomorphism $\text{H}^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4)) \simeq \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}})$ any point $(Y, \mathbb{P}\xi) \in \mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ uniquely defines the sheaf $F$ which satisfies the following exact triple $$\label{serre for non-stable}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow I_{Y} \longrightarrow 0.$$ One can show that $F$ is a reflexive properly $\mu$-semistable rank-2 sheaf with Chern classes $c_1=0, \ c_2=m, \ c_3=2n$. Conversely, any such sheaf $F$ satisfies the triple above, so it determines the point of $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$. Therefore, there exists one-to-one correspondence between points of $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ and some family of reflexive properly $\mu$-semistable rank-2 sheaves with Chern classes $c_1=0, \ c_2=m, \ c_3=2n$ (for more details, see [@SRS Thm. 4.1, Prop. 4.2]).
\[automorphisms\] For any sheaf $F$ from $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ we have that *$h^{0}(F)=1$, $\text{dim End}(F) = 2$, $\text{Aut}(F) \simeq k^{*} \times k$*.
*Proof:* The extension (\[serre for non-stable\]) immediately implies that $h^{0}(F)=1$. Also applying the functor $\text{Hom}(F, -)$ to (\[serre for non-stable\]) we get $$0 \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(F, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(F, F) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(F, I_{Y}).$$ So $\text{dim Hom}(F, F) \leq \text{dim Hom}(F, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + \text{dim Hom}(F, I_{Y}) \leq 2 \ \text{dim Hom}(F, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) = 2 \ h^0(F) = 2$; second inequality holds because $I_{Y} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}$ implies $\text{Hom}(F, I_{Y}) \hookrightarrow \text{Hom}(F, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}})$. On the other hand, the short exact sequence (\[serre for non-stable\]) gives the following endomorphism $$\label{endomorphism sigma}
\sigma: \ \ F \twoheadrightarrow I_{Y} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \hookrightarrow F,$$ which is not a scalar multiplication. So, $\text{dim End}(F) \geq 2$, hence is 2. Therefore, the endomorphism algebra $\text{End}(F)$ has the following form $$\text{End}(F) \simeq \{ \lambda \text{Id} + \mu \sigma \ | \ \lambda, \mu \in k \}.$$ Finally, since $\sigma^{2} = 0$ for the corresponding automorphism group we have the isomorphism of groups $$\label{aut group}
\text{Aut}(F) = \{ \lambda \text{Id} + \mu \sigma \ | \ \lambda \in k^{*}, \ \mu \in k \} \simeq k^{*} \times k,$$ $$\lambda \text{Id} + \mu \sigma \mapsto ( \frac{\mu}{\lambda}, \ \lambda ) \in k^{*} \times k.$$ $\Box$
\[ext\_nonstable\] For $\mu$-semistable reflexive sheaves $F$ from $\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n)$ we have the following equalities $$\label{formula_for_ext1}
\emph{dim Ext}^{1}(F,F )= \emph{dim}~\mathcal{V}(0,m,2n),$$ $$\label{defect1}
\emph{dim Ext}^{2}(F,F) = h^{1}(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + g.$$
*Proof:* In order to show this apply the functor $\text{Hom}(-,F)$ to the triple (\[serre for non-stable\]), then we obtain the exact sequence $$\label{seq F right}
0 \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(I_{Y},F) \longrightarrow \text{End}(F) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{0}(F) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},F) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(F,F) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{1}(F).$$ From the fact that the triple (\[serre for non-stable\]) is not splitting we can deduce that the canonical map $\text{Hom}(I_{Y}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(I_{Y}, F)$ is isomorphism, so we have $$\text{Hom}(I_{Y},F) \simeq \text{Hom}(I_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \simeq k.$$ Next, it is easy to see that $\text{H}^{0}(F) \simeq k$. It immediately implies that the morphism $\text{Hom}(F,F) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{0}(F)$ from the exact sequence (\[seq F right\]) must be surjective. Since the curve $Y$ is smooth and irreducible we also have $\text{H}^{1}(F) \simeq \text{H}^{1}(I_{Y}) = 0$. Therefore, the exact sequence (\[seq F right\]) implies the isomorphism $$\label{isom_for_ext}
\text{Ext}^{1}(F,F) \simeq \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},F).$$ Now after applying the functor $\text{Hom}(I_{Y},-)$ to the triple (\[serre for non-stable\]) we have the exact sequence $$\label{seq_for_ext}
0 \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(I_{Y}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} \text{Hom}(I_{Y}, F) \overset{0}{\longrightarrow} \text{Hom}(I_{Y}, I_{Y}) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},F) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},I_{Y}) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{2}(I_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}).$$ Taking into account that $Y$ is smooth we conclude that $\text{Ext}^{2}(I_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \simeq \text{Ext}^{3}(\mathcal{O}_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \simeq \text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{Y}(-4)) = 0$ by Serre duality. Next, it is easy to check that $\text{Hom}(I_{Y},I_{Y}) \simeq k$ and $$\label{abc}
\text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \simeq \text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(I_{Y}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}})) \simeq$$ $$\simeq \text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{Y},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}})) \simeq \text{H}^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4)).$$ Moreover, we have $\text{Ext}^{1}(I_{Y},I_{Y}) \simeq \text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(I_{Y},I_{Y})) \simeq \text{H}^{0}(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}})$. Substituting (\[isom\_for\_ext\]), (\[abc\]) into (\[seq\_for\_ext\]) we obtain the exact sequence $$\label{seq_for_computation}
0 \longrightarrow k \longrightarrow \text{H}^{0}(\omega_{Y}(4)) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(F,F) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{0}(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \longrightarrow 0,$$ which, together with (\[dim\_strictmu\]), immediately implies the equality (\[formula\_for\_ext1\]).
Since the curve $Y$ is smooth we have the formulas $$\chi(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}})=4 m, \ \ \ \chi(\omega_{Y}(4))=4 m + g - 1,$$ $$\text{deg}(\omega_{Y}(4))=4 m + 2g - 2, \ \ \ h^{1}(\omega_{Y}(4))=0,$$ so the equality (\[formula\_for\_ext1\]) can be written in the following form $$\label{formula_for_ext1_new}
\text{dim Ext}^{1}(F,F)= h^{1}(N_{Y/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + 8m + g - 2.$$ Next, note that according to [@SRS Prop. 3.4] we have the following formula $$\label{Riemann-Roch}
\sum_{i=0}^{3} \text{dim Ext}^{i}(F,F)=-8 m + 4.$$ Considering the remaining part of the exact sequence (\[seq F right\]), namely, $$\text{Ext}^{3}(I_{Y},F) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{3}(F,F) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{3}(F)$$ we can deduce that $\text{Ext}^{3}(F,F) = 0$ because of $\text{H}^{3}(F) \simeq \text{H}^{3}(I_{Y}) = 0$ and $\text{Ext}^{3}(I_{Y},F) \simeq \text{Ext}^{3}(I_{Y},I_{Y}) = 0$. On the other hand, from the Lemma \[automorphisms\] we know that $\text{Hom}(F,F) \simeq k^{2}$. Taking into account (\[formula\_for\_ext1\_new\]), we obtain from (\[Riemann-Roch\]) the formula (\[defect1\]). $\Box$
It is important that the proof of the irreducibility of the new components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$ which will be constructed in the next section using elementary transformations of reflexive sheaves $F$ is presented only for the case $\text{dim Ext}^{2}(F,F)=0$. By this reason and due to the formula (\[defect1\]), we will consider only irreducible subschemes $\mathcal{V}_{m} \subset \mathcal{V}(0,m,4m-2)$ whose general points are sheaves obtained by Serre construction (\[serre for non-stable\]) with smooth rational curves $Y$ of degree $m$ (it is easy to see that for such sheaves $F \in \mathcal{V}_{m}$ we have $c_3(F)=4m-2$).
*For a sheaf $F \in \mathcal{V}_{m}$ the corresponding curve from the construction (\[serre for non-stable\]) we will denote by $Y_{F}$. Also note that we have the inclusion $\text{Sing}(F) \subset Y_{F}$.*
\[triviality\] Let $F$ be an rank-$2$ $\mu$-semistable sheaf with $c_1(F) = 0$. Then for any $m \geq 1$, the restriction of $F$ to a general rational curve of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ is trivial.
*Proof:* For $d = 1$, the assertion follows from the Grauert–Mülich Theorem [@HL Theorem 3.1.2]. For $d > 1$, we start by restriction to a general chain of m lines and then smooth out the chain of lines to a nonsingular rational curve of degree $d$.
By a chain of lines we mean a curve $C_0 = l_1 \cup ... \cup l_d$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ such that $l_1, ..., l_d$ are distinct lines and $l_i \cap l_j = \emptyset$ if and only if $|i-j| \leq 1$. It is well known (see e. g. [@HH Cor. 1.2]) that a chain of lines $C_0 = l_1 \cup ... \cup l_d$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ considered as a reducible curve of degree $d$ can be deformed in a flat family with a smooth one-dimensional base $(\Delta, 0)$ to a nonsingular rational curve $C$. Making an étale base change, we can obtain such a smoothing with a section.
By the case $d = 1$, the restriction of $F$ to a general line is trivial. By induction on $d$, we easily deduce that for a general chain of lines $C_0$, the restriction of $F$ to $C_0$ is also trivial: $F|_{C_{0}} \simeq \mathcal{O}^{\oplus 2}_{C_{0}}$, which is equivalent to saying that $F|_{l_i} \simeq \mathcal{O}^{\oplus 2}_{l_i}$ for all $i = 1, ..., d$. Choosing a smoothing $\{ C_{t} \}_{t \in \Delta}$ of $C_{0}$ with a section $t \mapsto x_{t} \in C_{t}$ as above, we remark that $F|_{C_{t}} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{C_{t}}(k_{t} ~ pt) \oplus \mathcal{O}_{C_{t}}( - k_{t} ~ pt)$ for some integer $k_{t}$ which may depend on $t$. The triviality of $F|_{C_{t}}$ is thus equivalent to the vanishing of $h^{0}(F|_{C_{t}}(-pt))$. Using the semi-continuity of $h^{0}(F|_{C_{t}}( - x_{t}))$, we see that $F|_{C_{t}}$ is trivial for general $t \in \Delta$. $\Box$
Construction of components
==========================
Fix an arbitrary scheme $\mathcal{R}$ belonging to one of the families $\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ or $\mathcal{V}_{m}$ described above. For simplicity of notation we will denote the Chern classes of a sheaf from $\mathcal{R}$ by $c_{i}(\mathcal{R}),~ i=1,2,3$. Similarly, fix some scheme $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ from the collection of the Hilbert schemes $\text{Hilb}_{d}, \ \text{Hilb}_{(d_1, d_2)}$, where the Hilbert scheme $\text{Hilb}_{d}$ parameterizes smooth irreducible rational curves of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$ and $\text{Hilb}_{(d_1,d_2)}$ parametrizes smooth irreducible complete intersection curves of the form $S_{d_1} \cap S_{d_2}$, where $S_{d_1}, \ S_{d_2} \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$ are surfaces of degree $d_1, \ d_2$, respectively. For the Hilbert schemes $\text{Hilb}_{(d_1,d_2)}$ we will assume that $d_{1} \leq d_{2}$ and $(d_{1}, d_{2}) \neq (1, 1), ~ (1, 2)$. The genus of curves from $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ we will denote by $g$ which is equal to zero for rational curves and $1+\frac{1}{2}d_1 d_2 (d_1 + d_2 - 4)$ for complete intersection curves. Next, denote by $\mathcal{H}_{0} = \text{Sym}^{s}_{*}(\mathbb{P}^{3})$ the open smooth subset of the Hilbert scheme parameterizing unions $W=\{x_1, ..., x_s \ | \ x_{i} \neq x_j \}$ of $s$ distinct points in $\mathbb{P}^{3}$. Also we impose the following restrictions on the choice of schemes $\mathcal{R}, \ \mathcal{H}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{0}$ $$\label{cond on integers}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
s < \frac{1}{2} c_3(\mathcal{R}) \ \ \ \text{if} \ \mathcal{H}_{1} = \text{Hilb}_{d}, \\
s \leq \frac{1}{2} c_3(\mathcal{R}) \ \ \ \text{if} \ \mathcal{H}_{1} = \text{Hilb}_{(d_1,d_2)}, \\
\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m} \Rightarrow m<d.
\end{array}\right.$$ The universal curves of the Hilbert schemes $\mathcal{H}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ we will denote by $\mathcal{Z}_{0} \subset \mathcal{H}_{0} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{1} \subset \mathcal{H}_{1} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$, respectively.
Since for a smooth projective curve invertible sheaves and rank-1 stable sheaves are the same objects, the relative Picard functor $\textbf{Pic}: (\textit{Sch}/\mathcal{H}_{1}) \longrightarrow (\textit{Sets})$ defined as $$\textbf{Pic}(T)=\{\text{$T$-flat invertible sheaves~} F \text{~on~} \mathcal{Z}_{1} \times_{\mathcal{H}_{1}} T \} / \text{Pic}(T)$$ is equal to the relative Maruyama moduli functor for classifying stable sheaves which is corepresented by some $\mathcal{H}_{1}$-scheme (see [@Mar Thm. 5.6] or [@HL Thm. 4.3.7]). So the Picard functor $\textbf{Pic}$ is also corepresented by this $\mathcal{H}_{1}$-scheme which we denote by $\text{Pic}_{\mathcal{Z}_{1}/\mathcal{H}_1}$. Further we will only consider the component of the scheme $\text{Pic}_{\mathcal{Z}_{1}/\mathcal{H}_1}$ corresponding to the following Hilbert polynomial $$P(k)=g-1+2d+n-s+dk,$$ We will denote this component just by $\mathcal{P}$. From the set-theoretical point of view the scheme $\mathcal{P}$ has the following form $$\mathcal{P}=\{ (C, L) \ | \ C \in \mathcal{H}_{1}, \ L \in \text{Pic}^{g-1+2 \text{deg}(C) +n-s}(C) \}.$$ For the case of smooth rational curves we have the isomorphism $\mathcal{P} \simeq \mathcal{H}_{1}$ because $\text{Pic}^{g-1+2 \text{deg}(C) +n-s}(C)$ is trivial for any smooth rational curve $C$. Also it is obvious that the dimension of the scheme $\mathcal{P}$ can be computed by the formula $$\label{picard_dim}
\text{dim~}\mathcal{P} = \text{dim~} \mathcal{H}_{1} + \text{dim~ Jac}(C).$$
*For simplicity of notation the sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{W} \oplus L$ for fixed elements $W \in \mathcal{H}_{0}, \ L \in \mathcal{P}$ we will denote just by $Q$ throughout the text. Also for arbitrary two sheaves $F$ and $Q$ we denote by $\text{Hom}_{e}(F,Q) \subset \text{Hom}(F,Q)$ the subset of surjective morphisms $F \twoheadrightarrow Q$ of $\text{Hom}(F,Q)$.*
The closed points of $\mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{P} \times \mathcal{H}_{0}$ satisfying the following conditions $$\label{disjointness}
C \cap W = \emptyset,$$ $$\label{supports}
\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{S}_{a,b,c} \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \emph{Sing}(F) \cap (C \sqcup W) = \emptyset,$$ $$\label{zeroes of section}
\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m} \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ Y_{F} \cap (C \sqcup W) = \emptyset,$$ $$\label{cond for h1}
h^1(\mathcal{H}om(F,L))=0,$$ $$\label{cond epimorphism}
\emph{Hom}_{e}(F, Q) \neq 0,$$ $$\label{cond defect}
h^{0}(\omega_{C}(4) \otimes L^{-2})=0$$ form an open dense subset $\mathcal{B}$ of $\mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{P} \times \mathcal{H}_{0}$.
*Proof:* First of all, note that all these conditions are open, so we only need to prove that each of them is non-empty because of the irreducibility of the scheme $\mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{P} \times \mathcal{H}_{0}$.
It is obvious that the conditions (\[disjointness\])-(\[zeroes of section\]) are non-empty because for a given sheaf $F \in \mathcal{R}$ we always can take the disjoint union $C \sqcup W$ away from $\text{Sing}(F)$ for the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$, or $Y_{F}$ for the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m}$. From Lemma \[triviality\] it follows that the restriction of any sheaf from $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}, \ \mathcal{V}_{m}$ on a general rational curve is trivial. Moreover, the first inequality of (\[cond on integers\]) implies that $\text{deg}(L) > g - 1 + 2 ~ \text{deg}(C)>0$. Using these facts we can immediately conclude that the conditions (\[cond for h1\])-(\[cond defect\]) are non-empty for the case $\mathcal{H}_{1}=\text{Hilb}_{d}$.
Now let us prove that the conditions (\[cond for h1\])-(\[cond defect\]) are non-empty for the case $\mathcal{H}_{1}=\text{Hilb}_{(d_1,d_2)}(\mathbb{P}^{3})$ as well. In order to do this we consider a flat family $\textbf{C} :=\{ C_{t} \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}, \ t \in Y \} \subset Y \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$ of smooth curves parameterized by a smooth irreducible curve $Y$ with marked point $0 \in Y$ such that $C_{t} \in \mathcal{H}_{1}$ for $t \neq 0$, but $C_{0}=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{d_1 d_2} l_{i}$ is a union of $d_1 d_2$ projective lines $l_{1},...,l_{d_1 d_2}$. According to [@JMT2 Lemma 20], such family can be chosen with the property that there exists a sheaf $\widetilde{\textbf{L}}$ over $\textbf{C}$ satisfying the following
- for $t \neq 0$: $\widetilde{L}_{t} := \widetilde{\textbf{L}}|_{t \times C_{t}} \in \text{Pic}^{g-1}(C_{t})$ and $$h^{0}(\widetilde{L}|_{C_{t}})=h^{1}(\widetilde{L}|_{C_{t}})=0, \ \ \ {\widetilde{L}|_{C_{t}}}^{\otimes 2} \neq \omega_{C_{t}};$$
- $\widetilde{L}_{0}=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^{d_1 d_2} \mathcal{O}_{l_{i}}(-1)$ is a $\mathcal{O}_{C_{0}}$-semistable sheaf.
Now fix a plane $H \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$ which intersects $C_{0}$ at $d_1 d_2$ points, then $H$ transversally intersects the curve $C_{t}$ for any $t$ from some open subset $U \subset Y$ containing $0 \in Y$. Making an etale base change, we can assume that there is a section $x : U \longrightarrow \textbf{C}$ defined by $t \mapsto x_{t} \in C_{t} \cap H \subset C_{t}, \ t \in U$ such that $x_{0} \in l_{1}$. The section $x$ can be considered as the divisor $\{ x_{t} \}_{t \in U}$ on $\textbf{C}$ as well as $\{ H \cap C_{t} \}_{t \in U} \subset \textbf{C}$, so we can define the divisor $\textbf{D} = \{ H \cap C_{t} \}_{t \in U} + (d_1 d_2+n-s) \{ x_{t} \}_{t \in U}$ on $\textbf{C}$. Therefore, the sheaf $\textbf{L} := \widetilde{\textbf{L}}( \textbf{D})$ satisfies the following properties
- for $t \neq 0$: $L_{t} := \textbf{L}|_{t \times C_{t}} \in \text{Pic}^{g-1+2 d_1 d_2 +n-s}(C_{t})$
- $L_{0} = \mathcal{O}_{l_1}(d_1 d_2+n-s) \oplus \bigoplus\limits_{i=2}^{d_1 d_2} \mathcal{O}_{l_{i}}$.
Note that the restriction of a given sheaf $F$ from $\mathcal{R}$ on a general projective line is trivial due to Lemma \[triviality\]. Conversely, using the induced action of the projective transformation group $\text{PGL}(4, k)$ on $\mathcal{R}$ we can state that restriction of a general sheaf from $\mathcal{R}$ on a given projective line is trivial. So there is a sheaf $[F] \in \mathcal{R}$ which is trivial on every line $l_{i}$ of the configuration $C_{0}$, i. e. $$\label{triv}
F|_{l_{i}} \simeq 2 \mathcal{O}_{l_i}, \ \ i=1,...,d_1 d_2.$$ From this it is easy to see that $$h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F,{L}_{0}))=h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F,\mathcal{O}_{l_{1}}(d_1 d_2 + n-s)) \oplus \bigoplus\limits_{i=2}^{d_1 d_2} h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F,\mathcal{O}_{l_{i}}))=0.$$ Taking into account the upper-semicontinuity we can conclude that this equality holds for $L_{t}$, where $t$ belongs to some open subset of $U$. Since $([F], L_{t}) \in \mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{P}$ for $t \neq 0$ this proves that the property (\[cond for h1\]) is non-empty.
Next, since the sheaf $F$ is locally-free free along the support of the sheaf $L_{t}$ and as it was proved the equality $h^{i \geq 1}(\mathcal{H}om(F,L_{0})) = 0$ holds, any epimorphism $F \twoheadrightarrow L_{0}$ can be extended to epimorphism $F \twoheadrightarrow L_{t}$ (see [@JMT1 Lemma 7.1]). So we have $\text{Hom}_{e}(F, L_{t}) \neq 0$, and, obviously, $\text{Hom}_{e}(F,\mathcal{O}_{W} \oplus L_{t}) \neq 0$ for any $W \in \mathcal{H}_{0}$ not intersecting $C_{t} \sqcup \text{Sing}(F)$.
Finally, let us prove that the condition (\[cond defect\]) is non-empty. Note that for any pair $(C,L) \in \mathcal{P}$ we have the following equality $$\text{deg}(\omega_{C}(4) \otimes L^{-2})=2g-2+4 d_1 d_2-2(g-1+2 d_1 d_2 +n-s)=2(s-n).$$ The second inequality of (\[cond on integers\]) means that $s \leq n$. So if $s<n$ then the condition (\[cond defect\]) is obviously satisfied. On the other hand, if $s=n$ then the line bundle $L$ can be chosen in such way that $L \simeq \widetilde{L}(2)$, where $\widetilde{L}$ is not a theta-characteristic, i. e. $\widetilde{L}^{\otimes 2} \neq \omega_{C}$. Hence $\omega_{C}(4) \otimes L^{-2}$ is non-trivial line bundle of degree 0 so it has no nonzero global sections. $\Box$
\[equivalence\] Two different triples $(F, W \sqcup C, L), \ (\widetilde{F}, \widetilde{W} \sqcup \widetilde{C}, \widetilde{L}) \in \mathcal{B}$ give the same isomorphism class $[E \overset{\phi}{\simeq} \widetilde{E}] \in \mathcal{M}(m+d)$ if and only if there exist isomorphisms $\psi \in \emph{Hom}(F,\widetilde{F}), \ \zeta \in \emph{Hom}(Q,\widetilde{Q})$ which complete the commutative diagram $$\label{completion of diagram}
\begin{tikzcd}
0 \rar & E \rar{\xi} \dar{\phi} & F \rar \dar{\psi} & Q \rar \dar{\zeta} & 0 & \\
0 \rar & \widetilde{E} \rar{\widetilde{\xi}} & \widetilde{F} \rar & \widetilde{Q} \rar & 0 &
\end{tikzcd}$$
*Proof*: See [@SRS Cor. 1.5]. $\Box$
\[stability\] For any triple $(F,W \sqcup C, L) \in \mathcal{B}$ and surjective morphism $\phi \in \emph{Hom}_{e}(F, Q)$ the kernel sheaf $E:=\emph{ker}~\phi$ is stable.
*Proof*: It is obvious that the sheaf $E$ is $\mu$-semistable. Moreover, it has no torsion and $c_{1}(E)=0$, so in order to prove its stability we can consider only subsheaves $G \subset E$ which are sheaves of ideals $I_{\Delta}$ of some subschemes $\Delta \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}, \ \text{dim}~\Delta \leq 1$. Since taking double dual sheaf is functorial we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
& 0 \dar & 0 \dar \\
0 \rar & I_{\Delta} \rar \dar & \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \dar \\
0 \rar & E \rar & E^{\vee\vee} \\
\end{tikzcd}$$ which implies that $h^{0}(E^{\vee\vee}) > 0$. On the other hand, as it was shown in the proof of the previous lemma there is the isomorphism $E^{\vee \vee} \simeq F$. However, for the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ the corresponding sheaf $[F] \in \mathcal{R}$ has no nonzero global sections because it would contradict its stability. Therefore, for this case the sheaf $E$ is stable.
Next, consider the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m}$. Note that from the construction (\[serre for non-stable\]) it follows that $h^0(F)=1$. So the diagram above can be written in the following form $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
& 0 \dar & 0 \dar & 0 \dar \\
0 \rar & I_{\Delta} \rar \dar & \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \rar \dar & \mathcal{O}_{\Delta} \rar \dar & 0 \\
0 \rar & E \rar \dar & F \rar \dar & \mathcal{O}_{W} \oplus L \rar & 0 \\
0 \rar & T \rar \dar & I_{Y} \dar & & \\
& 0 & 0 &
\end{tikzcd}$$ From this we immediately conclude that $\Delta \subset W \sqcup C$. Note that $C$ is an irreducible curve and $L$ is a locally-free $\mathcal{O}_{C}$-sheaf, so it cannot have $0$-dimensional subsheaf. Therefore, in the case $\text{dim}(\Delta) = 0$, the composition $\mathcal{O}_{C} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{W} \oplus L \overset{pr_{2}}{\twoheadrightarrow} L$ is zero and $\Delta \cap C \neq \emptyset$ is impossible. Hence, only the following cases are possible: $\Delta \cap C=\emptyset$ or $C$. The first case leads to contradiction because $I_{Y}|_{C} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{C}$ and $\text{deg}~L>0$, so there is no surjective morphism $I_{Y} \twoheadrightarrow L$. The second case is not destabilizing due to the third inequality of (\[cond on integers\]) and the following formula $$\frac{1}{2}P(E)-P(I_{C \sqcup W'}) = \frac{\text{deg}(C)-m}{2}k + \text{const}.$$ Therefore, for the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m}$ the sheaf $E$ is also stable. $\Box$
From Lemma \[equivalence\] it follows that an epimorphism $\phi \in \text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big)$ defines the isomorphism class $[\text{ker}~\phi]$ up to natural action of $\text{Aut}(F) \times \text{Aut}(Q)$ on $\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big)$, i. e. $(\psi, \zeta) \phi = \zeta \circ \phi \circ \psi^{-1}$ for $(\psi, \zeta) \in \text{Aut}(F) \times \text{Aut}(Q)$. In other words, the element $[\phi]$ of the orbit space $\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big) / \Big( \text{Aut}(F) \times \text{Aut}(Q) \Big)$, which we will consider as a set, uniquely defines the isomorphism class $[\text{ker}~\phi]$. This fact, together with Lemma \[stability\], implies that the elements of the following set of data of elementary transformations $$\mathcal{Q}:=\Big\{([F], C \sqcup W, L, [\phi]) \ | \ ([F], C \sqcup W, L) \in \mathcal{B},$$ $$\ [\phi] \in \text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big) / \Big( \text{Aut}(F) \times \text{Aut}(Q) \Big) \Big\}$$ are in one-to-one correspondence with some subset of closed points of the moduli scheme $\mathcal{M}(m+d)$. Note that the vector space $\text{Hom}\big( F, Q \big)$ has the following direct decomposition $$\label{decomposition}
\text{Hom}\big( F, Q \big)=\text{Hom}\big( F, L \big) \oplus \text{Hom}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_1} \big) \oplus ... \oplus \text{Hom}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_s} \big).$$ Moreover, all non-trivial morphisms $F \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{x_i}$ are surjective, so we have $$\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \big) = \text{Hom}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \big) \setminus 0 = k^{2} \setminus 0, \ \ \ i=1,...,s.$$ Next, since the sheaves $L, \mathcal{O}_{x_1}, ..., \mathcal{O}_{x_s}$ are simple and their supports are disjoint we have the isomorphism $$\text{Aut}(Q) \simeq \text{Aut}(L) \times \text{Aut}(\mathcal{O}_{x_{1}}) \times ... \times \text{Aut}(\mathcal{O}_{x_{s}}) \simeq (k^{*})^{s+1}$$ which obviously respects the decomposition (\[decomposition\]), so we have the following equality $$\label{proj decomposition}
\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big) / \text{Aut}(Q) \simeq \mathbb{P}\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, L \big) \times \prod_{i=1}^{s} \mathbb{P} \text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \big) \simeq$$ $$\simeq \mathbb{P}\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, L \big) \times (\mathbb{P}^{1})^{\times s} \overset{open}{\lhook\joinrel\longrightarrow} \mathbb{P}\text{Hom}\big( F, L \big) \times (\mathbb{P}^{1})^{\times s}.$$ From this it follows that $$\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big) / \Big( \text{Aut}(F) \times \text{Aut}(Q) \Big) =$$ $$=\Big( \mathbb{P}\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, L \big) \times \prod_{i=1}^{s} \mathbb{P} \text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \big) \Big) / \text{PAut}(F),$$ where $\text{PAut}(F) := \text{Aut}(F) / \{ \lambda \cdot \text{Id}, \ \lambda \in k^{*} \}$ is the quotient group by homotheties.
For the case $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{S}_{a, b, c}$ the automorphism group $\text{Aut}(F)$ is generated by the homotheties, so the group $\text{P}\text{Aut}(F)$ is trivial. On the other hand, for the case $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{V}_{m}$ the automorphism group of the sheaf $F$ is of the form (\[aut group\]), so the group $\text{PAut}(F) \simeq k$ is not trivial. Let us show how the automorphism group $\text{Aut}(F)$ acts on the vector space $\text{Hom}(F,Q)$. From the exact triple (\[serre for non-stable\]), the conditions (\[zeroes of section\]) and (\[cond for h1\]) we have the following exact triple $$0 \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(I_{Y},Q) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(F,Q) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}},Q) \longrightarrow 0.$$ Note that $\text{Hom}(I_{Y}, Q) \simeq \text{Hom}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}, Q)=:V$, so we have the isomorphism $\text{Hom}(F,Q) \simeq V \oplus V$. It is easy to see that the endomorphism $\sigma \in \text{End}(F)$ induces the following action on $V \oplus V$ by sending $(x, y) \in V \oplus V$ to $(y, 0)$. Moreover, since there are no surjections $I_{Y} \twoheadrightarrow Q$ we have that $\text{Hom}_{e}(F,Q) \cap \text{ker}~\sigma = \emptyset$. In particular, it means that the induced action of $\text{PAut}(F)$ on $\text{Hom}_{e}\big( F, Q \big) / \text{Aut}(Q)$ is free.
There exists an irreducible closed subscheme $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ of $\mathcal{M}(m+d)$ and a dense subset $\mathcal{C} \subset \overline{\mathcal{C}}$ whose closed points are in one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the set $\mathcal{Q}$. The dimension of $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ can be computed by the following formula $$\label{dim}
\emph{dim}~\overline{\mathcal{C}} = \emph{dim}~\mathcal{R} + \emph{dim~} \mathcal{H}_{0} + \emph{dim~} \mathcal{P} +$$ $$+\emph{dim~}\emph{Hom}(F, Q) / \emph{Aut}(Q) - \emph{dim }\emph{PAut}(F).$$
*Proof:* Since the Hilbert scheme $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ parameterizes only smooth connected curves, there exists a Poincaré sheaf $\textbf{L}$ on $\mathcal{P} \times_{\mathcal{H}_{1}} \mathcal{Z}_{1}$. Next, for the case $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ there exists an etale surjective morphism $\xi : \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \longrightarrow \mathcal{R}$ and a sheaf $\textbf{F}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$ such that $\textbf{F}|_{t \times \mathbb{P}^{3}} \simeq F_{\xi(t)}$, where $[F_{\xi(t)}]$ is the isomorphism class of the sheaf defined by the point $\xi(t) \in \mathcal{R}$. The etale morphism $\xi$ can be obtained in the following way. Recall the construction of the moduli space $\mathcal{R}$ (see [@HL Thm 4.3.7]). Namely, $\mathcal{R}$ is obtained as a GIT-quotient $p : \frak{Q} \longrightarrow \frak{Q} // GL(N) = \mathcal{R}$ for an appropriately chosen open subset $\frak{Q}$ of the Quot-scheme $\text{Quot}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}(-m)^{\oplus N},P)$, where $P$ is the corresponding Hilbert polynomial, $N=P(m)$ and $m$ large enough. Since the sheaves from $\mathcal{R}$ are stable, the quotient $p$ is a principal $GL(N)$-bundle (see [@HL Cor. 4.3.5]). By the definition this means that there exists an etale surjective morphism $\xi : \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{R}$ such that $\frak{Q} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}$ is isomorphic to the direct product $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times GL(N)$. On the other hand, it is well-known that there exists the universal sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ over $\frak{Q} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$. Denote by $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}$ the corresponding pullback of $\mathcal{F}$ to $( \frak{Q} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} ) \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$. Next, let $\textbf{F}$ be the restriction of $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \mathbb{P}^{3} \hookrightarrow (\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times GL(N) ) \times \mathbb{P}^{3} \simeq (\frak{Q} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}) \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$, where the first inclusion is given by fixing arbitrary point in $GL(N)$. It is obvious that all restrictions $\textbf{F}|_{t_{i} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}}, \ t_{i} \in \xi^{-1}(t_0)$ of the sheaf $\textbf{F}$ are isomorphic. Also note that since the scheme $\mathcal{R}$ is smooth, by taking the irreducible component of $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}$, we can assume that $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}$ is smooth and irreducible, and it covers some open dense subset of the scheme $\mathcal{R}$. For the case $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{V}_{m}$ we can assume that $\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} = \mathcal{R}$ because there exists the universal sheaf $\mathbf{F}$ on $\mathcal{R} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$ (see [@Lange]).
From [@Str Lemma 4.5] once can deduce that the scheme $\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})$ is irreducible and reduced. The symmetric group $G = S_{s}$ acts on $\prod_{i=1}^{s} \textbf{P}(\textbf{F})$ by permutations of factors, and the $s$-fold fibered product $\textbf{P}(\textbf{F}) \times_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}} \cdot\cdot\cdot \times_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}} \textbf{P}(\textbf{F})$ naturally embeds in $\prod_{i=1}^{s} \textbf{P}(\textbf{F})$ as a $G$-invariant subscheme. Now consider the following integral scheme $$\text{Sym}^{s}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}(\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})) := \Big( \textbf{P}(\textbf{F}) \times_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}} \cdot\cdot\cdot \times_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}} \textbf{P}(\textbf{F}) \Big) / G.$$ Since there is the projection $\textbf{P}(\textbf{F}) \longrightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$, we also have the two natural projections $$\text{Sym}^{s}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}(\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})) \longrightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}, \ \ \ \text{Sym}^{s}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}(\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})) \longrightarrow \text{Sym}^{s}(\mathbb{P}^{3}),$$ so we can define the following surjective morphism $$\text{Sym}^{s}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}(\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})) \longrightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \text{Sym}^{s}(\mathbb{P}^{3}).$$ Therefore, we can consider the fiber product of the following form $$Y:=\text{Sym}^{s}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}(\textbf{P}(\textbf{F})) \times_{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \text{Sym}^{s}(\mathbb{P}^{3})} (\mathcal{B} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}).$$ Next, define the sheaf $\tau:=p_{*} \mathcal{H}om(q_{1}^{*}\textbf{F}, \ q_{2}^{*} \textbf{L})$ over $Y$, where $p, \ q_1, \ q_2$ are the natural projections included into the following diagram
$$\begin{CD}
Y @<{p}<< Y \times_{\mathcal{H}_{1}} \mathcal{Z}_{1} @>{q_1}>> \widetilde{\mathcal{R}} \times \mathbb{P}^{3} \\
@. @V{q_2}VV \\
@. \mathcal{P} \times_{\mathcal{H}_{1}} \mathcal{Z}_{1}
\end{CD}$$
Assume that a point $y \in Y$ projects to the triple $(F, W \sqcup C, L) \in \mathcal{B}$, then the fiber $\tau_{y} \otimes k(y)$ of the sheaf $\tau$ over the point $y$ is isomorphic to $\text{Hom}(F,L)$. Due to the condition (\[cond for h1\]) we have the inequality $\chi(\mathcal{H}om(F,L)) = h^0(\mathcal{H}om(F,L))$. On the other hand, if $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}$ then from the condition (\[supports\]) and the exact triple (\[reflexive series\]) it follows that $\chi(\mathcal{H}om(F,L))$ depends only on the Euler characteristics of the line bundle $L$. More precisely, we have that $$\chi(\mathcal{H}om(F,L)) = (a+b+c+2) \cdot \chi(L(k)) -$$ $$- a \cdot \chi(L(k+3)) - b \cdot \chi(L(k+2)) - c \cdot \chi(L(k+1)).$$ Since $\chi(L(k)), k \in \mathbb{Z}$ is constant for all $L \in \mathcal{P}$ we can conclude that all fibers $\tau_{y} \otimes k(y), \ y \in Y$ are of the same dimension. Similarly, for the case $\mathcal{R}=\mathcal{V}_{m}$ due to the condition (\[zeroes of section\]) and the triple (\[serre for non-stable\]) we can obtain the following formula $$\chi(\mathcal{H}om(F,L)) = \chi(\mathcal{H}om(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}, L)) + \chi(\mathcal{H}om(I_{Y_{F}}, L)) = 2 \cdot \chi(L)$$ which as previously implies that the fibers $\tau_{y} \otimes k(y), \ y \in Y$ are of the same dimension. From the construction it follows that the scheme $Y$ is reduced, so the sheaf $\tau$ is actually locally-free. Therefore, it can be viewed as a vector bundle.
Now consider the projective bundle $\textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee})$ associated to the vector bundle $\tau$. If the point $u \in \mathcal{B} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}$ projects to the point $(F,W \sqcup C, L) \in \mathcal{B}$, then the fiber of the projection $\textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee}) \longrightarrow \mathcal{B} \times_{\mathcal{R}} \widetilde{\mathcal{R}}$ over the point $u$ is the direct product of projective spaces $\mathbb{P}\text{Hom}(F,L) \times \prod_{i=1}^{s} \mathbb{P}\text{Hom}(F,\mathcal{O}_{x_i})$ which is isomorphic to $\text{Hom}(F,Q) / \text{Aut}(Q)$ according to (\[proj decomposition\]). From the construction it follows that the dimension of $\mathbb{P}(\tau)$ can be computed by the following formula $$\label{dim of proj}
\text{dim}~\textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee}) = \text{dim}~\mathcal{R} + \text{dim~} \mathcal{H}_{0} + \text{dim}~ \mathcal{P} + \text{dim Hom}(F, Q) / \text{Aut}(Q)$$ Let $\frak{E} \subset \textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee})$ be the open dense subset of $\textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee})$ consisted from the classes of surjective morphisms $[F \twoheadrightarrow Q]$. Any point $q \in \frak{E}$ determines the isomorphism class of the sheaf $[E_{q}]:=[\text{ker} \ \psi_{q}]$, where $[\psi_{q}] \in \text{Hom}_{e}(F,Q) / \text{Aut}(Q)$. As in [@JMT1 Prop. 6.4 ], one can show that the family $\{ E_{q}, \ q \in \frak{E} \}$ globalizes in a standard way to the universal sheaf $\textbf{E}$ over $\frak{E} \times \mathbb{P}^{3}$. Next, by the construction and by the definition of moduli scheme, the sheaf $\textbf{E}$ defines the modular morphism $\Phi: \frak{E} \longrightarrow \mathcal{M}(m+d), \ q \mapsto [E_{q}=\text{ker} \ \psi_{q}]$. Now consider the image $\mathcal{C}:=\text{im}(\Phi)$ of the morphism $\Phi$ and its scheme-theoretic closure $\overline{\mathcal{C}} \subset \mathcal{M}(m+d)$. Note that the scheme $\frak{E}$ is irreducible, so the scheme $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is also irreducible. Moreover, the morphism $\Phi$ is flat over an dense open subset of $\mathcal{C}$. In particular, it means that for the general point $[E] = \Phi(x), \ x \in \frak{E}$ we have the following formula for the dimension $$\label{dim of image}
\text{dim}_{[E]}~ \overline{\mathcal{C}} = \text{dim}_{x}~\frak{E} - \text{dim}_{x}~\Phi^{-1}([E]).$$ From the Lemma \[equivalence\] it follows that $\Phi(x)=\Phi(y)$ if and only if the points $x, y \in \textbf{P}(\tau^{\vee})$ projects to the same tuple $(F,W \sqcup C, L) \in \mathcal{B}$ and the corresponding equivalence classes $[\phi_{x}], \ [\phi_{y}] \in \text{Hom}(F,Q) / \text{Aut}(Q)$ differs by the action of the group $\text{P}\text{Aut}(F)$ which is free. Therefore, the fiber of $\Phi^{-1}([E])$ is isomorphic to the disjoint union of the finite number of copies of the group $\text{P}\text{Aut}(F), \ F \simeq E^{\vee \vee}$. It implies that the set of closed points of $\mathcal{C}$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{Q}$. Moreover, from the formulas (\[dim of proj\]) and (\[dim of image\]) it follows that the dimension of the scheme $\overline{\mathcal{C}} \subset \mathcal{M}(m+d)$ can be computed by the formula (\[dim\]). $\Box$
Irreducibility of components
============================
\[Main result\] For general sheaf $[E]$ of the closed subscheme $\overline{\mathcal{C}} \subset \mathcal{M}(m+d)$ we have the equality $$\emph{dim}~T_{[E]}\mathcal{M}(m+d)=\emph{dim}~\overline{\mathcal{C}}.$$ Therefore, the subscheme $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is an irreducible component of the moduli scheme $\mathcal{M}(m+d)$.
*Proof:* For the computation of the dimension of the tangent space of the moduli scheme $\mathcal{M}(m+d)$ at the point $[E]$ defined above, we use the standard fact of deformation theory, $T_{[E]}\mathcal{M}(m+d) \simeq \text{Ext}^{1}(E,E)$ for a stable sheaf $E$, and the local-to-global spectral sequence $\text{H}^p(\mathcal{E}xt^{q}(G,E)) \Rightarrow \text{Ext}^{p+q}(G,E)$ for any sheaf $G$, which yields the following exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow \text{H}^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(G,E)) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{1}(G,E) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(G,E)) \overset{\phi}{\longrightarrow}$$ $$\overset{\phi}{\longrightarrow} \text{H}^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(G,E)) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{2}(G,E).$$
According to our construction, the general sheaf $[E] \in \overline{\mathcal{C}}$ fits into the exact triple of the following form $$\label{main}
0 \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow Q \longrightarrow 0.$$ Note again that for general sheaves from $\mathcal{R} \in \{\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}, \ \mathcal{V}_{m}\}$ we have the equality $\text{Ext}^{2}(F,F) = 0$ (see [@JMT2 Lemma 5]). Moreover, from (\[cond for h1\]) and (\[supports\]) it follows that $\text{Ext}^{1}(F,Q) = 0$, so the following triple $$\text{Ext}^{1}(F,Q) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{2}(F,E) \longrightarrow \text{Ext}^{2}(F,F)$$ yields $\text{Ext}^{2}(F,E) = 0$. Taking into account that the sheaf $\mathcal{H}om(E,E)/\mathcal{H}om(F,E) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q, E)$ has the dimension at most $1$, we have that the map $\text{H}^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(F, E)) \longrightarrow \text{H}^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(E, E))$ is surjective. Therefore, we obtain the commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
\text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F, E)) \rar[two heads] \dar & \text{H}^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(F, E)) \rar \dar[two heads] & 0 \dar \\
\text{H}^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E, E)) \rar{\phi} & \text{H}^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(E, E)) \rar & \text{Ext}^{2}(E,E)
\end{tikzcd}$$ from which it follows that the morphism $\phi$ is surjective. Consequently, we have the following formula $$\label{equality for ext1}
\text{dim~}\text{Ext}^{1}(E,E)=h^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E,E))+h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(E,E))-h^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(E,E)),$$ and an analogous formula for the sheaf $F$ $$\label{equality for ext1f}
\text{dim~}\text{Ext}^{1}(F,F)=h^{0}(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,F))+h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F,F))-h^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(F,F)).$$
Applying the functor $\mathcal{H}om(-,E)$ to the triple (\[main\]) we obtain the following exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(E,E) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,E) \overset{0}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E,E) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \overset{0}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{E}xt^2(F,E).$$ Since $E$ is torsion-free sheaf we have $ \mathcal{H}om(Q,E)=0$. Since the sheaf $\mathcal{E}xt^{i \geq 1}(F,E)$ is supported on the subset $\text{Sing}(F)$, the condition (\[supports\]) implies that the sheaves $\mathcal{E}xt^{1,2}(Q,E)$ and $\mathcal{E}xt^{1,2}(F,E)$ have disjoint supports, so the morphisms $\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E)$ and $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^2(F,E)$ are equal to zero. Therefore we obtain the following triples $$\label{triple2}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(E,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,E) \longrightarrow 0,$$ $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow 0.$$ For the same reason (\[supports\]) implies that the last triple splits, so we have the isomorphism $$\label{isom1 for ext1}
\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E,E) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E) \oplus \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E).$$
Now apply the functor $\mathcal{H}om(F,-)$ to the triple (\[main\]) $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,Q) \overset{0}{\longrightarrow}$$ $$\overset{0}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,Q).$$ Again from (\[supports\]) it follows that $\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,Q) = 0$ and the supports of the sheaves $\mathcal{H}om(F,Q), \ \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E)$ are disjoint, so the morphism $\mathcal{H}om(F,Q) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E)$ is equal to zero. Therefore, we obtain the following exact triple and isomorphism $$\label{triple1}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,Q) \longrightarrow 0,$$ $$\label{isom2 for ext1}
\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,E) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,F).$$
Next, apply the functor $\mathcal{H}om(Q,-)$ to the triple (\[main\]) $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q,Q) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,Q) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,F) \overset{\phi}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,Q) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{3}(Q,E).$$ Since the sheaves $E$ and $F$ are torsion-free we have that $\mathcal{H}om(Q,E) = \mathcal{H}om(Q,F) = 0$. Note that the smooth curve $C$ and $0$-dimensional subscheme $W$ are locally complete intersections, so for any point $x \in \mathbb{P}^{3}$ we have the following $$\label{local_isom}
\text{Ext}^1_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3},x}}(\mathcal{O}_{C,x},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3},x}) = 0, \ \ \ \ \text{Ext}^{1, 2}_{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3},x}}(\mathcal{O}_{W,x},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3},x}) = 0.$$ These equalities together with the condition (\[supports\]) immediately imply that the sheaf $\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,F)$ is equal to zero, so we have the isomorphism $$\label{isom1}
\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,E) \simeq \mathcal{H}om(Q,Q).$$ Also (\[local\_isom\]) and (\[supports\]) imply that $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,F)) \subset C$, so we necessarily have the inclusion $\text{im}~\phi \subset \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,Q)|_{C}$. On the other hand, homological dimension of the structure sheaf $\mathcal{O}_{C}$ is equal to 2, so we also have $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{E}xt^{3}(Q,E)) \cap C = \emptyset$. Now suppose that $\text{im}~\phi \subsetneq \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,Q)|_{C}$, then $\text{Supp}(\text{coker}~\phi) \cap C \neq \emptyset$ which leads to the contradiction $\text{Supp}(\mathcal{E}xt^{3}(Q,E)) \cap C \neq \emptyset$ because $\text{coker}~\phi \hookrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{3}(Q,E)$. Also note that $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,Q) = \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L) \oplus \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{W},\mathcal{O}_{W})$ due to $C \cap W = \emptyset$, so $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,Q)|_{C} = \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L)$. Therefore, $\text{im}~\phi = \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L)$ and we have the following exact sequence $$\label{exact seq for ext2_0}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,Q) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L) \longrightarrow 0.$$ Next, since $c_1(F)=0$ and $\text{Sing}(F) \cap C = \emptyset$, we have $\text{det}(F \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C}) \simeq \text{det}(F) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C} \simeq \mathcal{O}_{C}$. Therefore, the following exact triple holds $$\label{restriction of refl}
0 \longrightarrow L^{-1} \longrightarrow F \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C} \longrightarrow L \longrightarrow 0.$$ Note that $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L, F) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C})$ because $F$ is locally-free along $C$. In particular, it means that $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L, F)$ is locally-free $\mathcal{O}_{C}$-sheaf. Since $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L^{-1})$ is also locally-free $\mathcal{O}_{C}$-sheaf of rank 1, then applying the functor $\mathcal{H}om(L,-)$ to the triple (\[restriction of refl\]) we obtain the following exact triple $$\label{ex_tr_1}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L^{-1}) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L) \longrightarrow 0.$$ Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F) \rar \dar{\simeq} & \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L) \dar{=} \\
\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F \otimes \mathcal{O}_{C}) \rar & \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L)
\end{tikzcd}$$ So the morphism $\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L)$ in the triple (\[ex\_tr\_1\]) coincides with the last morphism in the exact sequence (\[exact seq for ext2\_0\]). Therefore, we can simplify (\[exact seq for ext2\_0\]) as $$\label{exact seq for ext2}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,Q) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L^{-1}) \longrightarrow 0.$$ Note that For any subscheme $X \subset \mathbb{P}^{3}$ we have that $$\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X}, \mathcal{O}_{X}) \simeq \mathcal{H}om(I_{X}, \mathcal{O}_{X}) \simeq \mathcal{H}om(I_{X}/I_{X}^{2}, \mathcal{O}_{X}) = N_{X/\mathbb{P}^{3}}.$$ (the last equality is the definition of the normal sheaf). Besides, if $X$ is a locally complete intersection of the pure dimension $1$ then (see [@AG Prop. 7.5]) $$\mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X}, \mathcal{O}_{X}) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X}, \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}}) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X}, \omega_{\mathbb{P}^{3}})(4) \simeq \omega_{X}(4).$$ Now consider the case $X = C \sqcup W, \ Q = L \oplus \mathcal{O}_{W}$. Since $L$ is an invertible $\mathcal{O}_{C}$-sheaf it follows that $$\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(L,L) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{C},\mathcal{O}_{C}), \ \ \ \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L^{-1}) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{C}, \mathcal{O}_{C}) \otimes L^{-2}.$$ From these formulas one can deduce the isomorphisms $$\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q,Q) \simeq N_{C / \mathbb{P}^{3}} \oplus N_{W / \mathbb{P}^{3}}, \ \ \ \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(L,L^{-1}) \simeq \omega_{C}(4) \otimes L^{-2}.$$ Substituting them to (\[exact seq for ext2\]) we obtain the following exact triple $$\label{triple1 for ext1}
0 \longrightarrow N_{C / \mathbb{P}^{3}} \oplus N_{W / \mathbb{P}^{3}} \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q,E) \longrightarrow \omega_{C}(4) \otimes L^{-2} \longrightarrow 0.$$
After applying the functor $\mathcal{H}om(-,F)$ to the exact triple (\[main\]) we obtain the long exact sequence of sheaves $$\label{v2}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(E,F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,F) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F, F) \longrightarrow$$ $$\longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(E, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(F, F).$$ As it was already explained $\mathcal{H}om(Q, F)=\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q, F)=0$ and the morphism $\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F, F) \longrightarrow \mathcal{E}xt^{2}(Q, F)$ is zero, so we have the following isomorphisms $$\label{isom2}
\mathcal{H}om(E,F) \simeq \mathcal{H}om(F,F), \ \ \ \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E, F) \simeq \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F, F).$$
Consider the part of the commutative diagram with exact rows and columns obtained by applying the bifunctor $\mathcal{H}om(-,-)$ and its derivative $\mathcal{E}xt(-,-)$ to the exact triple (\[main\]) which looks as follows $$\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
& 0 \dar & 0 \dar & & & \\
0 \rar & \mathcal{H}om(F,E) \rar \dar & \mathcal{H}om(F,F) \rar \dar & \mathcal{H}om(F,Q) \rar & 0 & \\
0 \rar & \mathcal{H}om(E,E) \rar{\tau} \dar & \mathcal{H}om(E,F) \dar & & & \\
& \mathcal{E}xt^{1}(Q, E) \dar & 0 & & & \\
& 0 & &
\end{tikzcd}$$ Note that the uppermost horizontal and the leftmost vertical exact triples of this commutative diagram coincide with the exact triples (\[triple1\]) and (\[triple2\]), respectively. Due to the isomorphism (\[isom2\]) the sheaf $\text{coker}~\tau$ fits into the exact triple $$\label{coker1}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(E, E) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F, F) \longrightarrow \text{coker}~\tau \longrightarrow 0.$$ On the other hand, applying the Snake Lemma to the commutative diagram above and using the isomorphism (\[isom1\]) we have the exact triple $$\label{coker2}
0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(Q, Q) \longrightarrow \mathcal{H}om(F,Q) \longrightarrow \text{coker}~\tau \longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $\text{dim}~W=0$ we have that $h^1(\mathcal{H}om(F,\mathcal{O}_{W})) = 0$. Therefore, the condition (\[cond for h1\]) implies $h^1(\mathcal{H}om(F,Q)) = h^1(\mathcal{H}om(F,L)) = 0$, so from the triple (\[coker2\]) we obtain that $$h^{0}(\text{coker}~\tau) = h^{0}(\mathcal{H}om(F,Q))-h^{0}(\mathcal{H}om(Q, Q)) + h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(Q, Q)),$$ $$h^{1}(\text{coker}~\tau)=h^{2}(\text{coker}~\tau)=0.$$ Using these equalities and the fact that the sheaf $E$ is simple due to its stability, the triple (\[coker1\]) implies the following formula $$\label{h1}
h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(E, E))=1-h^{0}(\mathcal{H}om(F, F)) + h^{0}(\mathcal{H}om(F,Q))-$$ $$-h^{0}(\mathcal{H}om(Q, Q)) + h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(Q, Q)) + h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F, F))=$$ $$=\text{dim~}\text{Hom}(F, Q) / \text{Aut}(Q) - \text{dim }\text{P}\text{Aut}(F) + \text{dim Jac}(C) + h^{1}(\mathcal{H}om(F, F)),$$ $$\label{h2}
h^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(E,E))=h^{2}(\mathcal{H}om(F,F)).$$ Next, using the isomorphisms (\[isom1 for ext1\]), (\[isom2 for ext1\]), the triple (\[triple1 for ext1\]) and the condition (\[cond defect\]) we obtain the formula $$\label{h0}
h^0(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(E,E)) = h^{0}(N_{W/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + h^{0}(N_{C/\mathbb{P}^{3}}) + h^0(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,F))=$$ $$=\text{dim}~\mathcal{H}_{0} \times \mathcal{H}_{1} + h^0(\mathcal{E}xt^{1}(F,F)).$$ Substituting the formulas (\[h1\]-\[h0\]) to the equality (\[equality for ext1\]) and using (\[equality for ext1f\]), we obtain the following formula $$\text{dim Ext}^1(E,E)=\text{dim~}\mathcal{R} + \text{dim} \ \mathcal{H}_{0} + \text{dim} \ \mathcal{H}_{1} + \text{dim Jac}(C) +$$ $$+ \text{dim~}\text{Hom}(F, Q) / \text{Aut}(Q) - \text{dim }\text{P}\text{Aut}(F).$$ Now taking into account (\[picard\_dim\]) and (\[dim\]) we immediately obtain the statement of the theorem. $\Box$
From the construction of the component $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ it follows that the general sheaf $E$ of $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ has singularities of mixed dimension, more precisely, we have $\text{Sing}(E)=C \sqcup \text{Sing}(E^{\vee \vee}) \sqcup W$, where $C$ is a curve of degree more than $1$, $\text{dim} \ \text{Sing}(E^{\vee \vee}) = \text{dim} \ W = 0$ and $\text{Sing}(E^{\vee \vee}) \neq \emptyset$. On the other hand, the general sheaves of all known components parameterising sheaves with mixed singularities have singularity sets of the form $l \sqcup W$, where $l$ is a projective line and $\text{dim}~W = 0$. Therefore, the component $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is not one of the previously known components.
Next, note that the construction of the open subset $\mathcal{C}$ and its closure $\overline{\mathcal{C}} \subset \mathcal{M}(m+d)$ depends on the choice of the number $s$ of disjoint points, the choice of the component $\mathcal{R}$ from two series $\mathcal{S}_{a,b,c}, \ \mathcal{V}_{m}$, and the choice of the Hilbert scheme $\mathcal{H}_{1}$ from two series of the Hilbert schemes $\text{Hilb}_{d}, \ \text{Hilb}_{(d_1, d_2)}$. So, in fact, we have the series of components which we will denote by $\overline{\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{R}, \mathcal{H}_{1}, s)}$.
Also it is worth to note that the described series of components can be extended to a larger series of components. In order to construct them we consider strictly $\mu$-semistable reflexive sheaves defined by the triple (\[serre for non-stable\]), where $Y$ is a disjoint union of rational curves. Then we do elementary transformations of these reflexive sheaves along disjoint union of a collection of distinct points, smooth rational curves and complete intersection curves, simultaneously. It seems that the proof of irreducibility of components of this extended series is essentially the same as above and need only minor modifications.
Since a complete enumeration of components of $\mathcal{M}(k)$ for small values of $k$ is of particular interest, we point out that the series described above contains a new component from $\mathcal{M}(3)$, namely, $\overline{\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}_{1}, \text{Gr}(2,4),0)}$. By construction the general sheaf $[E]$ of this component fits into the exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{C}(2) \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $C$ is a smooth conic and $[F] \in \mathcal{V}_{1} = \mathcal{V}(0,1,2)$ is a $\mu$-semistable sheaf satisfying the following exact triple $$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{3}} \longrightarrow F \longrightarrow I_{l} \longrightarrow 0, \ \ \ l \in \text{Gr}(2,4).$$ Dimension of the component $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{V}_{1}, \text{Gr}(2,4),0)$ is equal to $21$ and its spectrum is $(-1,0,1)$. Therefore, the number of components of $\mathcal{M}(3)$ is at least 11.
[99]{}
E. Esteves, Compactifying the relative Jacobian over families of reduced curves, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **353**, 2001, 3045 – 3095.
D. Eisenbud, A. Van de Ven, On the normal bundles of smooth rational space curves, Math. Ann., **256** (1981), 453 – 463.
M.-C. Chang, Stable rank 2 reflexive sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^3$ with small $c_2$ and applications, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **284** (1984), 57–89.
R. Hartshorne, Stable Reflexive Sheaves, Math. Ann. **254** (1980), 121–176.
D. Huybrechts, M. Lehn, The Geometry of Moduli Spaces of Sheaves, 2nd ed., Cambridge Math. Lib., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
M. Jardim, D. Markushevich, A. S. Tikhomirov, New divisors in the boundary of the instanton moduli space, Moscow Mathematical Journal, 2018, Vol. 18, No. 1, P. 117-148.
M. Jardim, D. Markushevich, A. S. Tikhomirov, Two infinite series of moduli spaces of rank 2 sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^3$, Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata (4), 196(4):1573–1608, 2017.
A. N. Ivanov, A. S. Tikhomirov, Semistable rank 2 sheaves with singularities of mixed dimension on $\mathbb{P}^3$, Journal of Geometry and Physics, 2018, Vol. 129, p. 90–98.
C. Almeida, M. Jardim, A. S. Tikhomirov, Irreducible components of the moduli space of rank 2 sheaves of odd determinant on $\mathbb{P}^{3}$, 2019, arXiv:1903.00292.
H. Lange, Universal Families of Extensions, Journal of algebra (83), 101-112, 1983.
M. Maruyama, Moduli of stable sheaves, I, J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 17-1 (1977) 91-126.
R. Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Springer, Berlin, 1977.
R. Hartshorne, A. Hirschowitz, Smoothing algebraic space curves, Springer Lecture Notes in Math. Vol. 1124 (1985), 98–131.
S. A. Strømme, Ample Divisors on Fine Moduli Spaces on the Projective Plane, Math. Z., 187 (1984), 405–424.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I give a short overview about the possibilities and problems related to the measurement of CP violation in long baseline experiments. Special attention is paid to the issue of degeneracies and a method for their resolution is quantitatively discussed. The CP violation reach for different experiments is compared in dependence of $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ and ${{\Delta m^2_{21}}}$. Furthermore a short comment about the possible effects of matter induced T violation is made. Finally the limits on CPT violation obtainable at a neutrino factory are shown.'
address:
- 'Institut f[ü]{}r theoretische Physik, Physik Department, Technische Universi[ä]{}t M[ü]{}nchen, James-Franck-Strasse, D-85748 Garching'
- 'Max-Planck Institut f[ü]{}r Physik, Postfach 401212, D-80805 M[ü]{}nchen'
author:
- Patrick Huber
title: 'CP, T and CPT violation in future long baseline experiments'
---
TUM-HEP-480/02\
MPI-PhT/2000-53\
CP violation
============
In contrast to the quark sector CP violation in the lepton sector can be potentially large. This has spurred great interest in the possible measurement of the leptonic Dirac-type CP-phase $\delta_{CP}$ especially in the context of a planed neutrino factory [@DeRujula:1998hd; @Yasuda:2001ip]. The principal observable is the CP-odd probability difference $\Delta P_{\alpha\beta}^{CP}
=P_{(\alpha\rightarrow\beta)}-P_{(\bar{\alpha}\rightarrow\bar{\beta})}$. Since the neutrinos travel a long distance trough the Earth matter one has to include matter effects. The Earth is however CP-asymmetric by itself, thus it introduces a non-vanishing $\Delta P_{\alpha\beta}^{CP}$ even if $\delta_{CP}=0$. This makes it difficult to use $\Delta P_{\alpha\beta}^{CP}$ as measure of $\delta_{CP}$. Furthermore there are, due to the form of the oscillation probabilities, strong correlations among several oscillation parameters. Besides that a long baseline experiment does not measure the probabilities themselves but event rates. There are many systematical uncertainties in translating a rate measurement into a measurement of the probability. In addition to those problems the oscillation probabilities allow for different sets of parameters which give approximately the same probabilities. This is known as the degeneracy problem. In observing only the transition between electron and muon neutrinos or anti-neutrinos there remain three possible degeneracies: the $(\delta_{CP},\theta_{13})$ ambiguity [@Burguet-Castell:2001ez], the $\mathrm{sign} {{\Delta m^2_{31}}}$ degeneracy [@Minakata:2001qm] and the $(\theta_{23},\pi/4 - \theta_{23})$ degeneracy [@BARGER]. Those degeneracies can have a substantial impact on the ability of a given experiment to reach its physics goals. The results shown in the following are a small subset of the results obtained in [@Huber:2002mx].
The setups considered are listed in table \[tab:setups\]. Further details can be found in [@Huber:2002mx].
--------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- -------------------
[JHF-SK]{} [JHF-HK]{} [NuFact-I]{} [NuFact-II]{}
$22.5\,\mathrm{kt}$ $1\,000\,\mathrm{kt}$ $10\,\mathrm{kt}$ $50\,\mathrm{kt}$
water Cherenkov water Cherenkov magnetized iron magnetized iron
calorimeter calorimeter
$0.75\,\mathrm{MW}$ $4\,\mathrm{MW}$ $0.75\,\mathrm{MW}$ $4\,\mathrm{MW}$
5 years 8 years 5 years 8 years
--------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- -------------------
: \[tab:setups\] Definition of experimental setups.
Of all the systematical errors considered in [@Huber:2002mx] the most important for the JHF setups is the background normalization uncertainty, whereas the NuFact setups are in general little hindered by systematical errors.
In [@Huber:2002mx] a complete analysis of the multi parameter correlations was performed, taking into account external information on ${{\Delta m^2_{21}}}$ provided by KamLand and on the matter density provided by geophysics. For ${{\Delta m^2_{21}}}$ an error of $15\%$ and for the matter density an error of $5\%$ is assumed. The biggest source of correlation errors for all setups is the correlation between $\theta_{13}$ and $\delta_{CP}$. This is an intrinsic effect which is very hard to fight. For the NuFact scenarios the matter density plays a crucial rule and one should seek to improve the knowledge on this quantity.
The $(\theta_{23},\pi/4 - \theta_{23})$ degeneracy has only little impact on the determination of $\delta_{CP}$ in all cases. The influence of the $(\delta_{CP},\theta_{13})$ ambiguity is strongest at a NuFact and its effects strongly depend on subtle details of the expected detector performance, a detailed discussion is given in appendix B of [@Huber:2002mx]. The $\mathrm{sign} {{\Delta m^2_{31}}}$ degeneracy however has a substantial effect on the ability to determine $\delta_{CP}$, especially at a NuFact it may be rather cumbersome. In figure \[fig:cpv\] the CP violation reach in the $\sin^22\theta_{13}$-${{\Delta m^2_{21}}}$ plane is shown for all four setups including degeneracies, correlations, systematics and backgrounds. The trench in the left hand panel for the [[NuFact-II]{}]{} case is due to the $\mathrm{sign} {{\Delta m^2_{31}}}$ degeneracy.
One possibility among many others [@Donini:2002rm; @Burguet-Castell:2002qx] to resolve the correlation between $\delta_{CP}$ and $\theta_{13}$ and to break the $(\delta_{CP},\theta_{13})$ ambiguity is to use the so called “magic baseline”. The condition for the magic baseline is given by $\sin ({{\Delta m^2_{31}}} L/(4E)\quad 2VE/{{\Delta m^2_{31}}})=0 \Leftrightarrow VL/2=n
\pi$ [@BARGER], this gives for Earth densities a baseline $L\simeq 8\,100\,\mathrm{km}$. At this special distance all terms in the appearance probability proportional to ${{\Delta m^2_{21}}}$ and $({{\Delta m^2_{21}}})^2$ vanish identically for all energies and values of ${{\Delta m^2_{31}}}$, [[[*i.e.*]{}]{}]{} the appearance probability reduces to the one in a two neutrino case. Thus all correlations and degeneracies connected to $\delta_{CP}$ disappear.
![\[fig:magic\] The sensitivity to $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ at baselines of $3\,000\,\mathrm{km}$ and $8\,100\,\mathrm{km}$. The dark grey shading indicates the impact of systematics, the medium grey shading the impact of the correlations and the light grey shading stands for the effect of degeneracies.](th13base){width="5cm"}
The drawback of this very long baseline is that the event rates decrease. But in figure \[fig:magic\] it is clearly visible that the gain in sensitivity by avoiding the effects of $\delta_{CP}$ (rightmost edge) is much larger than the effects of the diminished statistics (leftmost edge), thus the sensitivity is increased by one order of magnitude.
T and CPT violation
===================
In vacuum the CP-odd and T-odd probability differences are identical. This does not hold in matter. In principle it is therefore possible that matter profile asymmetries introduce a fake CP violation and increase the error in the measurement of $\delta_{CP}$. However in [@Akhmedov:2001kd] it is shown that, for in terrestial experiments conceivable matter asymmetries, this effects turns out to be negligibly small.
CPT violation would manifest itself in a neutrino oscillation experiment by the presence of two different ${{\Delta m^2_{}}}$ scales or mixing angles for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Thus in order to estimate the sensitivity of a neutrino factory to CPT violation one just needs to evaluate the level of accuracy which can be obtained in the measurement of ${{\Delta m^2_{31}}}$ and $\theta_{23}$. At a standard NuFact relative asymmetries in the mass splittings of order $<10^{-1}$ and in the mixing angles in the order of $<10^{-2}$ could be detected, as it is shown in [@Bilenky:2001ka].
[10]{}
bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, (), .
O. Yasuda, , and references therein.
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter, , to appear in Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{}.
A. Donini, D. Meloni and P. Migliozzi, , see also this proceedings.
J. Burguet-Castell [*et al.*]{}, , see also this proceedings.
E. K. Akhmedov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B608**]{} (2001) 394, .
S. M. Bilenky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 073024, .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose an efficiently measurable lower bound on quantum process fidelity of $N$-qubit controlled-Z gates. This bound is determined by average output state fidelities for $N$ partially conjugate product bases. A distinct advantage of our approach is that only fidelities with product states need to be measured while keeping the total number of measurements much smaller than what is necessary for full quantum process tomography. As an application, we use this method to experimentally estimate quantum process fidelity $F$ of a three-qubit linear optical quantum Toffoli gate and we find that $F\geq 0.83$. We also demonstrate the entangling capability of the gate by preparing GHZ-type three-qubit entangled states from input product states.'
author:
- 'M. Mičuda'
- 'M. Sedlák'
- 'I. Straka'
- 'M. Miková'
- 'M. Dušek'
- 'M. Ježek'
- 'J. Fiurášek'
title: Efficient experimental estimation of fidelity of linear optical quantum Toffoli gate
---
As the complexity of quantum information processing devices increases, there is a growing demand for reliable and efficient methods of their characterization. Traditionally, the experimentally implemented quantum operations are being characterized by quantum process tomography which provides their full description [@Nielsen00; @Paris04]. However, a complete quantum tomography requires resources which grow exponentially with the number of qubits. In recent years, increasing attention has been therefore paid to methods such as compressed sensing [@Gross10; @Shabani11] or Monte Carlo sampling [@Flammia11; @Silva11; @Steffen12], that allow to reduce the overhead of quantum process characterization. This is possible if we make some a-priori assumption about the structure of the reconstructed quantum object or if we do not seek a complete tomographic description and we are satisfied instead with determination of a particular parameter such as fidelity [@Emerson07; @Bendersky08; @Koch13].
In 2005, it was shown by Hofmann that the quantum process fidelity can be estimated by measuring the average quantum state fidelities $F_1$ and $F_2$ for only two conjugate bases [@Hofmann05]. The quantum process fidelity $F_\chi$ is then lower bounded according to $$F_\chi \geq F_1+F_2-1.
\label{FHofmann}$$ This procedure has received a considerable attention and it was utilized in several experiments to estimate the fidelity of a quantum CNOT gate [@Okamoto05; @Bao07; @Clark09; @Gao10; @Gao10b; @Zhou11]. In this case, it is sufficient to measure the CNOT truth table in the computational basis and in the dual basis obtained from the computational basis by single-qubit Hadamard transformations. In this dual basis, the gate also acts as a CNOT but the roles of control and target qubits are reversed. The great practical advantage of this characterization of a CNOT gate is that all the required input probe states as well as all the corresponding output states whose fidelity should be measured are product states. Therefore, the fidelities can be directly determined by single-qubit measurements. The fidelity bound (\[FHofmann\]) is applicable to arbitrary multiqubit quantum gates. However, going beyond the two-qubit CNOT gate, it would typically require measurements of fidelities of output states that are entangled [@Lanyon11].
In this paper, we propose a generalization of the Hofmann fidelity bound to multiqubit controlled-Z gates which preserves all the experimentally desired features present for the two-qubit CNOT gate. In particular, product multiqubit probe states are considered and only fidelities of product states have to be measured. Furthermore, the total required number of measurement settings is only $N2^N$, while at least $2^{3N}$ measurement settings are necessary for a full quantum process tomography of an $N$-qubit gate specified by $2^{4N}-2^{2N}$ parameters for deterministic gates or $2^{4N}$ parameters for probabilistic gates. Here a measurement setting represents a specific combination of input state preparation and an output measurement. As an application, we employ this method to experimentally estimate quantum process fidelity of a three-qubit linear optical controlled-Z gate (CCZ gate) that is equivalent to the Toffoli gate up to single-qubit Hadamard transform on a target qubit. The Toffoli gate is a crucial part of many quantum information processing schemes [@Nielsen00] and it represents one of the most complex quantum circuits experimentally implemented to date [@Lanyon09; @Monz09]. A peculiar feature of linear optical quantum gates is that they are probabilistic [@Kok07]. In practice, it may happen due to various imperfections that the success probability of the gate depends on the input state and is not a constant. We shall show that the fidelity bounds hold even in such case but the average state fidelities must be calculated as weighted averages, with the weights given by relative probabilities of success.
Let $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ denote the computational basis states of a qubit. The CCZ gate flips the sign if and only if all three qubits are in state $|1\rangle$, $$U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}= \mathbb{I} -2|111\rangle\langle 111|,$$ where $\mathbb{I}$ denotes the identity operator. In the computational basis, we explicitly have $U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|abc\rangle=(-1)^{abc}|abc\rangle$. A Hadamard transform $H$ on a target qubit converts the sign flip of CCZ gate into the bit flip of Toffoli gate. Recall that $H|0\rangle=|+\rangle$ and $H|1\rangle=|-\rangle$, where $|\pm\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle\pm|1\rangle)$.
According to the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism [@Jamiolkowski72; @Choi75], any quantum operation $\mathcal{E}$ can be represented by a positive semidefinite operator $\chi$ on a tensor product of input and output Hilbert spaces. Let $|\Phi_3^{+}\rangle=\sum_{a,b,c=0}^{1}|abc\rangle_{\mathrm{in}}|abc\rangle_\mathrm{out}$ denote a maximally entangled state on two copies of a three-qubit Hilbert space. The Choi matrix of operation $\mathcal{E}$ can be determined by applying this operation to one part of the maximally entangled state, $\chi = \mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{in}}\otimes \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{out}(\Phi_3^{+})$, where $\Phi_3^{+}=|\Phi_3^{+}\rangle\langle \Phi_3^{+}|$ is a short-hand notation for a density matrix of a pure state. For any input density matrix $\rho_{\mathrm{in}}$, the corresponding output density matrix $\rho_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathcal{E}( \rho_{\mathrm{in}})$ can be calculated as $\rho_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{in}}[\rho_{\mathrm{in}}^T\otimes \mathbb{I}_{\mathrm{out}} \,\chi]$, where $\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{in}}$ denotes partial trace and $T$ stands for transposition. We shall consider general probabilistic operations and $\mathrm{Tr}[\rho_{\mathrm{out}}]=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho_{\mathrm{in}}^T\otimes \mathbb{I}_{\mathrm{out}} \,\chi]$ then represents the success probability for the input $\rho_{\mathrm{in}}$. In particular, the Choi matrix of a unitary CCZ gate reads $$\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}}= (\mathbb{I}\otimes U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}) \,\Phi_3^{+} (\mathbb{I}\otimes U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}^\dagger).$$ The process fidelity of a quantum gate $\chi$ with respect to the ideal CCZ gate can be defined as a normalized overlap of the Choi matrices, $F_\chi=\mathrm{Tr}[\chi \,\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}}]/( 8\mathrm{Tr}[\chi] )$, where the factor $8=\mathrm{Tr}[\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}}]$ accounts for the normalization of $\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}}$.
$j$ $k=1$ $k=2$ $k=3$ $k=3'$
----- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- -- --
1 $|\! + \! 00\rangle$ $|0\! + \! 0\rangle$ $|00 + \rangle$ $|\!+\!+0 \rangle$
2 $|\! + \! 01\rangle$ $|0\! + \! 1\rangle$ $|00 - \rangle$ $|\!+\!+ 1 \rangle$
3 $|\! + \! 10\rangle$ $|0\! - \! 0\rangle$ $|01 + \rangle$ $|\!+\!- 0 \rangle$
4 $|\! + \! 11\rangle$ $|0\! - \! 1\rangle$ $|01 - \rangle$ $|\!+\!- 1 \rangle$
5 $|\! - \! 00\rangle$ $|1\! + \! 0\rangle$ $|10 + \rangle$ $|\!-\!+ 0 \rangle$
6 $|\! - \! 01\rangle$ $|1\! + \! 1\rangle$ $|10 - \rangle$ $|\!-\!+ 1 \rangle$
7 $|\! - \! 10\rangle$ $|1\! - \! 0\rangle$ $|11 + \rangle$ $|\!-\!- 0 \rangle$
8 $|\! - \! 11\rangle$ $|1\! - \! 1\rangle$ $|11 - \rangle$ $|\!-\!- 1 \rangle$
: List of the input three-qubit product states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$.
Our goal is to lower bound the gate fidelity by suitably chosen average state fidelities. Motivated by the symmetry of the CCZ gate which is invariant with respect to the permutation of the qubits, we propose to characterize the CCZ gate by measuring the average output state fidelities for three complementary product bases where two of the qubits are prepared in the computational basis states $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$ while the third qubit is prepared in the Hadamard basis states $|+\rangle,|-\rangle$. The probe product states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ are specified in Table I for all three bases $k=1,2,3$. It can be easily checked that all the corresponding output states $|\psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})}\rangle=U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ are also product states and the two bases $\left\{|\psi_{j,k}\rangle\right\}_{j=1}^8$ and $\{|\psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})}\rangle\}_{j=1}^8$ coincide. Let $\rho_{j,k}=\mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{in}}[\psi_{j,k}^T\otimes \mathbb{I}_{\mathrm{out}} \chi]$ denote the (unnormalized) output state for the input $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$. The fidelity of this output state with the ideal output can be expressed as $$f_{j,k}= \frac{\langle \psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})} | \rho_{j,k}|\psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})}\rangle}{\mathrm{Tr}[\rho_{j,k}]}=
\frac{1}{p_{j,k}}\mathrm{Tr}[\psi_{j,k}^T \otimes \psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})} \, \chi].$$ Here $p_{j,k}=\mathrm{Tr}[\psi_{j,k}^T \otimes \mathbb{I}_{\mathrm{out}} \, \chi] $ denotes the probability of success of the gate for input $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle $ and $\psi_{j,k}=|\psi_{j,k}\rangle\langle \psi_{j,k}|$ denotes a density matrix of a pure state $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$. We define the average state fidelity for $k$th basis as a weighted mean of $f_{j,k}$ with weights equal to the success probabilities $p_{j,k}$ [@Bell12], $$F_k= \frac{\sum_{j=1}^8 p_{j,k}f_{j,k}}{\sum_{j=1}^8 p_{j,k}}.
\label{Fmeandefinition}$$ Since $\sum_{j=1}^8 \psi_{j,k}=\mathbb{I}$ for all $k$, it holds that $\sum_{j=1}^8 p_{j,k}=\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]$ and we can express the mean fidelities in a compact matrix form $F_k=\mathrm{Tr}[R_k \chi]/\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]$, where $$R_k=\sum_{j=1}^{8} \psi_{j,k}^T\otimes U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}\psi_{j,k}U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}^\dagger.$$
The gate fidelity $F_{\chi}$ can be lower bounded by the three above defined average state fidelities as follows, $$F_{\chi} \geq F_1+F_2+F_3-2,
\label{Fbound}$$ which generalizes the Hofmann bound (\[FHofmann\]) and is valid for both deterministic and probabilistic quantum operations. In order to prove this bound, we rewrite it as $$F_{\chi}-F_1-F_2-F_3+2 =\frac{\mathrm{Tr}[R\chi]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]} \geq 0,
\label{Finequality}$$ where $R= \frac{1}{8}\chi_{CCZ} -R_1-R_2-R_3+2\mathbb{I}.$ It can be shown by explicit calculation that the matrix $R$ is positive semidefinite, which immediately implies the inequality (\[Finequality\]). Note that $R \geq 0$ holds irrespective of the actual form of the unitary $U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}$. Thus the fidelity bound (\[Fbound\]) is actually completely general and it holds for all three-qubit unitary operations. The output states $|\psi_{j,k}^{\mathrm{(out)}}\rangle$ will be product states for all unitaries $U$ that are diagonal in the computational basis [@SI]. However, for other gates the output states may be entangled. We stress that it is important to calculate $F_k$ as wieghted means (\[Fmeandefinition\]) because if $F_k$ would be calculated as ordinary means, $F_k=\sum_{j=1}^8 f_{j,k}$/8, then the bounds (\[FHofmann\]) and (\[Fbound\]) could actually overestimate the gate fidelity for certain trace-decreasing operations. The fidelity bound (\[Fbound\]) can be generalized to $N$-qubit gates and it can be shown that $$F_\chi \geq \sum_{k=1}^N F_k -N+1,
\label{FboundNmain}$$ where $F_k$ is the average fidelity for input product basis states where all qubits are prepared in the computational basis states except for the $k$th qubit which is prepared in the Hadamard basis states. A detailed analytical proof of the bound (\[FboundNmain\]) can be found in the Appendix [@SI]. The bound will be tight and equality will hold in Eq. (\[FboundNmain\]) if $\chi$ is either the desired unitary $U$, the unitary $U$ preceded by a $\pi$ phase flip on a single qubit, or any mixture or coherent superposition of these unitary operations [@SI].
{width="0.785\linewidth"}
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. Orthogonally polarized time-correlated photon pairs with central wavelength of $810$ nm are generated in the process of spontaneous parametric downconversion in a $2$ mm thick BBO crystal pumped by a CW laser diode with $75$ mW pump power [@Jezek11]. The first qubit is encoded into spatial degree of freedom of the signal photon while the second and third qubits are encoded into polarization of the signal and idler photons, respectively. The polarization states are prepared and analyzed using half- and quarter-waveplates and polarizing beam splitters. The calcite beam displacer BD1 transforms the input polarization state of the signal photon into state of spatial qubit and the beam displacer BD2 maps the spatial qubit back onto polarization. The pair of beam displacers forms an inherently stable Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The HWPs which address only one path in the interferometer disentangle input polarization and spatial qubits of the signal photon and ensure correct signal collection by BD2.
The CCZ gate is implemented by two-photon interference on a partially polarizing beam splitter PPBS with intensity transmittances $T_H=1$ and $T_V=1/3$ for horizontally and vertically polarized photons, respectively [@Ralph02; @Hofmann02; @Okamoto05; @Langford05; @Kiesel05]. The scheme also requires two additional PPBSs for balancing the amplitudes. The $\pi$ phase shift due to two-photon interference on the central PPBS occurs only if the signal photon travels through the lower interferometer arm and both photons are vertically polarized (logical qubit states $|1\rangle$). This probabilistic CCZ gate operates in the coincidence basis [@Kok07] and its successful operation is indicated by detection of two-photon coincidences D1&D3, D1&D4, D2&D3, or D2&D4 at the output. Other detection events correspond to gate failure and are rejected and not used in subsequent analysis. Ideal success probability of the CCZ gate is $1/9$ which is the maximum value achievable without the use of ancilla photons [@Lemr11].
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
We have prepared the input states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$, $k=1,2,3$, as listed in Table I and for each input we have performed projective measurement on the output in the product basis $\left\{|\psi_{j,k}\rangle\right\}_{j=1}^8$. The results are shown in Fig. 2 and they can be also interpreted as the computational basis truth tables of the Toffoli gates where the target qubit is the first, the second, and the third qubit, respectively. The parameters $f_{j,k}$ and $p_{j,k}$ necessary for evaluation of the average state fidelities $F_k$ were determined as follows. Let $C_{j,j'}^{k}$ denote the number of detected coincidences corresponding to projection onto $U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|\psi_{j',k}\rangle$ for input $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$. Then $f_{j,k}=C_{j,j}^k/S_j^k$, where $S_{j}^k=\sum_{j'=1}^8 C_{j,j'}^k$ is the total number of coincidences for a given input. In our measurement, $S_j^k \approx 6.6\times 10^4$ on average. Since all $C_{j,j'}^k$ were measured for the same time interval of $100$ s, the relative success probabilities can be determined as normalized total number of coincidences, $p_{j,k}=8 S_j^k/S^k$ where $S^k=\sum_{j=1}^8 S_j^k$. The estimated $p_{j,k}$ lie in the interval $[0.902,1.079]$. On inserting the expressions for $f_{j,k}$ and $p_{j,k}$ into Eq. (\[Fmeandefinition\]) we get $F_k=\sum _{j=1}^8 C_{j,j}^k/S^k$, which yields $$F_1= 0.928(1),\qquad
F_2=0.947(1), \qquad
F_3=0.955(1).
\label{Fkexp}$$ The statistical errors represent $3$ standard deviations $\sigma_k$, which were determined assuming Poissonian statistics of the measured coincidences, $\sigma_k^2=F_k(1-F_k)/S^k$. If we plug the fidelities (\[Fkexp\]) into formula (\[Fbound\]) we obtain a lower bound on the fidelity of the implemented linear optical CCZ gate, $$F_\chi \geq 0.830(2).
\label{Fest}$$
{width="0.99\linewidth"}
For comparison, we have also experimentally determined the original Hofmann bound on the process fidelity (\[FHofmann\]). For this purpose we consider two bases labeled $k=3$ and $k=3'$ connected by Hadamard transforms of all three qubits, $|\psi_{j,3'}\rangle=H\otimes H\otimes H|\psi_{j,3}\rangle$. The input states $|\psi_{j,3'}\rangle$ are explicitly listed in the last column of Table I. It holds that $F_\chi \geq F_3+F_{3'}-1$, where both fidelities are given by Eq. (\[Fmeandefinition\]). This inequality can be equivalently expressed as $\mathrm{Tr}[R'\chi]/\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]\geq 0$, where $R'=\frac{1}{8}\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}}-R_3-R_{3'}+\mathbb{I}$. Similarly as before, one can explicitly show that $R'\geq 0$, which proves the above inequalities. The determination of $F_{3'}$ requires measurement of fidelities of entangled output states, since for instance $U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|\!+\!+1\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+\rangle+|1-\rangle)|1\rangle$. Fortunately, in our setup the projection onto the maximally entangled states of qubits 1 and 2 can be accomplished deterministically because both these qubits are carried by a single photon. We only have to rotate the HWP2 by $45^{\circ}$ which acts as a CNOT gate between the polarization and spatial qubits carried by a single photon and transforms the maximally entangled states onto product states. From the measurements we have determined $F_{3'}=0.921(1)$ which together with $F_{3}=0.955(1)$ as given in Eq. (\[Fkexp\]) yields $F_\chi \geq 0.876(2)$. We can see that at the cost of measuring fidelities of entangled states we obtain a slightly higher fidelity bound. This is universally valid because $R-R' \geq 0$. Since $R_k-\frac{1}{8}\chi_{\mathrm{CCZ}} \geq 0$ for all $k=1,2,3,3'$, the average state fidelities also provide an upper bound on the gate fidelity [@Hofmann05], $F_\chi \leq \mathrm{min}(F_k)$. Specifically, we get $F_\chi \leq 0.921(1)$.
Finally, we explicitly demonstrate the capability of the three-qubit CCZ gate to generate entanglement from input separable states $|\psi_1\rangle|\psi_2\rangle|\psi_3\rangle$, where $|\psi_j\rangle=c_0^j|0\rangle+c_1^j|1\rangle$ (partially entangled inputs are considered in the Appendix. The corresponding output state reads $ U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|\psi_1\psi_2\psi_3\rangle= |\psi_1\psi_2\psi_3\rangle-2c_1^1c_1^2c_1^3 |111\rangle,$ hence the gate generates GHZ-type three-qubit entangled states [@GHZ89; @Dur00]. As an example, in Fig. 3 we plot the reconstructed output state corresponding to the input product state $|+++\rangle$. The fidelity of the reconstructed state with the ideal state is $F=0.951$ and its purity $\mathcal{P}=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho^2]$ reads $\mathcal{P}=0.959$.
In summary, we have proposed a lower bound on the quantum process fidelity of multiqubit quantum gates which generalizes the original Hofmann bound and we used it to experimentally characterize linear optical quantum CCZ gate. The advantage of our generalized fidelity bound is that only fidelities of product multiqubit quantum states need to be measured and the required number of measurement settings is much smaller than what is needed for full quantum process tomography or gate fidelity estimation by Monte Carlo sampling [@SI]. We hope that our work will represent a useful addition to the toolbox of methods for efficient and experimentally feasible characterization of quantum devices.
This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (13-20319S). M.S. acknowledges support by the Operational Program Education for Competitiveness - European Social Fund (project No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0004) of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic.
[99]{}
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
*Quantum state estimation*, No. 649 in Lect. Notes Phys., M. Paris and J. Řeháček, eds., (Springer, Heidelberg, 2004).
D. Gross, Y.-K. Liu, S. T. Flammia, S. Becker, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 150401 (2010).
A. Shabani, R.L. Kosut, M. Mohseni, H. Rabitz, M.A. Broome, M.P. Almeida, A. Fedrizzi, and A.G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 100401 (2011).
S. T. Flammia and Y.-K. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 230501 (2011).
M. P. da Silva, O. Landon-Cardinal, and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 210404 (2011).
L. Steffen, M. P. da Silva, A. Fedorov, M. Baur, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 260506 (2012).
A. Bendersky, F. Pastawski, and J.P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 190403 (2008).
J. Emerson, M. Silva, O. Moussa, C. Ryan, M. Laforest, J. Baugh, D.G. Cory, R. Laflamme, Science **317**, 1893 (2007).
D.M. Reich, G. Gualdi, and C.P. Koch, Phys. Rev. A **88**, 042309 (2013); arXiv:1305.5649 (2013).
H.F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 160504 (2005).
R. Okamoto, H.F. Hofmann, S. Takeuchi, and K. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 210506 (2005).
X.H. Bao, T.Y. Chen, Q. Zhang, J. Yang, H. Zhang, T. Yang, and J.W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 170502 (2007).
A.S. Clark, J. Fulconis, J.G. Rarity, W.J. Wadsworth, and J.L. O’Brien, Phys. Rev. A **79**, 030303(R) (2009).
W.B. Gao, P. Xu, X.-C. Yao, O. Gühne, A. Cabello, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, Z.B. Chen, and J.W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 020501 (2010).
W.B. Gao, A.M. Goebel, C.Y. Lu, H.N. Dai, C. Wagenknecht, Q.A. Zhang, B. Zhao, C.Z. Peng, Z.B. Chen, Y.A. Chen, and J.W. Pan, PNAS **107**, 20869 (2010).
X.Q. Zhou, T.C. Ralph, P. Kalasuwan, M. Zhang, A. Peruzzo, B.P. Lanyon, and J.L. O’Brien, Nature Commun. **2**, 413 (2011).
B.P. Lanyon, C. Hempel, D. Nigg, M. Müller, R. Gerritsma, F. Zähringer, P. Schindler, J.T. Barreiro, M. Rambach, G. Kirchmair, M. Hennrich, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C.F. Roos, Science **334**, 57 (2011).
B.P. Lanyon, M. Barbieri, M.P. Almeida, T. Jennewein, T.C. Ralph, K.J. Resch, G.J. Pryde, J.L. O’Brien, A. Gilchrist, and A.G. White, Nature Phys. **5**, 134 (2009).
T. Monz, K. Kim, W. Hänsel, M. Riebe, A.S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 040501 (2009).
Pieter Kok, W. J. Munro, Kae Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, Jonathan P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79**, 135 (2007).
A. Jamiolkowski, Rep. Math. Phys. **3**, 275 (1972).
M.-D. Choi, Linear Algebra Appl. **10**, 285 (1975).
B. Bell, A.S. Clark, M.S. Tame, M. Halder, J. Fulconis, W.J. Wadsworth, and J.G. Rarity, New J. Phys. **14**, 023021 (2012).
See Appendix for detailed proof of the bound (\[FboundNmain\]), comparison of our technique with Monte Carlo sampling, and discussion of generation of a maximally entangled three-qubit GHZ state.
M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 213602 (2011).
N. K. Langford, T.J. Weinhold, R. Prevedel, K. J. Resch, A. Gilchrist, J. L. O’Brien, G. J. Pryde, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 210504 (2005).
N. Kiesel, C. Schmid, U. Weber, R. Ursin, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 210505 (2005).
T. C. Ralph, N. K. Langford, T. B. Bell, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A **65**, 062324 (2002).
H.F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 024308 (2002).
K. Lemr, A. Černoch, J. Soubusta, K. Kieling, J. Eisert, and M. Dušek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 013602 (2011).
D. M. Greenberger, M. Horne, A. Zeilinger, *Bell’s theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe,* ed. M. Kafatos, Kluwer, Dordrecht 69 (1989).
W. Dür, G. Vidal, and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 062314 (2000).
Proof of the fidelity bound for $N$-qubit gates
-----------------------------------------------
Our aim is to prove a bound on quantum process fidelity $F_{\chi}$ between the actually implemented quantum operation $\chi$ and an ideal target unitary gate $U$, $$F_\chi \geq \sum_{k=1}^N F_k -N+1,
\label{FboundN}$$ for arbitrary $N$-qubit unitary gate $U$. Here $F_k$ denote average output state fidelities for $N$ different input product bases. Analogously to the case of three qubit CCZ gate we define $$|\Phi^{+}_N\rangle=\sum_{j_1,\ldots,j_N=0}^{1}|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle_{\mathrm{in}}|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle_\mathrm{out}
\label{PhiNplus}$$ a maximally entangled state on two copies of an $N$-qubit input Hilbert space. The Choi matrix of an $N$-qubit unitary gate $U$ reads $$\chi_{\mathrm{U}}= (\mathbb{I}\otimes U) \,\Phi^{+}_N (\mathbb{I}\otimes U^\dagger).$$ We define the process fidelity of a quantum gate $\chi$ with respect to the $N$-qubit unitary gate $U$ as a normalized overlap of the Choi matrices, $F_\chi=\mathrm{Tr}[\chi \,\chi_{\mathrm{U}}]/( 2^N \mathrm{Tr}[\chi] )$, where the term $2^N=\mathrm{Tr}[\chi_{\mathrm{U}}]$ appears due to the normalization of $\chi_{\mathrm{U}}$.
The probe product states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ are straightforward generalization of the states specified in Table I of the main paper. In this case index $j=1,\ldots,2^N$ specifies an element of an $N$-qubit orthonormal product basis formed from basis vectors $\{\ket{0},\ket{1}\}$ on each qubit except for $k$-th qubit, where basis $\{\ket{+},\ket{-}\}$ is used. Explicitly, we can write $$|\psi_{j,k}\rangle=\mathbb{I}^{\otimes k-1}\otimes H \otimes \mathbb{I}^{\otimes N-k}|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle,$$ where $|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle$ is a computational basis state with $j_1 \ldots j_N$ forming a binary representation of integer $j-1$, and $H$ denotes the single-qubit Hadamard gate. Note that an $N$-qubit controlled-Z gate $U_{\mathrm{C^NZ}}$ transforms the input product states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ onto product states at the output and the preparation basis $\{|\psi_{j,k}\rangle\}_{j=1}^{2^N}$ and the measurement basis $\{|\psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})}\rangle\}_{j=1}^{2^N}$ coincide. The gate $U_{\mathrm{C^NZ}}$ is diagonal in computational basis and it introduces a $\pi$ phase shift if and only if all $N$ qubits are in state $|1\rangle$, $$U_{\mathrm{C^NZ}}|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle= e^{i\pi \prod_{k=1}^Nj_k}|j_1,\ldots,j_N\rangle.
\label{UCNZ}$$
Similarly to the three-qubit case, the average output state fidelity $F_k$ is defined as $$F_{k}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{2^N} p_{j,k}f_{j,k}}{\sum_{j=1}^{2^N} p_{j,k}},$$ where $$p_{j,k}=\mathrm{Tr}[\psi_{j,k}^T \otimes \mathbb{I}_{\mathrm{out}} \, \chi],$$ and $$f_{j,k}=\frac{1}{p_{j,k}}\mathrm{Tr}[\psi_{j,k}^T \otimes \psi_{j,k}^{(\mathrm{out})} \, \chi]$$ denote the success probability and output fidelity for input state $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$, and $\psi_{j,k}=|\psi_{j,k}\rangle \langle \psi_{j,k}|$. We can express $F_k$ in a matrix form $F_k=\mathrm{Tr}[R_k \chi]/\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]$, where $$R_k=\sum_{j=1}^{2^N} \psi_{j,k}^T\otimes U \psi_{j,k} U^\dagger.$$ We can now rewrite the inequality (\[FboundN\]) as: $$F_{\chi}-\sum_{k=1}^N F_k + N-1 =\frac{\mathrm{Tr}[R \chi]}{\mathrm{Tr}[\chi]} \geq 0,
\label{FinequalityN}$$ where $$R= \frac{1}{2^N}\chi_{\mathrm{U}} - \sum_{k=1}^N R_k +(N-1)\mathbb{I}.$$ Since the trace of a product of two positive semidefinite operators is non-negative, we would prove our claim by showing $R \geq 0$. In order to show this we define an operator with the same eigenvalues $T \equiv (\mathbb{I}\otimes U^\dagger) R (\mathbb{I} \otimes U)$ and express it using the definition of $R$: $$\label{TNop1}
T=(N-1)\mathbb{I}+\frac{1}{2^N}\Phi^{+}_N - \sum_{k=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^{2^N} \psi_{j,k}^T\otimes \psi_{j,k},$$ It is useful to divide the $2N$ qubit Hilbert space on which operator $T$ acts into two-qubit subsystems formed by the $l$-th qubit of the input and the $l$-th qubit of the output. We introduce a unitary operator $W$ which groups together the $l$-th input and output qubits, $$W|j_1\ldots,j_N\rangle|k_1,\ldots,k_N\rangle=|j_1,k_1\rangle\ldots|j_N,k_N\rangle.$$ In this way the maximally entangled state can be seen as $W\ket{\Phi^{+}_N}=2^{N/2} \ket{\Phi^{+}}_1 \cdots \ket{\Phi^{+}}_N$, where $\ket{\Phi^{\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{00}\pm\ket{11})$ are the Bell states and the subscripts indicate the two-qubit subsystems. Let us now analyze terms of the type $\psi_{j,k}^T\otimes \psi_{j,k}$. For any $l$ they are factorized with respect to a subsystem of the $l$-th input and output qubit, because the state $\ket{\psi_{j,k}}$ is completely factorized. In any such subsystem we can find only one of four states $\ket{00}\bra{00}, \ket{11}\bra{11},\ket{++}\bra{++}, \ket{--}\bra{--}$. Let us note that $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{00}\bra{00}+\ket{11}\bra{11}&= \Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-} \nonumber \\
\ket{++}\bra{++}+\ket{--}\bra{--}&= \Phi^{+} + \Psi^{+},
\label{psisums}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{\Psi^{\pm}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{01}\pm\ket{10})$ are the other two Bell states. The identities (\[psisums\]) allow us to rewrite the sums of projectors $\psi_{j,k}^T\otimes \psi_{j,k}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psumid}
& & \!\!\!\! \!\!\!\! \sum_{j=1}^{2^N} W \left(\psi_{j,k}^T\otimes \psi_{j,k}\right) W^\dagger \nonumber \\
& & = (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes k-1} \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Psi^{+}) \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes N-k}. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Using the four Bell states we can express the identity on the two qubit Hilbert space as $\mathbb{I}=\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-} + \Psi^{+} + \Psi^{-}$. This enables us to rewrite Eq. (\[TNop1\]) using Eq. (\[psumid\]) in the following form
$$\label{TNop2}
\tilde{T}= (N-1)(\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-} + \Psi^{+} + \Psi^{-})^{\otimes N}+ \Phi^{+ \otimes N}
- \sum_{k=1}^N (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes k-1} \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Psi^{+}) \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes N-k}.
%(\Phi^{+} + \Psi^{+})_k \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes N-1},$$
where $\tilde{T}=WTW^\dagger$. Since $W$ is unitary, operator $\tilde{T}$ has the same eigenvalues as $T$. Moreover, $\tilde{T}$ is diagonal in the basis formed by tensor products of Bell states, hence the eigenvalues can be directly determined from the expression (\[TNop2\]). One eigenstate is given by tensor product of $N$ copies of $|\Phi^{+}\rangle$ and its eigenvalue reads $0$. $N 2^{N-1}$ eigenstates are formed by tensor products of a single copy of $|\Psi^{+}\rangle$ and $N-1$ copies of $|\Phi^{+}\rangle$ or $|\Phi^{-}\rangle$ and they all correspond to eigenvalue $N-2$. For $k=1,\cdots,N-1$ we have ${N \choose k}$ eigenvalues formed by tensor products of $k$ copies of $|\Phi^{+}\rangle$ and $N-k$ copies of $|\Phi^{-}\rangle$ whose eigenvalue is equal to $N-k-1$. All the remaining eigenstates correspond to the eigenvalue $N-1$. We can see that all the eigenvalues of $\tilde{T}$ are nonnegative for $N \geq 2$ which proves that $T$ is a positive semidefinite operator and as a consequence the same holds for operator $R$. This proves the fidelity bound (\[FboundN\]).
In a similar fashion we can prove an upper bound on quantum gate fidelity, $$F_\chi \leq F_k.
\label{Fchiupper}$$ Taking into account Eq. (\[psumid\]) and the definition of $F_\chi$, we find after some algebra that the inequality (\[Fchiupper\]) is equivalent to the condition
$$(\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes k-1} \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Psi^{+}) \otimes (\Phi^{+} + \Phi^{-})^{\otimes N-k-1} -\Phi^{+ \otimes N} \geq 0.$$
This latter inequality is obviously satisfied which proves (\[Fchiupper\]).
The bound (\[FboundN\]) will be tight for any $\chi$ whose support lies in the subspace spanned by the $N+1+4\delta_{N,2}$ eigenstates of $R$ with eigenvalue $0$. The multiplicity of the eigenvalue $0$ and the structure of the corresponding eigenstates follows from the above analysis of eigenstates and eigenvalues of operator $\tilde{T}$. In particular, for $N\geq 3$ this $N+1$ dimensional subspace is spanned by the mutually orthogonal basis states $\mathbb{I}\otimes V_m |\Phi^{+}_N \rangle$ generated by $N+1$ unitary operations $V_m$, where $V_0=U$, and $V_m=U\Sigma_m$, $m=1,\ldots,N$. Here $\Sigma_m$ is a unitary operation that applies $\pi$ phase shift to $m$th qubit, $$\Sigma_m= \mathbb{I}^{\otimes m-1}\otimes \sigma_Z \otimes \mathbb{I}^{\otimes N-m},$$ and $\sigma_{Z}=|0\rangle\langle 0|-|1\rangle\langle 1|$. It is easy to check that if the actually implemented operation is $V_m$ then equality holds in Eq. (\[FboundN\]) and the lower bound is thus equal to the true gate fidelity $F_\chi$. For $m=0$ we obviously have $F_\chi=1$ as well as $F_k=1,$ $k=1,\ldots,N$. On the other hand, if $m>0$ then $F_\chi=0$ and $F_k=1-\delta_{m,k}$, hence $\sum_{k=1}^N F_k=N-1$. Note that $F_{m}=0$ in this case because the phase flip $\sigma_Z$ maps the input states $|+\rangle,\,|-\rangle$ of $m$th qubit onto orthogonal states. In contrast, all probe states $|\psi_{j,k\neq m}\rangle$ belonging to other bases are unchanged by $\Sigma_m$. The fidelity bound (\[FboundN\]) is thus tight if the actually implemented operation is either the desired unitary $U$ or a unitary $U$ preceded by a $\pi$ phase flip on a single qubit. The bound will be tight also for any mixture or coherent superposition of these operations. The case $N=2$ is special because we have $4$ additional eigenstates with eigenvalue $0$. These $4$ eigenstates correspond to two-qubit unitary operations $\sigma_X\otimes \mathbb{I}$, $\mathbb{I} \otimes \sigma_X$, $\sigma_X\otimes \sigma_Z$, and $\sigma_Z \otimes \sigma_X$, where $\sigma_X=|0\rangle\langle 1|+|1\rangle\langle 0|$.
Since each average state fidelity $F_k$ is larger or equal to the gate fidelity $F_\chi$, the difference between the true fidelity and the lower bound (\[FboundN\]) will increase at most linearly with the number of qubits N, $$F_{\chi}-\sum_{k=1}^N F_k+N-1 \leq (N-1)\left(1-F_\chi\right).$$ For large number of qubits and high level of noise it may happen that the bound (\[FboundN\]) will be too small to be of any use. However, with increasing $N$ the $N$-qubit controlled Z gate becomes very similar to the identity operation as wittnessed by their fidelity $$F_{\mathrm{I}}=\frac{1}{2^{2N}}\left|\langle \Phi_N^{+}|\mathbb{I}\otimes U_{\mathrm{C^NZ}}|\Phi_N^{+}\rangle\right|^2.
\label{FIdef}$$ On inserting the explicit expressions (\[PhiNplus\]) and (\[UCNZ\]) for $|\Phi_N^{+}\rangle$ and $U_{\mathrm{C^NZ}}$ into Eq. (\[FIdef\]), we obtain $$F_{\mathrm{I}}=1-2^{2-N}+ 2^{2-2N}.
\label{FIformula}$$ In any experiment attempting to certify the quality of $N$-qubit controlled Z gate by fidelity measurement, fidelity $F_{\mathrm{I}}$ achievable by simply doing nothing has to be exceeded. This requires an exponentially small gate infidelity, $1-F_\chi< 2^{2-N}(1-2^{-N})$. It is instructive to rewrite the fidelity bound (\[FboundN\]) as a bound on the gate infidelity $1-F_\chi$, $$1-F_\chi \leq \sum_{k=1}^N (1-F_{k}).$$ Since $F_k \geq F_{\chi}$, the bound (\[FboundN\]) will certainly exceed $F_{\mathrm{I}}$ provided that the true gate infidelity will satisfy $1-F_\chi< 2^{2-N}(1-2^{-N})/N$, which represents only a small extra overhead in gate quality compared to the dominant exponential factor $2^{-N}$.
Our construction of the set of input states $|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ was tailored for the multiqubit controlled Z gates, but it is actually well suited for a much wider class of all unitary operations $U_D$ that are diagonal in the computational basis, $$U_D|j_1,\ldots ,j_N\rangle= e^{i\phi(j)} |j_1,\ldots ,j_N\rangle,
\label{UDdef}$$ where $\phi(j)$ denotes an input-state dependent phase shift. For all unitary operations (\[UDdef\]) it holds that the output states $U_D|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ are product states of $N$ single-qubit states. Therefore, the output-state fidelities can be directly determined by $N$ single-qubit measurements similarly to the case of the controlled-Z gate.
However, for other $N$-qubit gates than (\[UDdef\]) the output states $U|\psi_{j,k}\rangle$ may be entangled. In such case direct determination of output state fidelity would require measurement in basis of entangled states, which may be difficult or even impossible for certain experimental implementations. In that case one would have to estimate the fidelity of output entangled states from measurements in various product bases, e.g. by the Monte Carlo sampling [@Flammia11; @Silva11]. This would inevitably increase the required number of measurement settings. Consequently, other approaches such as Monte Carlo sampling of the gate fidelity or measurement of the original Hofmann bound [@Hofmann05] may become preferable for such gates.
Comparison with Monte Carlo sampling
------------------------------------
Our method of characterization of the $N$-qubit controlled-Z gates as well as the Monte Carlo sampling technique proposed in Refs. [@Flammia11; @Silva11] are designed such that it suffices to prepare product $N$-qubit input states and perform single-qubit measurements on the output. This is important, because in many experiments it may be difficult or impossible to prepare entangled input states or to perform measurements in entangled basis. The main advantage of our procedure is that it requires much smaller number of different measurement settings than Monte Carlo sampling. A single measurement setting represents a specific combination of input state and output measurement. In our experiment, both input states and measurement bases are set by waveplate rotations and each change of measurement setting requires about $15$ seconds mainly due to a limited speed of motorized rotation stages. By contrast, the data acquisition for a fixed setting is fast, because the average observed two-photon coincidence rates are of the order of $80$ per second for each pair of detectors.
Experimental Monte Carlo estimation of fidelity of a three-qubit quantum Toffoli gate was experimentally demonstrated by Steffen *et al.* [@Steffen12]. As shown in Ref. [@Steffen12], fidelity of $3$-qubit Toffoli gate can be expressed as a linear combination of average values of $232$ tensor products of single-qubit Pauli operators $\sigma_X$, $\sigma_Y$, $\sigma_Z$, and $\sigma_I\equiv\mathbb{I}$. Each tensor product includes six Pauli operators: $3$ for the input qubits and $3$ for the output qubits. Experimental determination of a single average value requires sequential preparation of $2^3=8$ product input states that are the eigenstates of the first $3$ Pauli operators and the output qubits are measured in a product basis of eigenstates of the last $3$ Pauli operators. A careful analysis reveals that all average values of tensor products including $\sigma_I$ can be determined from measurements of other average values where a different Pauli operator replaces $\sigma_{I}$. Even after this reduction we are left with $63$ average values that need to be determined. This method thus requires $63\times 8= 504$ different measurement settings, which is $21$ times higher than the $24$ measurement settings required by our protocol.
In our experiment we have access to only $4$ out of the $8$ possible measurement outcomes, because part of the signal is deflected by the second calcite beam displacer and not detected. Moreover, in order to avoid the need to calibrate the detector efficiencies, we have utilized only a single coincidence signal D2$\&$D3. For each measurement setting we used $8$ different waveplate settings such that the coincidence detection of photons by detectors D2 and D3 corresponded to the projection onto $8$ different eigenstates of the $3$-qubit measurement basis. Estimation of fidelity using the procedure of Refs. [@Flammia11; @Silva11; @Steffen12] would thus in our case require $8\times 504=4032$ different settings. Just preparing all these settings would take about $17$ hours which exceeds the stability time of the Mach Zehnder interferometer formed by the calcite beam displacers and of the Hong-Ou-Mandel dip on the central partially polarizing beam splitter. By contrast, our fidelity estimation procedure requires only $8 \times 24=192$ different settings even if we use only a single coincidence signal D2$\&$D3. For each waveplate setting we measured the number of coincidences in $100\, {\rm s}$ and for each input state we detected about $6.6\times 10^4$ coincidences in total. The whole measurement lasted about $6$ hours and most of this time was used for data acquisition.
{width="0.99\linewidth"}
At a cost of larger number of required measurement settings, Monte Carlo sampling allows to obtain an estimate of the true gate fidelity while our approach yields only a lower and upper bound on the gate fidelity. One may conjecture that with increasing number of qubits the Monte Carlo sampling will eventually become more efficient even in terms of the number of experimental settings, because the number of required distinct settings depends only on the desired accuracy of the Monte Carlo estimate and not on the system size [@Flammia11; @Silva11]. Let us therefore discuss this issue in more detail. If one wants to obtain a Monte Carlo fidelity estimate $F_E$ that with probability $p$ will be $\epsilon$-close to the true fidelity $F$, $\mathrm{Pr}(|F_E-F|>\epsilon)\leq 1-p$, then the number of required experimental settings reads $$M\approx\frac{1}{(1-p)\epsilon^2}.
\label{M}$$ These $M$ settings need to be randomly chosen from all the relevant settings according to a specific relevance distribution [@Flammia11; @Silva11]. According to formula (\[M\]), achieving a $1\%$ precision ($\epsilon=0.01$) with $90\%$ probability ($p=0.9$) would require about $M=10^5$ settings. For a three-qubit CCZ gate this largely exceeds the total number of relevant settings. In such case one can directly perform measurements for all the relevant settings [@Steffen12], which eliminates the error of fidelity estimate due to Monte Carlo sampling. As shown in the previous section, the $N$-qubit controlled-Z gate becomes exponentially close to the identity operation with the increasing number of qubits, c.f. Eq. (\[FIformula\]). In order to reliably certify that the gate fidelity exceeds $F_\mathrm{I}$, the error $\epsilon$ has to be of the order of $2^{-N}$ for large $N$. For this specific task we thus obtain asymptotic scaling $M \propto 2^{2N}$. In contrast, our method requires only $N 2^N$ distinct measurement settings.
We can conclude that the gate fidelity estimation based on the lower bound (\[FboundN\]) is suitable for systems where a change of measurement setting requires significant effort. On the other hand, Monte Carlo sampling is particularly well suited for platforms where changes of measurement settings are fast and easy to implement. Both techniques could also be combined. For instance, our method can be used for a quick assessment of the gate performance during its construction and fine-tuning, followed by a more precise but also more time-consuming characterization of the resulting gate by Monte Carlo sampling.
Generation of three-qubit GHZ state
-----------------------------------
In our experiment, entanglement between spatial and polarization qubits of the signal photon can be deterministically generated and controlled by a suitable rotation of the HWP1 that addresses only the lower path in the interferometer formed by the two beam displacers. This allows us to investigate the action of the three-qubit CCZ gate on partially entangled input states. In particular, we have tested the fusion of a two-qubit maximally entangled Bell state $$|\Phi_2^{+}\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)$$ with a third qubit prepared in state $|+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0\rangle+|1\rangle)$ into a three-qubit maximally entangled GHZ state, $$U_{\mathrm{CCZ}}|\Phi_2^{+}\rangle|+\rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+\rangle+|11-\rangle).
\label{GHZ}$$ The output state was reconstructed with the Maximum Likelihood method and it is shown in Fig. S.1. Note that a Hadamard basis $|+\rangle,|-\rangle$ is used for the third qubit in this figure. The generated state is very close to the ideal GHZ state (\[GHZ\]) as witnessed by a high state fidelity $F=0.962$ and purity $\mathcal{P}=0.949$. Note the nonzero imaginary parts of the off-diagonal density matrix elements which can be attributed to the uncompensated residual phase shift in the interferometer, $\phi_0\approx \pi/11$. If we compensate for this phase shift on the experimental data, the fidelity increases to $\tilde{F}=0.972$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a quantum mechanical study of the bound states of a neutral scalar particle on the curved background described by the Reissner-Nordström (RN) spacetime that corresponds to a naked singularity. We show that there occurs both the metastable, *i.e.* decaying bound states and the stable ones. The corresponding energy spectra are calculated in the leading WKB approximation and the comparison with the RN black hole quasinormal mode spectrum is made. The metastable bound states on the naked singularity background turn out to be more long-living than the quasinormal modes for the black hole with the same mass.'
author:
- |
V. D. Gladush[^1], D. A. Kulikov[^2]\
\
[*Theoretical Physics Department, Dniepropetrovsk National University* ]{}\
[*72 Gagarin av., Dniepropetrovsk 49010, Ukraine*]{}
title: '**Stable and decaying bound states on the naked Reissner-Nordström background**'
---
Introduction {#part1}
============
In general relativity, the probe with test particles and waves is an efficient tool to study the properties of space–time near gravitating mass [@Chandrasekhar; @Cohen; @Wald; @Horowitz; @Ishibashi99; @Pitelli]. When using quantum test particles, one observes some features that are unexpected from the viewpoint of classical theory. In particular, it is well established that quantum test particles cannot form stable stationary bound states in the field of the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström (RN) black holes [@Deruelle]. Instead, there exist decaying quasistationary states known as the quasinormal modes (see Refs. [@Kokkotas; @Berti] for review).
However, if in the RN setup the gravitating mass $M$ and the electric charge $Q$ obey the superextremality condition, $Q>M$, the space-time geometry corresponds not to a black hole but to a naked singularity. At the classical level, this results in a repulsive potential barrier near the origin that prevents the absorbtion of neutral test particles [@Qadir; @Gladush; @Pugliese]. Therefore one may anticipate that the bound states are stable at the quantum level as well.
The main goal of this article is to verify the above proposition and to derive the energy spectrum of the bound states of a quantum test particle on the naked RN background.
Probing the naked RN singularity, one faces two key problems. The first one concerns physical relevance. According to the cosmic censorship conjecture by Penrose [@Penrose], any singularity originated from gravitational collapse must be hidden inside an event horizon. Besides, since the RN singularity is electrically charged, it may be neutralized by spontaneous pair creation provided that charges are sufficiently high [@Damour]. Nevertheless, one cannot exclude scenarios in which the RN geometry with $Q>M$ is an exterior solution connected with a regular interior solution with matter, for instance, the Friedmann solution in the model of friedmon [@Markov]. Such models can be traced back to Dirac’s suggestion to describe leptons as charged shells [@Dirac]. Recall that it is $Q/M=2.0\cdot 10^{21}$ for the electron, so that the exterior geometry must correspond to the naked singularity.
The second problem is the non-uniqueness of the time evolution for test particles and waves on the naked RN background [@Ishibashi99; @Ishibashi03; @Stalker]. This means one has to specify an additional boundary condition at the singularity to obtain a fully unique dynamics. In the present work, we overcome this shortcoming by employing the WKB approach, which turns out to be insensible to behavior in the vicinity of the singularity.
The work uses a simple quantum mechanical model. We consider a neutral scalar particle on the background geometry; the word “particle” may refer equally to the test scalar field perturbation. Both massless and massive cases are studied. This investigation expands our previous work [@Kulikov], which was restricted to the stable bound states of a massive particle.
The plan of the article is as follows. In Section \[part2\] we examine how particle wave functions behave in the vicinity of the singularity and advocate the WKB approximation. In Section \[part3\] the effective potential is analyzed to distinguish between stable and decaying bound states. Section \[part4\] is devoted to the calculation of the energy spectra through the WKB method. The energies obtained are then discussed and compared with the known quasinormal mode spectra for the RN black holes in Section \[part5\]. Finally, Section \[part6\] presents our conclusion.
Behavior in the vicinity of a RN singularity {#part2}
============================================
To start with, we establish the behavior of a particle wave function in the vicinity of a RN singularity and study how it is accommodated in the WKB approximation. The external RN geometry is described by the metric (in units with $G=\hbar=c=1$) $$\label{RNmetric}
ds^{2} =Fdt^{2}-F^{-1}dr^{2}-r^{2}(d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}{\theta }{d\phi }^{2})\,, \quad F =1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{2}}.$$ For concreteness, we assume that $Q>0$.
The Klein-Gordon equation for a neutral scalar particle of mass $m$ on this background $$\label{KG}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial }{\partial x^{\mu }}(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu \nu }
\frac{\partial \Psi }{\partial x^{\nu }})+m^{2} \Psi =0$$ has stationary state solutions, which we decompose into the spherical harmonics $$\label{Phi}
\Psi (t,r,\theta ,{\phi })=\exp (-\frac{i\omega t}{\hbar })Y_{lm}(\theta ,{\phi })\,\frac{1}{r\sqrt{F}}u(r).$$
Then the radial wave function satisfies the equation $$\label{RadEq}
\frac{d^{2}u}{dr^{2}}+\frac{1}{F}\left[ \frac{1}{F}\left(
\omega^2-\frac{Q^2 -M^{2}}{r^{4}}\right) -m^2
-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}\right] u=0$$ where $l=0,1,2,...$ is the orbital quantum number. In principle, this can be reduced to the confluent Heun equation [@Ronveaux], upon substituting $u(r)=\exp(\sqrt{m^2-\omega^2}r)(M-\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}-r)^\alpha(M+\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}-r)^\beta
y(r)$ with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ given by bulky expressions in terms of $Q$, $M$ and $m$. The so-obtained confluent Heun equation has singularities at $r=M\pm \sqrt{M^2-Q^2}$ (black-hole horizons) and $r=\infty$. However, in the super-extreme case under consideration these singularity are shifted away from the real line because $M^2-Q^2<0$. As a consequence, the reduction to the confluent Heun form does not simplify the problem.
It is more useful to note that the radial equation (\[RadEq\]) holds invariant under rescaling $$\label{rescaling}
Q\rightarrow \alpha Q, \quad M\rightarrow \alpha M, \quad
m\rightarrow \frac{1}{\alpha}m, \quad \omega\rightarrow
\frac{1}{\alpha}\omega, \quad R\rightarrow \alpha r$$ and thus one of the three parameters $Q$, $M$ and $m$ can be fixed arbitrarily.
Close to the naked singularity at $r=0$, the radial equation simplifies $$\label{RadEq0}
\frac{d^{2}u}{dr^{2}}-\frac{[1+l(l+1)]Q^2 - M^{2}}{Q^{4}}\, u=0, \qquad r\rightarrow 0.$$ If we now adopt the leading WKB approximation, choosing the radial wave function in the form $u(r)\propto\exp (iS(r))$, then in the super-extreme case we have $S'^{2}(r)<0$ for small $r$. Hence, the naked singularity is located in the classically forbidden region. As for the bound states we are interested in, this means that the wave function asymptotics is dominated by the term which decreases exponentially as $r$ approaches $0$. Note that for small $r$ the condition of the WKB-method applicability $|S''(r)/S'^{2}(r)|\ll 1$ is still satisfied.
Nevertheless, the exact behavior of the wave function at $r\rightarrow 0$ remains undetermined. The reason is that in a pair of linearly independent solutions to Eq. (\[RadEq\]) both solutions are locally normalized at $r\rightarrow 0$ and thus none of them can be discarded. As seen from Eq. (\[RadEq0\]), such a pair may easily be composed by taking a solution with $u(0)=0$ and another one with $u'(r)|_{r=0}=0$. In the general case, one should consider a linear combination of these solutions and employ the mixed boundary condition $(u'(r)+a\,u(r))|_{r=0}=0$ with an arbitrary real parameter $a$. Physically, the dependence of the dynamics on this parameter indicates that the naked singularity carries some additional degrees of freedom beyond those contained in the metric. It is said [@Ishibashi99] that the RN singularity has “hair”.
Mathematically, the ambiguity in choosing the boundary condition stems from the non-uniqueness of the self-adjoint extension to the wave operator on the naked RN background [@Ishibashi99; @Ishibashi03; @Stalker]. As a possible resolution, the Friedrichs extension was suggested which implies the choice $a=0$ and is naturally connected with the quadratic form of energy [@Ishibashi03; @Stalker]. It should be stressed that the application of the WKB method will permit us to bypass this problem at all because the method does not uses the value of the wave function in the origin.
In the end of this Section it is worthy to compare the above picture in terms of the areal radial coordinate $r$ with that based on the usual tortoise coordinate $x$ defined by $dr=Fdx$. Adjusting the integration constant, one can always put the limit of $r\rightarrow
0$ in correspondence with $x\rightarrow 0$. Then in place of the radial equation (\[RadEq\]) one obtains $$\label{RadEqX}
\frac{d^{2}\phi}{dx^{2}}+\left[\omega^2 -\left(m^2+ \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{2M}{r^3}-\frac{2Q^2}{r^4}\right)F \right] \, \phi=0$$ where $\phi(x)=u(r)/\sqrt{F(r)}$. In the limit of $x\rightarrow 0$ one has $x\sim r^3/(3Q^2)$ and this equation reduces to the Schrödinger-type one with the inverse quadratic potential $$\label{RadEq1}
\frac{d^{2}\phi}{dx^{2}}+\frac{2}{9x^{2}}\, \phi=0.$$ Then the textbook analysis [@Landau] shows that the particle cannot fall on the origin because the numerical coefficient of the potential in Eq. (\[RadEq1\]) does not exceed its critical value 1/4. This is in agreement with our previous conclusion that the naked singularity is located in the classically forbidden region.
However, Eqs. (\[RadEqX\]) and (\[RadEq1\]) contain the singularity at $x=0$ such that the condition of the WKB-method applicability breaks down for small $x$. Therefore, to develop the WKB approximation in the subsequent sections, we employ the initial radial equation (\[RadEq\]) in terms of the areal radial coordinate $r$.
Effective potential {#part3}
===================
Now we shall establish possible types of the particle bound states on the naked RN background. To that end, let us analyze the shape of the effective potential $V(r)$ introduced upon rewriting the radial equation (\[RadEq\]) in shorthand notations $$\label{SecEq}
\frac{d^{2}u}{dr^{2}}+\frac{1}{F^{2}}\left(\omega^{2}-V(r)\right)u=0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Veff}
V(r)&=&\left(m^2+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}\right)F+\frac{Q^{2}-M^2}{r^{4}} \nonumber \\
&=&{m}^{2}-{\frac {2M{m}^{2}}{r}}+{\frac {{Q}^{2}{m}^{2}+\Lambda}{{r}^{2
}}}-{\frac {2\Lambda M}{{r}^{3}}}+{\frac
{{Q}^{2}\Lambda-{M}^{2}+{Q}^{ 2}}{{r}^{4}}}\end{aligned}$$ and we designated $\Lambda=l(l+1)$. Note that $V(r)$ is positive-defined because $F>0$ for all positive $r$.
For a given particle energy $\omega$, the type of the bound state is regulated by the pattern of classically allowed and forbidden regions. From Eq. (\[SecEq\]) one concludes that the classically allowed (forbidden) region is to be defined as a region in which the condition $\omega^{2}-V(r)>0$ ($\omega^{2}-V(r)<0$) holds.
Instead of solving those inequalities explicitly, we are looking for local extrema of $V(r)$. If $V(r)$ has a minimum at $r=r_{min}$ and no other extrema, then for $\omega$ close enough to $\sqrt{V(r_{min})}$ the classically allowed region consists of a single line segment and there stable bound states may exist. In this case we call $V(r)$ the single-well potential. If $V(r)$ has two or more extrema, then for certain $\omega$ the classically allowed region must be split into two subregions separated by the classically forbidden region. Because of the tunneling between the subregions, the bound states are now metastable, *i.e.* decaying. The corresponding potential will be referred to as the barrier-shaped one.
We are now in the position to deduce what type of the bound states occurs depending on the values of the particle mass $m$ and the singularity parameters $Q$ and $M$. Let us first study the simpler case of the massless particle and then turn to the massive case.
Case of $m=0$
-------------
In this case the effective potential simplifies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Veffm0}
V(r)={\frac {\Lambda}{{r}^{2
}}}-{\frac {2\Lambda M}{{r}^{3}}}+{\frac
{{Q}^{2}\Lambda-{M}^{2}+{Q}^{ 2}}{{r}^{4}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that for the S-waves ($l=0 \Rightarrow \Lambda=l(l+1)=0$) it is monotonically decreasing and thus only scattering states are present in the spectrum.
For $l\neq 0$ the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crit-m0}
\left(\frac{Q}{M}\right)_{cr}^2 = \frac{8+9\Lambda}{8+8\Lambda}\end{aligned}$$ defines a critical charge-to-mass ratio such that for $Q/M>(Q/M)_{cr}$ the effective potential $V(r)$ has no extrema. If $1<Q/M<(Q/M)_{cr}$, there must be one local minimum and one local maximum, so that the potential is barrier-shaped and there emerge the metastable bound states. Noticeably, in the limiting case of the extreme black hole, $Q/M\rightarrow 1$, the local minimum transforms in an event horizon.
From Eq. (\[crit-m0\]), one sees that the value $(Q/M)_{cr}$ increases with the growth of $\Lambda$, though not exceeding $\sqrt{9/8}\approx 1.0607$. Thus the metastable bound states may only exist in the narrow range $1<Q/M<(Q/M)_{cr}$. The plots of $V(r)$ for $m=0$, obtained with the values $Q/M=1.01$ and $1.1$ inside and outside this range, respectively, are shown in Fig. 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1, 2$. ](reQ11M1m0.eps "fig:")
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig1\]
Case of $m\neq 0$
-----------------
We shall perform the same analysis as in the previous subsection but for the massive particle. For brevity, we set $M=1$ in this subsection; the formulae with arbitrary $M$ can readily be obtained by rescaling (\[rescaling\]).
To study the shape of $V(r)$, we find its extrema that amounts to solving the cubic equation $$\label{cubic1}
\frac{dV}{dr}=\frac{2m^2}{r^5}(r^{3}+ar^{2}+br+c)=0$$ with the coefficients $$\label{cubic-coef}
a=-Q^{2}-\frac{\Lambda}{m^2},\quad b=\frac{3\Lambda}{m^2},\quad
c=-\frac{2[(1+\Lambda)Q^{2}-1]}{m^2}.$$ The number of real roots to this cubic equation is controlled by the sign of its determinant defined by $$\label{cubic-D}
D=\left(\frac{p}{3}\right)^3+\left(\frac{q}{2}\right)^2$$ where $$\label{cubic-pq}
p=-\frac{a^2}{3}+b,\quad
q=2\left(\frac{a}{3}\right)^3-\frac{ab}{3}+c.$$ There must be one, two and three real roots when $D>0$, $D=0$ and $D<0$ respectively. Since the signs of the coefficients alternate, all these roots are positive and thus all local extrema of $V(r)$ are of physical meaning.
It is convenient to rewrite $D$ in terms of the deviation from the extreme charge value $\delta=Q^2-1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Discr}
D&=&\frac{1}{108m^8}\left[ \left( 8\,\delta-1 \right) {\Lambda}^{4}+
\left(
-78\,{m}^{2}\delta+6\,{m}^{2}+24\,{m}^{2}{\delta}^{2}+8\,\delta
\right) {\Lambda}^{3} \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left(
24\,{m}^{4}{\delta}^{3}+15\,{m}^{4}-84\,{m}^{2}\delta+24\,{m}^
{2}{\delta}^{2}+63\,{m}^{4}{\delta}^{2}+54\,{m}^{4}\delta \right)
{ \Lambda}^{2} \nonumber \\
&+& \left( 8\,{m}^{6}{\delta}^{4}+32\,{m}^{6}\delta+48\,{m}^
{6}{\delta}^{2}+32\,{m}^{6}{\delta}^{3}+8\,{m}^{6}+24\,{m}^{4}{\delta}
^{3}+156\,{m}^{4}{\delta}^{2}\right.
\nonumber \\
&+&\left.\left. 132\,{m}^{4}\delta \right)\Lambda+8\,{m
}^{6}\delta+24\,{m}^{6}{\delta}^{2}+24\,{m}^{6}{\delta}^{3}+8\,{m}^{6}
{\delta}^{4}+108\,{m}^{4}{\delta}^{2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
For the super-extreme charge under consideration, we have $\delta>0$. Then it becomes evident from (\[Discr\]) that the condition $D>0$ always holds true for the S-states ($\Lambda=0$) and, hence, the corresponding effective potential has one local extremum (minimum), thereby being single-well. Thus, in contrast to the case of $m=0$, the particle with $m\neq 0$ may form stable bound S-states.
As an illustration, in Fig. 2 we offer plots of $V(r)$ obtained with $m=0.1$, using $Q/M=1.01$ and $1.1$. In these plots the potential well where the bound states emerge lies below the rest energy level $\omega^2=m^2$ depicted by the dotted line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
(a) (b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig2\]
As for the spectrum with $l\neq 0$, we have learnt that in the case of $m=0$ it contains the metastable bound states provided the charge-to-mass ratio is close enough to its extreme value $Q/M=1$. We now argue that in the case of $m\neq 0$ the situation is essentially the same. Indeed, for small $\delta$ the asymptotics of $D$ is given by $$\label{cubic-D1}
D=\,{\frac {\Lambda\, \left( 8\,{m}^{2}-\Lambda \right)
\left( \Lambda+{m}^{2} \right) ^{2}}{108{m}^{8}}+O(\delta)},$$ so that $D<0$ if $\Lambda>8m^2$. In practice, the last condition holds for all $l\neq 0$, because $m\ll M=1$ (the particle mass is supposed to be much less than the central object mass). The inequality $D<0$ means that $dV/dr$ has three zeros and, as a consequence, $V(r)$ is the barrier-shaped potential with two minima and one maximum. This subcase may include the metastable bound states because one of the minima lies above the level of $\omega^2=m^2$ (see Fig. 2a).
On the other hand, if $Q/M$ is far from being extreme, the metastable bound states are excluded. In the case of $m=0$, the critical value (\[crit-m0\]) that provides the necessary and sufficient condition for their exclusion was derived. Now, for $m\neq 0$, we are able to deduce the sufficient but not necessary condition. To do this, we should establish for which values of $\delta$ the condition $D>0$ holds, which guarantees that the effective potential is single-well.
Upon demanding that the coefficients in front of powers of $\Lambda$ in (\[Discr\]) be positive, one obtains several restrictions. The strongest one comes from the coefficient of the ${\Lambda}^{2}$-term which becomes positive-defined when $\delta>7/2$. Thus we conclude that the condition $D>0$ holds and, hence, the effective potential is single-well and the metastable bound states are excluded, provided $$\label{Qcrit}
\frac{Q^2-M^2}{M^2} >{\frac {7}{2}}, \quad \frac{Q}{M}
>\frac {3\sqrt {2}}{2}\approx 2.121...$$ It should be stressed that this is not an exact critical value and, in fact, $D>0$ may hold at lesser values of $Q/M$ when $l$ is small enough. For example, if $Q/M=1.1<2.121$ the effective potential turns out to be single-well for $l=0,1,2$. In the case of $l=0$ it can be seen from Fig. 2b whereas for $l=1,2$ the bottom of the well is located in the region of large $r$ outside the plot.
Let us summarize our findings. For $l=0$, the spectrum contains only the scattering states, if the particle is massless, and in addition the stable bound states, if $m\neq 0$. For $l\neq 0$, the metastable bound states emerge if the central object charge-to-mass ratio is close to its extreme value $Q/M=1$. When $Q/M$ exceeds a certain critical value, the metastable bound states disappear and one observes the scattering states and the stable bound states.
Energy spectrum {#part4}
===============
In this Section we derive the energy spectrum of the particle (= test scalar field perturbation) in the leading WKB approximation.
Since the background geometry is naked rather than the black-hole one, our calculation will differ essentially from typical computations of the black-hole quasinormal modes. The latter imply that the solutions to the wave equation go as plane waves close to the horizon. Instead, in our case the solutions have to decrease exponentially deep into the classically forbidden region in the vicinity of the origin.
Actually, the barrier-shaped potentials that lead to the metastable bound states in our treatment (see Figs. 1a and 2a) resemble those of Gamow’s theory for $\alpha$-decay (Fig. 3). In turn, the single-well potential we obtained with $m\neq 0$ and $l=0$ resembles the attractive Coulomb potential everywhere except for a narrow region close to the origin. Therefore we shall adopt the ordinary flat-space WKB formulae [@Landau] with the Langer modification for the centrifugal term, $\Lambda=l(l+1)\rightarrow(l+1/2)^2$, which is usual in the Coulomb-like problems [@Heading; @Berry].
\[fig3\]
Decaying bound states
---------------------
Let us start with the metastable bound states. From the wave equation (\[SecEq\]), it can be seen that the quasiclassical momenta $k(r)$ and $\kappa(r)$ for the classically allowed and forbidden regions respectively should be defined by $$\label{quasimom}
k(r)=\frac{1}{F}\sqrt{\omega^2-V(r)}, \qquad
\kappa(r)=\frac{1}{F}\sqrt{V(r)-\omega^2}.$$ For the metastable bound states the energy $\omega=\omega_R+i\omega_I$ is complex. In the lowest WKB approximation its real part is determined by the Bohr-Sommerfeld rule [@Landau] $$\label{BSrule}
\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{1}{F}\sqrt{\omega_R^2-V(r)}dr=\pi (n+1/2)$$ where $r_{1,2}$ are the turning points at the ends of the potential well (see Fig. 3) and $n$ denotes the excitation number.
Further, we derive a Gamow-type formula for the imaginary part of $\omega$. Our derivation follows the conventional procedure [@Mur]. First, multiplying the wave equation (\[SecEq\]) by the complex conjugate wave function, we compose the expression $u''\bar{u}-\bar{u}''u = -(\omega^2-\bar{\omega}^2)F^{-2}|u|^2$ and then integrate it to obtain $$\label{eq-conj}
\left.\left(u'\bar{u}-\bar{u}'u\right)\right|_{r\rightarrow\infty} =
-4i\omega_R \omega_I\int_{0}^{\infty}F^{-2} |u|^2 dr.$$ Here we took into account that $(u'\bar{u}-\bar{u}'u)$ vanishes at $r=0$ because $u$ must satisfy the boundary condition $u'(0)+au(0)=0$ with real $a$ in order that the Klein-Gordon operator be symmetric.
Next, we resort to the well-known WKB formulae for the wave function asymptotics in the classically allowed region [@Landau] $$\label{WKB-wf1}
u\sim\frac{C_1}{2\sqrt{k(r)}}\exp\left(i\int_{r_3}^{r}k(r)dr-i\pi/4
\right),\quad r>r_3,$$ $$\label{WKB-wf2}
u\sim\frac{C_2}{\sqrt{k(r)}}\cos\left(\int_{r_1}^{r}k(r)dr-\pi/4
\right),\quad r_1<r<r_2.$$
Using the first of these formulae, the left-hand side of (\[eq-conj\]) is estimated to be equal to $i|C_1|^2/2$. The main contribution to the right-hand side of (\[eq-conj\]) comes from the region $r_1<r<r_2$. Approximating the squared cosine in this region by $1/2$, we rewrite (\[eq-conj\]) as $$\frac{i|C_1|^2}{2} = -4i\omega_R
\omega_I|C_2|^2\int_{r_1}^{r_2}\frac{dr}{2F^2 k(r)}.$$
Applying the connection formula [@Landau] $C_2=C_1\exp(\int_{r_2}^{r_3}\kappa(r)dr)$, we end up with the requisite expression for the imaginary part of $\omega$ $$\label{Width}
\omega_I={\displaystyle -\exp\left(-2 \int_{r_2}^{r_3} \kappa(r)dr
\right)}\left[\displaystyle 4\omega_R\int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{dr}{F^2
k(r)} \right]^{-1}.$$ This formula as well as the WKB asymptotics (\[WKB-wf1\]) and (\[WKB-wf2\]) is valid if the barrier is nearly impenetrable. It means that the calculated value of $\omega_I$, which determines the decay rate, has to obey the condition $|\omega_I|\ll \omega_R$.
Stable bound states
-------------------
Now let us turn to the stable bound states occurring in the case of the massive particle. If $m\neq 0$, the effective potential (\[Veff\]) has the Coulomb tail ($V\propto -1/r$), so that a Balmer-type approximate formula for the real bound-state energies $\omega=\omega_R$ can be obtained.
To do this, we first compare the wave equation (\[SecEq\]) for our effective potential and the ordinary Schrödinger equation for the Coulomb potential $$\label{CoulEq}
\frac{d^{2}\psi}{dr^{2}}+2m\left(E+\frac{Ze^2}{r}-\frac{l(l+1)}{2mr^2} \right)\psi=0.$$ Since at large $r$ the factor $F$ of the RN metrics (\[RNmetric\]) tends to 1, it becomes evident that the term $2Mm^2/r$ in Eq. (\[SecEq\]) corresponds to $2mZe^2/r$ in Eq. (\[CoulEq\]). Then we can define the characteristic radius for our system, $r_B=1/(m^2 M)$, corresponding to the Bohr radius, $1/(mZe^2)$, for Eq. (\[CoulEq\]). Introducing now the dimensionless coordinate $\rho=r/r_B$, the effective potential (\[Veff\]) with the Langer modification is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VeffX}
V(\rho)&=&{m}^{2}-{\frac {2M^2{m}^{4}}{\rho}}+{\frac {M^2{m}^{4}[{Q}^{2}{m}^{2}+(l+1/2)^2]}{{\rho}^{2
}}}-{\frac {2(l+1/2)^2 M^4 m^6}{{\rho}^{3}}} \nonumber \\
&+&{\frac {M^4 m^8\{{Q}^{2}[1+(l+1/2)^2]-{M}^{2}\}}{{\rho}^{4}}}.\end{aligned}$$ The last two terms in this expression contain higher powers of the particle mass $m$ which is much less than the central object mass $M$. Hence, we may neglect these terms provided that $M$ is not much larger than the Planck mass (equal to 1 in our units). Thus we obtain the truncated potential $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VeffTr}
V_{trunc}(\rho)&=&{m}^{2}-{\frac {2M^2{m}^{4}}{\rho}}+{\frac {M^2{m}^{4}[{Q}^{2}{m}^{2}+(l+1/2)^2]}{{\rho}^{2
}}}\end{aligned}$$ serving as a good approximation to $V(\rho)$ in the classically allowed region. Using the same reasoning, we approximate $F=1-2M^2
m^2/\rho+M^2 Q^2 m^4/\rho^2$ by $1$.
Within the above approximation, the Bohr-Sommerfeld integral (\[BSrule\]) reduces to $$\label{BSruleTr}
\int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_2} \sqrt{\omega^2-{m}^{2}+{\frac
{2M^2{m}^{4}}{\rho}}-{\frac
{M^2{m}^{4}[{Q}^{2}{m}^{2}+(l+1/2)^2]}{{\rho}^{2 }}}}
\frac{d\rho}{m^2 M}=\pi (n+1/2)$$ where turning points $\rho_{1,2}$ are zeros of the expression under the square root. This integral is easily calculated, by applying the formula $$\label{BSruleEval}
\int_{\rho_1}^{\rho_2}
\frac{\sqrt{(\rho-\rho_1)(\rho_2-\rho)}}{\rho}\, d\rho=\pi
\left(\frac{\rho_1+\rho_2}{2}-\sqrt{\rho_1 \rho_2} \right).$$
As a result, we get the explicit expression for the stable bound-state energies $$\label{WKBenergies}
\omega=m\left[ 1-\frac{m^2 M^2}{\left(n+1/2+\sqrt{(l+1/2)^2+Q^2 m^2}\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}.$$ It has essentially the same structure as the Balmer formula in the Coulomb problem, assuming that the values of the quantum numbers are high, $n, l\gg 1$, as usual in the WKB method. The only difference is that the coupling constant is now given by the product of masses, but not charges. Note that the quantization procedure that starts from the classical particle Hamiltonian has lead us to the same expression [@Kulikov].
Numerical results {#part5}
=================
First we examine the spectrum of the metastable bound states for the massless neutral scalar particle in the field of naked RN singularity. It should be noticed that since the depth and the width of the corresponding potential well are finite, the number of the metastable bound states is limited. The energies of all the existing states with $l=1, 2, 3$ calculated according to the WKB formulae (\[BSrule\]) and (\[Width\]) with $Q=1.01$, $M=1$ are presented in Table 1. That the states with larger excitation numbers $n$ do not exist was fixed by observing that the Bohr-Sommerfeld integral (\[BSrule\]) cannot be saturated to its value $\pi (n+1/2)$ even at the maximal allowed bound-state energy $\omega^2$ equal to the peak of the effective potential. As seen from Table 1, for higher $l$ the number of the existing bound states and their half-lives increase as the peak of the effective potential grows with $l$ (see Fig. 1a).
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.294636-i\,0.263\times 10^{-3}$ 0.241152 0.380747
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.423194-i\,0.164\times 10^{-5}$ 0.364334 0.632606
$n=1$ $0.537046-i\,0.227\times 10^{-3}$
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.555002-i\,0.969\times 10^{-10}$ 0.494094 0.884899
$n=1$ $0.673735-i\,0.236\times 10^{-5}$
$n=2$ $0.786160-i\,0.211\times 10^{-3}$
$n=3$ $0.884745-i\,0.523\times 10^{-2}$
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
: Energies of the metastable bound states on the naked RN background calculated with $Q=1.01$, $M=1$ and $m=0$.
\[ta1\]
--------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.37764-i\,0.08936$ 0 0.375
$n=1$ $0.34392-i\,0.27828$
$n=2$ $0.29661-i\,0.48145$
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.62609-i\,0.08873$ 0 0.625
$n=1$ $0.60677-i\,0.26944$
$n=2$ $0.57254-i\,0.45750$
--------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ------------------
: Quasinormal energies of the extreme RN black hole with $Q=M=1$ and $m=0$ taken from Ref. [@Onozawa]
\[ta2\]
For comparison, in Table 2 we list the first three quasinormal energies (frequencies) of the scalar field on the extreme RN black-hole background with $Q=M=1$ that were computed in Ref. [@Onozawa].
The striking difference between the results in Tables 1 and 2 can be ascribed to the fact that the event horizon is absent in the naked singularity case and thus the metastable bound states and the quasinormal modes are of different nature. As was discussed in the previous Section, the setup for the naked RN bound states resembles that of Gamow’s theory for $\alpha$-decay. In this setup the most longliving states are concentrated near the bottom of the effective potential well $\omega^2\simeq \mathrm{min}[V(r)]$. This can be readily checked by comparing the calculated energies $\omega$ with the values $V_{\mathrm{min}}= \mathrm{min}[V(r)]$ which are also shown in Table 1. In turn, the black-hole quasinormal modes are, roughly speaking, the scattering resonances travelling both to $r=0$ and to $r=\infty$. Thus they have much smaller half-lives and survive for energies close to the peak of the effective potential $\omega^2\simeq \mathrm{max}[V(r)]$ (see Table 2).
For the naked RN singularity, the quasinormal modes of the latter type were calculated in the recent work [@Chirenti]. These authors postulate the Dirichlet boundary condition that rules out one of the linearly independent solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation. In the present work we do not specify the boundary condition because it is not needed in the WKB approximation. Moreover, for the metastable bound states we consider the point $r=0$ is located deep into the classically forbidden region and thus the boundary condition cannot affect these states substantially.
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.295156-i\,0.221\times 10^{-3}$ 0.241591 0.383910
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.423496-i\,0.142\times 10^{-5}$ 0.364614 0.634529
$n=1$ $0.537417-i\,0.209\times 10^{-3}$
$\phantom{\displaystyle{\sum}}$ $\omega_{WKB}$ $\sqrt{V_{min}}$ $\sqrt{V_{max}}$
$n=0$ $0.555216-i\,0.869\times 10^{-10}$ 0.494299 0.886277
$n=1$ $0.673975-i\,0.219\times 10^{-5}$
$n=2$ $0.786450-i\,0.200\times 10^{-3}$
$n=3$ $0.885377-i\,0.569\times 10^{-2}$
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
: Energies of the metastable bound states on the naked RN background calculated with $Q=1.01$, $M=1$ and $m=0.1$.
\[ta3\]
Next we investigate the case of the massive particle. In Table 3 the energies of all the states with $l=1, 2, 3$ computed using $Q=1.01$, $M=1$ and $m=0.1$ are listed. Also, in Fig. 4 the imaginary part of $\omega$ is plotted versus the real part of $\omega$ for different values of the particle mass $m$. From Tables 1, 3 and Fig. 4, we see that the real part of $\omega$, *i.e.* the oscillation frequency, grows with increase of $m$, while the imaginary part of $\omega$, representing the decay rate, falls down. Interestingly, the same behavior was observed for the quasinormal modes of the scalar field on the sub-extreme RN black-hole background in Ref. [@Konoplya].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
(a) (b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fig4\]
Now let analyze the spectrum of the stable bound states. In Table 4 we list the energies $(\omega/m)_{WKB}$ of the ground and the first two excited S-states ($l = 0$) computed according to the WKB formula (\[WKBenergies\]) and also the energies $(\omega/m)_{num}$ obtained by direct numerical integration of the Klein-Gordon equation (\[RadEq\]) with the Dirichlet boundary condition $u(0)=0$. The calculation was made using $Q=1.1$, $M=1$ and various $m$. From Table 4 we see that the binding energy $\omega_{bind}=-(\omega-m)$ increases as the particle mass $m$ increases. However, this binding energy is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the metastable bound-state energy $\omega_R$ calculated with the same values of $m$ and $M$ (see Table 3). It means that transitions between levels of the stable states due to an external perturbation would have much lower frequencies than the those due to the decay of the metastable bound states.
----------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$\phantom{n=0}$ $(\omega/m)_{WKB}$ $(\omega/m)_{num}$ $(\omega/m)_{WKB}$ $(\omega/m)_{num}$ $(\omega/m)_{WKB}$ $(\omega/m)_{num}$
$n=0$ 0.998757 0.998733 0.995105 0.994710 0.989266 0.987068
$n=1$ 0.999688 0.998685 0.998764 0.998701 0.997257 0.996906
$n=2$ 0.999861 0.999860 0.999449 0.999429 0.998771 0.998661
----------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
: Energies of the stable bound S-states on the naked RN background with $Q=1.1$, $M=1$.
\[ta4\]
Conclusion {#part6}
==========
In this work we have studied the states of neutral scalar particles in the field of the naked RN singularity. It has been established that their energy spectrum is qualitatively different from the quasinormal mode spectrum for the RN black hole. The conditions for the bound states to be formed have been found and the possible types of these states have been examined.
The first possible type is the metastable, *i.e.* decaying bound states. They occur provided that the charge-to-mass ratio for the central object, $Q/M$, is close to its extreme value $Q/M=1$. If the particle is massless, this is expressed by the inequality $1<(Q/M)^2<[8+9l(l+1)]/[8+8l(l+1)]$ where $l$ is the orbital number. Using the WKB method, we have calculated the metastable bound-state spectrum which shows that there is no continuous transition in energies between the RN naked singularity and the extremal RN black hole cases. The metastable bound states on the naked RN background with $Q/M>1$ have much larger live-times than the quasinormal modes for $Q/M=1$. This is not surprising because for $Q/M>1$ there exists no event horizon to fall on, so that the metastable states can decay only at the expense of the particle escape to spatial infinity upon tunneling through the wide potential barrier.
As the second possible type of particle states, we identify the stable bound states. It should be stressed that these states have no analog in the case of the RN black hole and can only be formed by massive particles in the field of the central object with the sufficiently high charge-to-mass ratio. Their energy spectrum, calculated by means of the WKB method, has the structure similar to that of the Coulomb spectrum.
Energy gaps between the stable bound states, *i.e.* transition frequencies, are several orders of magnitude smaller than the frequencies for the metastable bound states obtained with the same masses of the particle and the central object. Thus the latter states are more favored to be ever found in experiment. Nevertheless, the stable bound states may manifest themselves in a different way, by making up a scalar condensate around the central object. Then the question arises as to whether such a condensate can provide mass needed to screen the RN singularity. Answering this question requires a self-consistent model for interacting scalar and gravitational fields which may be constructed in a future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for a useful suggestion aimed at improving the paper. This work was supported by the grant under the Cosmomicrophysics program for the Physics and Astronomy Division of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.
[00]{}
S. Chandrasekhar, *The mathematical theory of black holes*, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1983). J. M. Cohen, R. Gautreau, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **19** (1979) 2273.
R. M. Wald [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} **21** (1980) 2802.
G. T. Horowitz, D. Marolf, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **52** (1995) 5670.
A. Ishibashi, A. Hosoya, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **60** (1999) 104028.
J. P. M. Pitelli, P. S. Letelier, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D* ]{} **20** (2011) 729.
N. Deruelle, R. Ruffini [*Phys. Lett.*]{} **52B** (1974) 437.
K. D. Kokkotas, B. G. Schmidt [*Living Rev. Rel.*]{} **2** (1999) 2. E. Berti, V. Cardoso [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **26** (2009) 163001.
A. Qadir, A. A. Siddiqui, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} **16** (2007) 25.
V.D. Gladush, M.V. Galadgyi, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} **43** (2011) 1347.
D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, R. Ruffini, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **83** (2011) 024021.
R. Penrose, [*Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.*]{} **224** (1973) 125. T. Damour, N. Deruelle, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} **72B** (1978) 471.
M. A. Markov, V. P. Frolov, [*Teor. Mat. Fiz.*]{} **3** (1970) 3.
P. A. M. Dirac, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{} **268** (1962) 57.
A. Ishibashi, R. M. Wald, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **20** (2003) 3815.
J. G. Stalker, A. Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **21** (2004) 2831.
V. D. Gladush, D. A. Kulikov, arXiv:1110.3181 \[gr-qc\] (2011).
A. Ronveaux (Ed.), [*Heun’s Differential Equations*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995).
L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, *Quantum Mechanics. Nonrelativistic Theory*, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1965).
J. Heading, *An Introduction to Phase-Integral Methods*, Methhuen, London; John Wiley, New York, (1962).
M. V. Berry, K. E. Mount, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} **35** (1972) 315. V. D. Mur, V. S. Popov, D. N. Voskresensky, [*JETP Lett.*]{} **28** (1978) 129. H. Onozawa, T. Mishima, T. Okamura, H. Ishihara, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **53** (1996) 7033. C. Chirenti, A. Saa, J. Skákala, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **86** (2012) 124008. R. A. Konoplya, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} **550** (2002) 117.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: kulikov\_d\[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
*The observed gas dynamics in the Milky Way can only be explained by a bar in the galactic center. Such a bar is directly visible in the near-IR maps of the bulge, where it causes a distinctive asymmetric light distribution pattern. Another large-scale structure is the grand-design 4-arm spiral pattern, most clearly observed in the spatial distribution of molecular gas and HII-regions. Since this spiral arm pattern is regular, it must have existed for at least a few rotations. Traced by molecular clouds, the spiral arms appear strongest in the so-called molecular ring between 4 and 7 ${{\rm kpc}}$.*
In order to model the observed gas flow structure, we constructed a model for the stellar mass distribution. For the inner 5 ${{\rm kpc}}$ we used the 3D deprojected near-IR light distribution, as observed by the COBE/DIRBE experiment, and added an analytical disk model outside the box as well as a halo model. With this frozen mass distribution, we computed the stationary gas flow for various deprojection parameters and pattern speeds. For all reasonable parameter choices, we obtain a 4-armed spiral pattern, which can be matched to the observed spiral arms. The model spiral arms, are caused by the forcing of the bar, and two additional mass concentrations at about 4 kpc’s on the minor axis of the bar, which are likely to be incorrectly deprojected stellar spiral arms.
In the bar region, our model can explain the non-circular motion visible in the terminal velocity curve as well as some part of the forbidden velocities. Inside the corotation, we also find 4 spiral arms, the nearest arm corresponds to the 3-kpc-arm, although only qualitatively. The missing southern 3-kpc-arm at the far end of the galaxy is explained by running parallel to another arm. Close to the center, we find gas on circular orbits forming a disk. Such a disk has been observed in emission of the CS molecule, however only part of the disk appears to be occupied by dense enough gas to be traced by CS.
---
[**Gas Streams and Spiral Structure in the\
Milky Way**]{}\
Peter Englmaier\
MPI für extraterrestrische Physik\
Postfach 1603, D-85748 Garching\
[email protected]
Introduction
============
The Milky Way is our local laboratory of star formation and ISM physics. Some observations even have only been possible in the Milky Way, e.g. turbulent motion and magnetic field in ISM clouds, or search for dark matter candidates. Also, many observable quantities are directly linked to the history and structure of the Milky Way, e.g. metalicity gradients (Friedli 1999), and distribution of OH/IR stars (see below). A better understanding of the detailed mass distribution and gas flow will therefore benefit many other studies.
Morphology and type of the Milky Way are hard to recognize because of dust obscuration and the location of the sun within the disk. Spiral arm tangents can be identified in optical and radio brightness distributions (Sofue 1973), as well as in molecular gas (e.g., Dame [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1987), HII regions (Georgelin & Georgelin 1976), and other tracers; see Vallée (1995) for a complete list. The 3-kpc-arm, is unusual in this respect: it is very bright in CO, but not traced by HII regions. It is therefore possible that it does not form stars at the present time. Maybe this is because it has an enhanced turbulent velocity or a higher differential shear (Rohlfs & Kreitschmann 1987). The 3-kpc arm and other peculiar gas dynamics in the galactic center are evidence for a bar in the bulge region. The other spiral arms outside the bar region within the so-called molecular ring appear to be on almost circular orbits since they do not show large non-circular motion in front of the galactic center. A comparison of many publications indicates that the Milky Way most likely has 4 spiral arms with a pitch angle of [12$^\circ$]{} (Vallée 1995).
Another important aspect is, that the true rotation curve of the Milky Way can be measured more precisely by a combination of a stellar mass model and a hydrodynamical model. When the rotation curve is determined from the gas dynamics alone, an axisymmetric model yields an uncommon sharp peak at $\sim0.5\,{{\rm kpc}}$ (Clemens 1985). An axisymmetric model of the stellar mass distribution, however, implies a mostly flat rotation curve there (Kent 1992). A bar naturally solves this issue by explaining the sharp peak with non-circular motion caused by orbits elongated along the bar (Binney [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1991). It also explains the observed nuclear disk of molecular gas inside $\sim200\,{{\rm pc}}$.
Finally, having a better model for the mass distribution and rotation curve, one also obtains better constraints on the amount of dark matter in the solar neighborhood.
Since a short review cannot give a complete coverage of all Milky Way models in the literature, we refer the reader to the following papers for similar and alternative models: Lin, Yuan & Shu (1969), Mulder & Liem (1986), Amaral & Lépine (1997), Wada [[*et al*]{}]{}. (1994), Weiner & Sellwood (1999), and Fux (1999a). For reviews about spiral structure see: Wielen (1974), Toomre (1977), Binney & Tremaine (1987), and Bertin & Lin (1996).
Using observations to yield a detailed mass model
=================================================
An early axisymmetric mass model for the inner Galaxy was constructed by Kent, Dame & Fazio (1991), by fitting parametric models to the photometric near-IR maps at $2.4\,{{\rm \mu m}}$ (K-Band) which where obtained by the Spacelab Infrared Telescope (IRT) and have a resolution of $1^\circ$. By assuming a constant mass-to-light ratio for each component Kent (1992) found various possible combinations of bulge, disk, and halo components to fit the observed mass distribution and kinematics, as well as the gaseous rotation curve outside the bulge region. The bulge region was excluded from the fit, because the gaseous rotation curve from Clemens (1985) shows signs of non-circular motion due to the presence of a bar. Since the dark halo is only observable through its gravitational interaction, Kent used the dark halo component to compensate for the mismatch between gaseous rotation curve and the rotation curve implied by the disk and the mass distribution in the inner galaxy. He also defined a maximum disk model, which minimizes the amount of dark matter required by maximizing the mass-to-light ratio for the disk (he found $M/L =
1.3$). This model is particular interesting, because it gives a lower limit for the amount of dark matter in the solar neighborhood. One reason why there is large uncertainty about the relative contribution of dark halo and disk, is that not enough constraints about the vertical distribution of mass in the galaxy are known (Dehnen & Binney 1998).
A major improvement over the model of Kent was made possible by the near-IR maps obtained with the DIRBE experiment on board of the COBE satellite. By using a foreground dust screen model, Dwek [[*et al*]{}]{}. (1995) found, that the bulge light is best fitted by a triaxial light distribution. This bar appears to be elongated with axis ratios $1:0.33:0.22$, the nearer end at positive longitudes and inclined by about $20^\circ$. Later, an improved dust correction and improved parametric model was obtained by Freudenreich (1998).
Another line of models comes from a non-parametric deprojection method introduced by Binney & Gerhard (1996). No parametric model distribution has to be prescribed, but an initial model has to be given. The method can also be applied to a part of the galaxy, while the model outside that part stays fixed as specified by the initial parametric model. Binney, Gerhard, & Spergel (1997) applied the method to the DIRBE data and found, that the result is robust against changes in the initial model and can reliably recover the 3D light distribution in the bulge. They also found additional light concentrations on the minor axis of the bar, which they attribute to spiral arm heads in that area. While the deprojection method is not able to recover spiral arm structure, tests show that spiral arms could produce clumps on the minor axis like the ones found in the DIRBE data. The only free parameters in this model are the mass-to-light ratio and the orientation of the bar. See Gerhard (1996, 1999) for a comparison of these models and further evidence for the bar.
For further modeling, we expanded the mass model from Binney, Gerhard, & Spergel (1997) into a series of spherical harmonics to calculate the gravitational potential. The radial density profile in the galactic center follows a power law $\rho\propto r^{-1.85}$ (Becklin & Neugebauer 1968) and this peak in the density is not reproduced by the deprojection because of finite resolution and smoothing effects. We therefore corrected the zeroth order spherical harmonic (monopole) to reflect the power law.
The resulting rotation curve falls off beyond $4.5\,{{\rm kpc}}$, because no dark halo has been included yet. By construction, the model should reflect the contribution of all luminous mass in the galaxy without any assumptions about how bulge and disk are build together assuming the same M/L. For some models, we changed the monopole to allow for a flat rotation curve.
Terminal rotation curve
=======================
The rotation curve of the Milky Way is not directly observable. In external galaxies, the rotation curve can be obtained by an observation of Doppler shift along a slit across the center. Using parametric models for disk, bulge and halo, the rotation curve can then be decomposed. The parametric model for disk and bulge must follow the observed surface brightness, while the dark matter halo is only constrained by the fit to the rotation curve. Where density wave theory is applicable, i.e. for tightly wound spirals, further constraints are available for the dark matter contribution (Fuchs, Möllenhoff & Heidt 1998).
In the Milky Way, the rotation curve can only be inferred indirectly from the terminal velocity, i.e. the maximum observed radial velocity within the galactic plane at a given longitude. Historically, the terminal rotation curve, has been used to infer the radial mass distribution by assuming circular rotation. Inside the solar circle, the terminal velocity is equal to the circular rotation curve minus the motion of the local standard of rest (LSR). The motion of the LSR can be inferred from the streaming of stars measured by Hipparcos (Feast & Whitelook 1997), or the proper motion of Sgr A$^*$ (Backer & Stramek 1999). Both methods agree reasonable well, and no $m=1$ mode seems to be present in the center of the galaxy.
-7mm
The high peak in the terminal curve, gas on apparently forbidden velocities, and the large radial velocity of the 3-kpc-arm indicate non-circular motion in the inner galaxy. This led to the idea, that our galaxy is actually barred and the presence of a bar implies non-circular motion which cannot be corrected for without modeling (Gerhard & Vietri 1986). Fortunately, the non-axisymmetric light distribution of the bar can be extracted from photometric imaging due to perspective effects. These effects are only strong enough if the diameter of the stellar system is comparable to its distance. This excludes application of similar models for distant objects in the near future. A non-parametric method for the deprojection has been recently developed by Binney & Gerhard (1996). Its main advantage over parametric methods is, that it allows to recover more structure details and the precise radial mass distribution. But an application of this method to the DIRBE data yielded controversial results (Binney, Gerhard & Spergel 1997; in the following: BGS). The recovered radial and vertical structure of bar and disk provides a realistic view of the inner galaxy. But in addition, mass concentrations on the minor axis have been found in the deprojection, which seem to indicate that the inner galaxy has significant spiral structure as well.
In Fig. \[termcmp\] we compare the axisymmetric part of the BGS model (short dashed line) with the axisymmetric model by Kent (1992, long dashed line) and the $^{12}$CO data from Clemens (1985) and HI data from Burton & Liszt (1993). Note that Kents model includes a dark halo and assumes LSR motion $V_0=234\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ while the BGS model was plotted for $V_0=220\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ and does not include a halo. Increasing the LSR motion increases the gap between model and observed terminal curve at the solar circle ($l=90^\circ$), but can be compensated for with a dark matter component.
-7mm
Both axisymmetric models fail to explain the peak in the rotation curve. Between 15 and $40^\circ$ the BGS model fits the data better, further out the contribution of the dark halo is missing which is already included in Kents model. When we assume a constant rotation curve beyond $5\,{{\rm kpc}}$ ($=40^\circ$), the BGS model also matches the data between $40^\circ$ and $90^\circ$. Closed orbits in the full BGS potential match the high peak in the rotation curve (Fig. \[lvorb\]). This confirms that the deprojection indeed provides a good description of the bar potential. Further out, the combination of bar and mass concentration on the minor axis complicates the picture. A hydrodynamical model of the gas flow in the BGS model is presented below. When the terminal curve for this model is compared to the data (Fig. \[termcmp\]; solid line), the result depends on the resolution in the gas model. Hydrodynamical forces tend to depopulate the orbits responsible for the peak in the rotation curve due to low resolution. A model with higher resolution matches the peak better (Fig. \[termcmp\]; dotted line).
Whether bars and spirals are independent dynamical entities is not yet clear and may vary from galaxy to galaxy. Numerical $N$-body simulations show that a bar can coexist with a spiral of much lower pattern speed (Sellwood & Sparke 1988). On the other hand, detailed modelling of the observed gas dynamics in NGC 1365 was possible using bar and spiral perturbation with a single pattern speed (Lindblad, Lindblad & Athanassoula 1996).
Moreover, the spiral mode is most likely growing and decaying within a few rotations of the galaxy (Lin & Shu 1964). For our gas model, we assumed that these additional light concentrations can be used as a first approximation to the contribution of spiral arms in this region and that the spiral pattern is rotating with the same speed as the bar and is stationary.
A more advanced deprojection technique combined with spiral arm modeling will be used to shed more light on this issue shortly (Bissantz & Gerhard 2000). This will also allow us to study models with independently rotating bar and spiral mode.
Steady state / Stationary gas flow solution
===========================================
If the gas is allowed to relax in the potential of the galaxy, i.e. the mass distribution in the galaxy does not change over a few rotational periods, we expect the gas to form a stationary flow pattern. Since the gas looses energy in collisions, it arranges itself to follow nested closed orbits which have no intersections. In barred galaxies, orbits are organized in families. The so-called $x_1$-orbits are elongated along the bar and exist from somewhat inside the corotation annulus to the center. Inside the bar region there is a special cusped $x_1$-orbit, which is the last $x_1$ orbit the gas can settle on. Inside this orbit, the $x_1$ orbits in our potential develop loops with self-intersections. Gas on such orbits, would suffer collisions causing it to leave the orbit. In linear theory, the gas has to pass through the inner Lindblad resonance (ILR), which causes a phase shift of $\pi/2$ in the orbits. The gas follows this phase shift with a delayed response, and switches to the $x_2$ family of orbits, which are elongated perpendicular to the bar and exist only inside the ILR. In general, further ILRs may exist, but there is no evidence for further ILRs in the BGS potential. The transition at the ILR is not smoothly, but is accompanied by a shock in the gas flow. In strong bars, the shocks are straight lines, which in real galaxies have been identified with dust lanes and velocity jumps. Due to the non-axisymmetric distribution of gas caused by the shocks or spiral arms, the bar imposes a gravitational torque on the gas, which causes the gas to flow in (out) when the trailing spiral arm is inside (outside) corotation. For leading spiral arms, the torque would be reversed. For this reason, gas is slowly depleted in the corotation region and accumulates within the ILR to form a ring or disk of gas on $x_2$ orbits.
For hydrodynamics we chose the smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) method (Benz 1990; Steinmetz & Müller 1993). In SPH a continuous gas distribution is approximated by a spatially smeared out particle distribution. The advantage of this method is, that self-gravity can easily be included. Further numerical details of this simulation are given in Englmaier & Gerhard (1999). In addition to the free parameters from the deprojection, our gas model needs only three additional parameters: the corotation radius or equivalently the pattern speed, the effective sound speed, and the LSR motion for calculation of (lv) diagrams. Our best model is shown in Fig. \[model\].
=
-7mm
The corotation radius in our model is tightly constrained by the observed (lv)-diagram as follows. Since the 3-kpc-arm is clearly in non-circular rotation, it must be inside the corotation radius. By comparison, the 4-armed spiral pattern in the molecular ring between 4 and $7\,{{\rm kpc}}$ shows no large deviation from circular motion. This observation can only be reproduced in our model, if the corotation is between 3 and $4\,{{\rm kpc}}$. The angular extend of the 3-kpc-arm is best reproduced for corotation at $3.4\,{{\rm kpc}}$.
The $M/L$ ratio and the LSR motion are fixed by a fit of the terminal velocity curve to the model. Actually the circular rotation velocity for the LSR is kept constant to $200\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ times a scaling constant which depends on $M/L$. The final value for the LSR motion is $208\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ after the best model fit has been determined. While this value is lower than the current best estimate for the LSR motion, we note that the $M/L$ value and other model details do not depend strongly on this parameter. The difference in the terminal curve can be compensated for by a dark halo.
The gas flow model confirms the allowed range for the bar inclination found by BGS ($25\pm10$). Models with $20^\circ$ or $25^\circ$ yield a better overall fits than models with $15^\circ$ or $30^\circ$. A better model for the stellar spiral arms may improve this situation.
Identification of spiral arms in the (lv)-diagram
=================================================
=
-7mm
A full sky survey of emission from atomic hydrogen and molecular species like $^{12}$CO allow mapping of large scale structure such as spiral arms (Fig. \[co\]). The longitude-velocity diagram (lv-diagram) shows traces of spiral arms as crowded regions. By assuming circular rotation, one could map the observed (lv)-position back to real space, however, this leads to serious errors close to tangential points (Burton 1971). Nevertheless, with some success, the principle spiral arm structure has been inferred from lv-diagrams. First, this was done by Oort, Kerr & Westerhout (1958), later the 4-armed structure was first claimed by Georgelin & Georgelin (1976) using the (lv)-diagram for large HII-regions. This picture has later been refined by Caswell & Haynes (1987), Lockman (1989), and others. In Fig. \[model\] we compare various known HII-regions and giant molecular clouds from the literature with our model.
HII-regions are a particular good tracer for spiral arms, as is known from observations of external galaxies. The 4 spiral arms are also prominent in the so-called molecular ring between 4 and $7\,{{\rm kpc}}$. This area corresponds to a bright band of $^{12}$CO emission between about $30..60^\circ$ on the northern side of the galaxy (left in Fig. \[co\]) to $-(30..60)^\circ$ on the southern side. As Solomon [[*et al*]{}]{}. (1987) pointed out, the spiral arm tangent at around $+30^\circ$ is actually split into two components at $25^\circ$ and $30^\circ$. A summary of available spiral arm tangent data is listed in Table 1.
------------------------------------------------- ----------- --------- ----------- ------- -------
Indicator Scutum Aquilla Centaurus Norma 3-kpc
far 3-kpc
(1) 29 50 -50 -32
(2) 24, 30.5 49.5 -50 -30
(3) 25, 32 51
(4) 25, 30 49
(5) 24, 30 47 -55 -28
(6) 32 46 -50 -35
(7) 32 48 -50,-58 -32 -21
(8) 29 -28 -21
(9) 26 -47 -31 -20
**average& **30 & **49 & **-51 & **-31 & **-21\
Model & & & & &\
(a) & $\sim25$& 54& -44 & -33 & -20\
(b) & $\sim30$& 50& -46 & -33 & -20\
(c) & $\sim29$& 51& -47 & -34 & -22\
************
------------------------------------------------- ----------- --------- ----------- ------- -------
: Measured spiral arm tangents in inner galaxy: (1) atomic hydrogen (Weaver 1970; Burton & Shane 1970; Henderson 1977); (2) integrated $^{12}$CO (Cohen [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1980; Grabelsky [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1987); (3) $^{12}$CO clouds (Dame [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1986); (4) warm CO clouds (Solomon [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1985); (5) HII-Regions using H109-$\alpha$ (Lockman 1979; Downes [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1980); (6) $^{26}$Al from massive stars (Chen [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1996); (7) Radio $408\,{{\rm MHz}}$ (Beuermann [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1985); (8) $2.4\,{{\rm \mu m}}$ (Hayakawa [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1981); (9) $60\,{{\rm \mu m}}$ (Bloemen [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1990). Compared to some models: (a) $R_c=3.4\,{{\rm kpc}}$, bar inclination $\varphi=20^\circ$, without halo; (b) $R_c=3.4\,{{\rm kpc}}$, $\varphi=20^\circ$, with halo $v_0=200\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$; (c) $R_c=3.4\,{{\rm kpc}}$, $\varphi=25^\circ$, with halo $v_0=200\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$.
The molecular emission also shows an arm apparently not traced by HII-regions: the 3-kpc-arm. This arm shows large non-circular motion, as it passes in front of the galactic center (where it appears in absorption) with $+54\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}$ radial velocity. All other arms show much less radial velocity in front of the galactic center.
Our gas model qualitatively reproduces many of the prominent features in the observed (lv)-diagram (Fig. \[co\]). The 4 spiral arms are found to be embedded in the molecular ring with about the right tangential directions (see Table 1). Our model, however, assumes perfect point symmetry in the gas, while the galaxy is not. Hence a perfect match cannot be expected in such an idealized model. Inside the molecular ring, gas is depleted in the corotation region and the spiral arms show a gap (see Fig. \[model\]). Within corotation the spiral pattern continues followed by the usual gas flow configuration in a barred galaxy (see previous section). One of the spiral arms is similar to the 3-kpc-arm in the galaxy, alas with too small an expansion velocity. In this region, the gas flow may be disturbed by the stellar spiral arms. In a modified model where we approximate the spiral arm gravity by the gaseous model spiral arms, but spatially smeared out to account for wider stellar spiral arms, the 3-kpc-arm can be reproduced quantitatively (Englmaier & Gerhard 1999). Our model also predicts the location of the arm corresponding to the 3-kpc-arm on the far side of the galaxy. It happens to fall close to the molecular ring and indeed this arm tangent was found to be split into two components by Solomon [[*et al*]{}]{}. (1987) and is also visible at $l=25^\circ, 30^\circ$ in Fig. \[co\]. A similar position for the far 3-kpc-arm was suggested by Sevenster (1999), but see Fux (1999a) for an alternative explanation. A nuclear disk with $\sim 200\,{{\rm pc}}$ radius is formed in the model by gas on $x_2$-orbits. Size and rotational velocity of this disk depends on the enclosed mass which has been adjusted by the central density cusp profile. While the disk matches the observed CS emission (Stark [[*et al*]{}]{}. 1991), only part of the disk is occupied by dense enough gas to show CS emission.
OH/IR stars as a fossil dynamical record
========================================
-2mm -7mm
Sevenster (1997, 1999) made a complete sample of the OH/IR stars in the bulge region between $-45^{\circ}\leq l\leq 10^{\circ}$ and $|b|\leq 3^{\circ}$. The OH/IR stars are giant stars that lose matter in the so-called asymptotic giant branch (AGB) superwind phase. While these stars are quite old, i.e. $\sim1$ to $8\,{{\rm Gyr}}$, they quickly go through an evolutionary phase characterized by OH maser emission in the IR. The maser emission lasts only for $\sim 10^{5-6}\,{{\rm yr}}$ which is short compared to dynamical timescales. The sample of OH/IR therefore provides a snapshot of the dynamically evolved star formation regions $\sim1$ to $8\,{{\rm Gyr}}$ ago. Sevenster (1999) found, that the lv-diagram for the sample shows a striking correlation between the OH/IR stars and the 3-kpc-arm observed in $^{12}$CO. A young group of about 100 to $350\,{{\rm Myr}}$ old OH/IR stars follows this arm very nicely, while the older OH/IR population is more equally distributed. This appears to be in contradiction with dynamics, since a circular orbit at $3\,{{\rm kpc}}$ takes $\sim2\pi r/v\sim80\,{{\rm Myr}}$ to complete. Any trace of the spatial distribution of star formation would have been wiped out. However, if these stars were formed in one of the spiral arms which itself rotates, then only the relative orbit between stars and arm would matter. For a constant pattern speed equal to the bar pattern speed, say $\Omega\sim60\,{{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm kpc}^{-1}}$, the orbit in the rotating frame of the arm would take about $\sim2\pi r/(v-\Omega
r)\sim0.5\,{{\rm Gyr}}$ to complete. This much longer timescale may allow stars formed at the same place to generate a distribution similar to the observed one. Furthermore, the 3-kpc-arm is not a strong shock, making it possible for stars formed within to drift away rather slowly.
-2mm -7mm
In order to estimate the dynamical constraints of our model on the observed OH/IR star distribution, we picked our best model and selected gas particles which are in compressed areas, i.e. in spiral arm shocks (see Fig. \[ohir1\]). We evolved these particles as test particles in the background potential of the model, and plotted snapshots for the particle distribution at later times. It turns out that, although OH/IR stars may form a transient arm like feature, it will only last for a few $100\,{{\rm Myr}}$. In Fig. \[ohir2\], we show the lv-diagram for $100\,{{\rm Myr}}$ old stars. There is a 3-kpc-arm-like distribution of stars, but these stars come from the corotation region at the minor axis, not the 3-kpc-arm. Just inside corotation, a star formed from the gas moves faster than the bar pattern, and this gives raise to a coriolis force pulling the star inwards. A group of freshly formed but isolated stars would form a stream which may be coincident with the 3-kpc-arm. As we discussed above, the 3-kpc-arm does not contain HII-regions and presumably, it does not form stars because it is dynamically hot. Stars which are formed in the 3-kpc-arm are quickly distributed on closed orbits, it is therefore possible that OH/IR stars are indeed distributed in rings indicating radii of more compressed gas in our model, and these orbits, which are not circular orbits, may be indirectly correlated with the 3-kpc-arm, because arms which are driven by a bar, often start with a local density enhancement and strong star formation on the bar major axis. However, we would expect those rings to be inclined with respect to the 3-kpc-arm, unless the 3-kpc-arm is not stationary.
A similar result was found by Fux (1999b), where the observed OH/IR star distribution could be reproduced for about $40\,{{\rm Myr}}$ old stars. The OH/IR stars in his model originate in the far end of the bar in an area of enhanced density. Contrary to our model, Fux’s model has the additional advantage, that the 3-kpc-arm changes rapidly and thus the gas is on more ballistic orbits. He did not show any evidence, however, that the coincidence of stars and gas can be maintained over multiple rotations as required by the observations. While both models are optimized to fit various aspects of the Milky Way, they both suggest that OH/IR stars are not directly tracing spiral arms.
We therefore consider it more likely that the stars formed close to corotation where timescales are comparable to the age of these stars. It will be interesting if further evidence can be found, to show that OH/IR stars follow closed orbits and whether these favored orbits have changed with time.
Discussion
==========
We presented a coherent description for the structure and gas dynamics in the Milky Way reaching from small scale $\sim100\,{{\rm pc}}$ to large scale $\sim\,{{\rm kpc}}$. Our model provides a link between photometric and gas dynamical observations, but does not intend to be a a self-consistent treatment of formation and evolution of the Milky Way. Idealized assumptions about symmetry and in the description of the ISM have been made to isolate generic from peculiar features.
We find, that the 3-kpc-arm can be explained qualitatively by the forcing of the bar. The bar may also be responsible for some of the spiral structure observed in the gas. Strong bars can drive spiral arms to and somewhat beyond the outer Lindblad resonance (Mulder 1986). The deprojection of the near-IR bulge light distribution introduced additional structure on the minor axis of the bar at around corotation. When this structure is included into the model, four spiral arms are driven in the gas similar to the observed spiral arm structure in this region. The pattern is very similar to a model by Mulder & Liem (1986), but the location of the sun is different. Interestingly, Mulder (1986) mentions that this pattern can be driven by a strong bar or by a weak bar plus spiral arms beyond corotation.
When the gravity of the spiral arms is included in the model, the 3-kpc-arm can also be explained quantitatively. This finding, and in addition our inability to find a fitting model for the 3-kpc-arm in models without the minor axis structure demonstrates, that the inner galaxy is affected by both bar and spiral arms.
While spiral arms in barred galaxies usually start at the end of the bar, they do not need to be driven by the bar (Sellwood & Sparke 1988), and might be dynamically independent with much lower pattern speed. No steady state but maybe a periodic steady state can be found in the gas flow of such a model. Independent stellar spiral arms further complicate the gas dynamics to some extent, because they cause non-linear velocity jumps in the gas and will not just add to the structure formed by the bar. From density wave theory (Lin & Shu 1964) we know, that spiral arms are not stationary but form and decay in a few rotational periods. With a lower pattern speed, the spiral pattern would extend to larger radii. A model for the galaxy, where spiral arms and bar have different pattern speeds has still to be constructed, yet.
Considering all these objections, it is even more surprising how well our model explains the spiral structure. Both the bar and the spiral pattern impose similar constraints on the orientation of the pattern, i.e. the phase angle. Nevertheless, this overlap might be a mere coincidence and a better treatment of bar and spiral mode is underway to investigate other possibilities (Bissantz [[*et al*]{}]{}., in prep.).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I want to thank O. Gerhard for his collaboration on this project. This work was supported by the Swiss NSF grants 21-40’464.94 and 20-43’218.95.
Amaral L.H., Lépine J.R.D., 1997, MNRAS, 286, 885
Backer D.C., Stramek R.A., 1999, ApJ, 524, 805
Becklin E.E., Neugebauer G., 1968, ApJ, 151, 145
Benz W., 1990, in [*The Numerical Modelling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations*]{}, ed. Buchler J.R., p. 269, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Bertin G., Lin C.C., 1996, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Beuermann K., Kanbach G., Berkhuijsen E.M., 1985, A&A, 153, 17
Binney J.J., Gerhard O.E., Stark A.A., Bally J., Uchida K.I., 1991, MNRAS, 252, 210
Binney J.J., Gerhard O.E., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1005
Binney J.J., Gerhard O.E., Spergel D.N., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 365
Binney J.J., Tremaine S., 1987, Princeton University Press
Bissantz N., Gerhard O.E., 2000, in prep.
Bloemen J.B.G.M., Deul E.R., Thaddeus P., 1990, A&A, 233, 437
Burton W.B., 1971, A&A, 10, 76
Burton W.B., Shane W.W., 1970, IAU Symposium 38, eds. Becker W., Contopoulos G., Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 397
Burton W.B., Liszt H.S., 1993, A&A, 274, 765
Chen W., Gehrels N., Diehl R., Hartmann D., 1996, A&AS, 120, 315
Clemens D.P., 1985, ApJ, 295, 422
Caswell J.L., Haynes, R.F., 1987, A&A, 171, 261
Cohen R.J., Cong H., Dame T.M., Thaddeus P., 1980, ApJ, 239, L53
Dame T.M., Elmegreen B.G., Cohen R.S., Thaddeus P., 1986, ApJ, 305, 892
Dame T., [[*et al*]{}]{}., 1987, ApJ, 322, 706
Dehnen W., Binney J.J., 1998, MNRAS, 294, 429
Downes D., Wilson T.L., Bieging J., Wink J., 1980, A&AS, 40, 379
Dwek E., [[*et al*]{}]{}, 1995, ApJ, 445, 716
Englmaier P., Gerhard O.E., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 512
Feast M., Whitelook P., 1997, MNRAS, 291, 683
Freudenreich H.T., 1998, ApJ, 492, 495
Friedli D., 1999, in [*The Evolution of Galaxies on Cosmological Timescales*]{}, eds. Beckman J.E., Mahoney T., ASP Conf. Series, astro-ph/9903143
Fuchs B., Möllenhof C., Heidt J., 1998, A&A, 336, 878
Fux R., 1999a, A&A, 347, 77
Fux R., 1999b, in [*The Evolution of Galaxies on Cosmological Timescales*]{}, eds. Beckman J.E., Mahoney T., ASP Conf. Series, astro-ph/9908091
Georgelin Y.M., Georgelin Y.P., 1976, A&A, 49, 57
Gerhard O.E., 1996, in: [*Unsolved Problems of the Milky Way*]{}, IAU Symp. 169, eds. Blitz L., Teuben P., p. 79
Gerhard O.E., 1999, in [*Galaxy Dynamics*]{}, eds. Merritt D.R., Valluri M., Sellwood J.A., ASP Conf. Series, p. 307
Gerhard O.E., Vietri M., 1986, MNRAS, 223, 377
Grabelsky D.A., Cohen R.S., Bronfman L., Thaddeus P., 1987, ApJ, 315, 122
Hayakawa S. [[*et al*]{}]{}, 1981, A&A, 100, 116
Henderson A.P., 1977, A&A, 58, 189
Kent S.M., 1992, ApJ, 387, 181
Kent S.M., Dame T.M., Fazio G., 1991, ApJ, 378, 131
Lin C.C., Shu F.H., 1964, ApJ, 140, 646
Lin C.C., Yuan C., Shu F.H., 1969, ApJ, 155, 721
Lindblad P.A.B., Lindblad P.O., Athanassoula E., 1996, A&A, 313, 65
Lockman F.J., 1979, ApJ, 232, 761
Lockman F.J., 1989, ApJ Suppl., 71, 469
Mulder W.A., 1986, A&A, 156, 354
Mulder W.A., Liem B.T., 1986, A&A, 157, 148
Oort J.H., Kerr F.T., Westerhout G., 1958, MNRAS, 118, 379
Rohlfs K., Kreitschmann J., 1987, A&A, 178, 95
Schmidt M., 1965, Bull. Astr. Inst. Netherlands, 13, 15
Sevenster M., 1997, thesis, Leiden
Sevenster M., 1999, MNRAS, in press, astro-ph/9907319
Sellwood J.A., Sparke L.S., 1988, MNRAS, 231, 25
Sofue, 1973, PASJ, 25, 207
Solomon P.M., Sanders D.B., Rivolo A.R., 1985, ApJ, 292, 19
Solomon P.M., Rivolo A.R., Barrett J., Yahil A., 1987, ApJ, 319, 730
Stark A.A., Bally J., Gerhard O.E., Binney J.J., 1991, MNRAS, 248, 14
Steinmetz M., Müller E., 1993, A&A, 268, 391
Toomre A., 1977, ARA&A, 15, 437
Vallée J.P., 1995, ApJ, 454, 119
Wada K., Taniguchi Y., Habe A., Hasegawa T., 1994, ApJ, 437L, 123
Weaver 1970, in: [*The Spiral Structure of Our Galaxy*]{}, IAU Symp. 38, eds. Becker W., Contopoulos G., Reidel, Dordrecht, p. 126
Weiner B.J., Sellwood J.A., 1999, ApJ, 524, 112
Wielen R., 1974, PASP, 86, 341
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Inese I. Ivans[^1]\
Department of Astronomy and McDonald Observatory, University of Texas at Austin, USA
title: '**Chemical Abundances of Bright Giants in the Mildly Metal-Poor Globular Cluster M4**'
---
=24.7cm =-1.0cm =0.pt =0.pt =-0.54cm =-0.54cm
PS. @plain[mkbothoddheadoddfoot[“The Galactic Halo: From Globular Clusters to Field Stars”; 35$^{\mbox{\rm th}}$ Liège Int. Astroph. Coll., 1999]{}evenheadevenfootoddfoot]{} \#1
\#1
We present a chemical composition analysis of three dozen giant stars in the nearby “CN-bimodal” mildly metal-poor ($<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = -1.18) globular cluster M4. The analysis combined traditional spectroscopic abundance methods with modifications to the line-depth ratio technique pioneered by Gray (1994). Silicon and aluminum are found to be primordially overabundant by factors exceeding the mild overabundances usually seen in $\alpha$- and light odd elements among halo field and globular cluster giants of comparable metallicity. In addition, barium is found to be overabundant by a factor of about four. Superimposed on the primordial abundance distribution in M4, there is evidence for the existence of proton-capture synthesis of C, O, Ne, and Mg.
Introduction
============
As isolated laboratories of stellar evolution, individual globular clusters were once considered to be simple systems, having formed coevally, out of the same material, and exhibiting cluster-to-cluster differences due to only metallicity and age effects. In reality, clusters of similar age and metallicity exhibit differences in their colour-magnitude diagrams and many of the elemental abundance patterns deviate from the predictions of stellar evolution theory. Many low-metallicity globular clusters exhibit large star-to-star variations of C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al abundances. These elements are those that are sensitive to proton-capture nucleosynthesis.
In clusters where giant star samples have been sufficiently large, the abundances of O and Na are anticorrelated, as are those of O and Al (as well as sometimes Mg and Al). Previous clusters studied by the Lick-Texas group (including M3, M5, M10, M13, M15, M71, M92, and NGC7006) span a range in metallicities, from –0.8 $\le$ \[Fe/H\] $\le$ –2.24. In the higher-metallicity clusters, the abundance swings are muted. In all of the clusters, the abundance swings are observed to be a function of giant branch position. This relationship is consistent with material having undergone proton-capture nucleosynthesis (via the CN-, ON-, NeNa-, and/or MgAl-cycles) and brought to the surface by a deep-mixing mechanism. Deep mixing, according to theory (Sweigart & Mengel 1979) should become less efficient and possibly cut-off as metallicity increases. The metallicity of M4 places it among clusters in which the O versus Na and Mg versus Al anticorrelations might be expected to be largely diminished.
There are also some clusters (including M5, NGC3201, NGC6752, 47 Tuc, and $\omega$ Cen) for which distinctly bimodal distributions of cyanogen strengths at nearly all giant branch positions have been uncovered. These clusters apparantly have had different nucleosynthesis histories. Among these CN-bimodal clusters is M4 (Norris 1981; Smith & Norris 1993), the nearest, brightest, and one of the most accessible targets to study the CN-bimodal phenomena. For the purposes of this colloquium, only certain aspects of our M4 work will be highlighted. Details of the full analysis are presented in Ivans [*et al*]{} (1999).
Getting the Red Out
===================
While M4 may be the closest globular cluster, it also suffers from interstellar extinction that is large and variable across the cluster face. The line-of-sight to the cluster passes through the outer parts of the Scorpius-Ophiuchus dark cloud complex. A reddening gradient exists across the face of the cluster (Cudworth & Rees 1990; Liu & Janes 1990; Minniti [*et al*]{} 1992). And, the dust extinction probably varies on small spatial scales as well. This is suggested by the colour-magnitude diagram of M4, where the subgiant and giant branches are broader than expected, given the errors in the photometry (see figure 1) as well as by observations of the $\lambda7699\AA$ K [i]{} interstellar line towards individual M4 stars (Lyons [*et al*]{} 1995). Figure 1 also shows that the reddening cannot reliably be estimated for individual M4 stars to the level needed to map broad-band photometric indices onto stellar parameters. Instead, another reliable temperature estimation method is required.
We combined traditional spectroscopic abundance methods with modifications to the line-depth ratio technique pioneered by Gray (1994) to determine the atmospheric parameters of our stars. The “Gray” method relies on ratios of the measured central depths of lines having very different functional dependences on photometric indices and/or Teff to derive accurate relative temperature rankings (eg. vanadium versus neutral or ionized iron). Gray’s work was done on Pop. I main sequence stars and has since been expanded by Hiltgen (1996) for applications to subgiants of a range of disk metallicities. Happily, many of Gray’s line depth ratios are also sensitive Teff indicators for lower metallicity very cool RGB stars. The line depth ratios vary more than one dex in spectra of giants of moderately metal-poor clusters, and thus can indicate very small Teff changes. However, these relationships begin to approach unity among the coolest stars. While a tremendously useful tool, the “Gray” method cannot be applied to all stars of all clusters: these ratios probably will be less useful as temperature indicators for the coolest stars of appreciably more metal-rich globular clusters (where the lower temperatures and higher metallicities conspire to saturate and blend virtually all of the “Gray” spectral features). However, the method was successfully employed in our work on M4 and is currently being applied to other clusters in the process of analysis.
Our initial Teff calibration of the M4 line depth ratios was set through a similar analysis of RGB stars of M5 (a cluster of very similar metallicity to M4 but suffers little from interstellar dust extinction). We discuss the details of the correlations and transformations in Ivans [*et al*]{} (1999). While we used the line-ratio method to rank the stars, final temperatures were determined from full spectral analyses. Our results for individual stellar parameters compare well with M4 stars in the literature. Taking advantage of the non-photometric means by which we obtained our temperatures, we then derived an average $E(B-V)$ reddening of 0.33 +/- 0.01 (which is significantly lower than that estimated by using the dust maps made by Schlegel [*et al*]{} 1998 but is in good agreement with the M4 RR Lyrae studies by Caputo [*et al*]{} 1985). Finally, as a confirmation of the method, we derived individual stellar extinctions that not only correlate extremely well with IRAS 100 micron fluxes but also with $E(B-V)$ estimates derived independently in interstellar absorption studies of potassium by Lyons [*et al*]{} (1995).
Abundance Results
=================
We performed line-by-line abundance analyses to determine the final model atmosphere specifications. Our final models satisfied the following contraints: consistent abundances from lines of neutral and ionized Fe and Ti; reasonable predictions for colour-magnitude diagram positions from the derived gravities; no obvious trends of neutral Fe line abundances with EWs; and no obvious trends of neutral Fe line abundances with corresponding excitation potentials. Finally, there is no astrophysical reason for Fe-peak abundances to vary significantly from star to star along the M4 giant branch; V, Ti, Fe, and Ni showed no significant drifts along the RGB.
We present the abundance analyses in the “boxplot” shown in figure 2. The 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, along with possible outliers. We determined a metallicity of $<$\[Fe/H\]$>$ = –1.18 ($\sigma$ = 0.02) and found a large abundance ratio range for proton-capture elements such as oxygen, sodium and aluminum. However, the star-to-star variations are small for the heavier elements. Our M4 abundances generally agree well with those of past M4 investigators. The abundances of Ca, Sc, Ti, V, and Ni are also in accord with those of M5 and the halo field. However, the M4 abundances of Ba and La are both overabundant with respect to comparison samples. Yet, the overabundance of Ba in M4 stars has been observed in independent studies by both Brown & Wallerstein (1992) as well as by Lambert [*et al*]{} (1992). We also derived high silicon and aluminum abundances, in agreement with previous studies of M4 but significantly higher than the abundances found in either M5 or the field. We explore these issues in the following sub-sections.
Proton-Capture Nucleosynthesis
------------------------------
Although several M4 giants exhibit oxygen deficiencies, most M4 giants show little evidence for the severe oxygen depletions observed in M13 (Kraft [*et al*]{} 1997) and M15 (Sneden [*et al*]{} 1997). Low oxygen abundances are accompanied by low carbon and elevated nitrogen. In addition, the sum of C+N+O is essentially constant, as expected if all stars draw on the same primordial material. We find that the behaviour of O is anti-correlated with that of Na, and, to a lesser degree, with that of Al. These findings are compatible with a proton-capture scenario in which Na and Al are enhanced at the expense of Ne and Mg, respectively (Langer [*et al*]{} 1997, Cavallo [*et al*]{} 1998). And, we find that the CN-strong stars are those that are more highly processed via proton-capture nucleosynthesis: the CN-strong group has a mean Na abundance that is a factor of two larger than the CN-weak group, and our CN-strong group also has higher Al abundances but the CN-strong/CN-weak difference is much less pronounced. As shown by Langer & Hoffman (1995), very modest hydrogen depletion of the envelope material can lead to an enhancement of Al by +0.4 dex when Na is enhanced by +0.7 dex, exactly as observed in our M4 sample. In this picture, unlike that found in M13 (Shetrone 1996), the enhancement of Al comes about entirely by destruction of $^{25}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg: $^{24}$Mg remains untouched. We attempted to derive the Mg isotope ratios in our spectra and, while there is a hint that the isotopic ratios may not be the same as those found in halo field stars, much higher resolution data is required before one can make statements regarding any differences with certainty.
$\alpha$-element Enhancements
-----------------------------
Both the magnesium abundances and silicon abundances in M4 exceed those in M5 by a factor of two. However, Ca and Ti abundances in the two clusters are essentially the same and have the usual modest overabundances with respect to the scaled solar ratio. The $\alpha$- element ratios in M4 mimic those found in the very metal-poor cluster M15. M15, like M4, also exhibits a high aluminum abundance (that is, a high “floor” of aluminum, on top of which is the proton-capture nucleosynthesic contribution described in the previous subsection). Substructure in $\alpha$- and light odd elements are also found among relatively metal-rich disk dwarfs (eg. Edvardsson [*et al*]{} 1993) and galactic nuclear bulge giants (McWilliam & Rich 1994). While the abundance pairings and trends are not matched between the cluster and disk/bulge populations, it is clear that the differences must arise from some property of the primordial nucleosynthetic sites.
The Abundances of Ba, La, Eu and $\omega$ Cen
---------------------------------------------
The \[Ba/Eu\] ratio is often used as a measure of $s$- to $r$-process nucleosynthesis in the primordial material of a cluster. Typically, clusters show –0.6 $<$ \[Ba/Eu\] $<$ –0.2. In M4, \[Ba/Eu\] is 0.25 dex higher than the total solar-system [*r + s*]{} and more than four times higher than that of the “normal" cluster M5. However, the high \[Ba/Eu\] in M4 is not because Eu is low (as is the case in very metal-poor M15), rather, the \[Eu/Fe\] we find for M4 is not very different from that of M5. The high \[Ba/Eu\] is due to a high \[Ba/Fe\]. And, the high abundance of Ba is supported by a high abundance of La. We performed numerical experiments by combining the results of our derived Ba, La, and Eu abundances and found that M4 has a larger $s$:$r$-process contribution than in the sun; the Ba abundance in M4 cannot be attributed to the $r$-process. We find no dependence of the Ba or La abundance on evolutionary state in M4 $\Rightarrow$ these excesses cannot result from neutron captures on Fe-peak elements during a He shell flash episode on the AGB of the stars we observed. It [*must*]{} be a signature of $s$-process enrichment of the primordial material out of which the low-mass M4 stars we observed were formed. This excess of the $s$-process elements is evidence that the period of star formation and mass-loss that preceded the formation of the observed stars in M4 was long enough for stars of 3–10 solar masses to evolve into AGB stars and contribute their ejecta into the ISM of the cluster. $s$-process contributions such as those we found in M4 are very well evidenced in the globular cluster $\omega$ Cen (Vanture [*et al*]{} 1994). Interestingly enough, there exists in $\omega$ Cen a subset of stars which possess nearly identical overabundance characteristics in \[Ba/Fe\], \[Al/Fe\], \[Si/Fe\], and \[La/Fe\] as those found in our M4 stars. However, the multi-metallicity cluster $\omega$ Cen also possesses a more complicated nucleosynthetic history than M4. The important point here is that the high Ba and La properties of M4 stars is surely a primordial, not an evolutionary, effect.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
Evidence for proton-capture nucleosynthesis in M4 was expected, and was found to be in good agreement with both observations and theory. However, the overabundances of Ba, La, Si, and Al were not expected and these are still a puzzle. While there are similarities in metallicity, and evolutionary age as observed in the colour-magnitude diagrams of M4 and M5, what nucleosynthetic histories can explain such large differences in the elemental abundances? The Mg isotope ratio in M4 may also be found to be different from that of the field stars, yet another difference that the environment may have imposed on the nucleosynthetic history. Many of the colloquium talks have emphasized the need to attack both more outer halo clusters as well as the disk clusters and do analyses similar to those that have been done for the closest halo clusters. With the successful application of the line-ratio techniques, more detailed abundance analyses will be [*able*]{} to be done.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am indebted to Jerry Lodriguss for generously sharing the electronic files containing his excellent deep sky images of the M4 Sco-Oph region. I also very gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by my collaborators to this work, without whom the successful completion of this project would not have been possible.
Brown, J. A. & Wallerstein, G., 1992 AJ 104, 1818.
Caputo, F., Castellani, V., & Quarta, M. L., 1985, A&A 143, 8.
Cavallo, R. M, Sweigart, A. V., & Bell, R. A., 1998, ApJ 492, 575.
Cudworth, K. M. & Rees, R. F., 1990, AJ 99, 1491.
Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D. L., Nissen, P. E., & Tomkin, J., 1993, A&A 275, 101.
Gray, D. F.,1994, PASP 106, 1248.
Gustafsson, B., Bell, R. A., Ericksson, K., & Nordlund, A., 1975, A&A 42, 407.
Hiltgen, D.. 1996, Ph.D. Thesis, Univerity of Texas, Austin.
Ivans, I. I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Suntzeff, N. B., Smith, V. V., Langer, G. E., Fulbright, J. P., 1999, AJ 118, 1273.
Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Smith, G. H., Shetrone, M. D., Langer, G. E., & Pilachowski, C. A., 1997, AJ 113, 279.
Lambert, D. L., McWilliam, A. & Smith, V. V., 1992, ApJ 386, 685.
Langer, G. E. & Hoffman, R., 1995, PASP 107, 1177.
Langer, G. E., Hoffman, R., & Zaidins, C. S., 1997 PASP 109, 244.
Liu, T. & Janes, K. A., 1990, ApJ 360, 561.
Lyons, M. A., Bates, B., Kemp, S. N., & Davies, R. D., 1995 MNRAS 277, 113.
McWilliam, A. & Rich, R. M., 1994 A&AS 91, 749.
Minniti, D., Coyne, G. V., & Claria, J. J., 1992, AJ 103, 871.
Norris, J., 1981, ApJ 248, 177.
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M., 1998, ApJ 500, 525.
Shetrone, M. D., 1996, AJ 112, 2639.
Smith, G. H. & Norris, J. E., 199,3 AJ 105, 173.
Sneden, C., 1973, ApJ 184, 839.
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Shetrone, M. D., Smith, G. H., Langer, G. E., & Prosser, C. F. 1997 AJ 114, 1964.
Sweigart, A. V. & Mengel, J. G., 1979, ApJ 229, 624.
Vanture, A.D., Wallerstein, G. & Brown, J.A., 1994, PASP 106, 835.
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, England'
author:
- 'P.J. Marshall'
title: 'MAXIMUM–ENTROPY RECONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF MASS IN CLUSTER MS1054-03 FROM WEAK LENSING DATA'
---
Weak Lensing Introduction
=========================
The mass in a cluster of galaxies produces a net distortion of the shapes of images of galaxies lying behind the cluster. The galaxies appear stretched tangentially around the mass concentrations. This distortion is often described by the *reduced shear* field $g$: $$g = \frac{\gamma}{1-\kappa}
\notag$$ where the *convergence* $\kappa$ is the projected mass density of the cluster relative to a critical density $\Sigma_{crit}$ (which is a function of $z_{cluster},z_{galaxies},\Omega_m,\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $H_0$). The *shear* $\gamma$ is related to the convergence by a convolution over the whole image plane:
[r]{}[6cm]{}
$$\gamma (\theta) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int D(\theta - \theta')
\kappa(\theta') d^2 \theta'
\notag$$
If we parameterise the (elliptical) galaxy image shapes by
$$\epsilon = \epsilon_1 + i\epsilon_2 =
\biggl( \frac{1-\frac{b}{a}}{1+\frac{b}{a}} \biggr) e^{2i\phi}
\notag$$
then averaging over many galaxies (to remove the intrinsic shapes) can be shown to give an unbiased estimate of the reduced shear:[@ks] $$\left< \epsilon \right> = g
\notag$$ We want to infer $\kappa$ from a measured $g$ field...
Maximum Entropy Weak Lens Reconstruction
========================================
We aim to find the convergence map that maximises the posterior probability:[@bhls] $$Pr(\kappa | data) = \frac{Pr(data | \kappa) Pr(\kappa)}{Pr(data)}
\notag$$ The data are the measured values of $g_1$ and $g_2$ in the pixels of the background galaxy averaging grid; $\kappa$ is reconstructed on a larger grid, since mass lying outside the observing region will produce a shear signal within it.
Assuming Gaussian errors on the $g$ values, the likelihood is $$Pr(data | \kappa) \propto e^{-\frac{\chi^2}{2}}
\notag$$ $$\text{where } \chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{(g_i^{observed} -
g_i^{predicted})^2}{\sigma_i^2}
\notag$$ The prior probability has to be specified – an *entropic* prior is appropriate: $$Pr(\kappa) \propto e^{\alpha S}
\notag$$ The entropy $S(\kappa)$ becomes more negative as $\kappa$ departs from the default model – taken to be $\sim$zero mass density; it acts to suppress over-fitting to the noise in the data, and to control the reconstruction of mass outside the observed field where the constraints from the data are weak. Minimising $F=\chi^2 / 2 - \alpha S$ gives the best-fit convergence distribution $\hat{\kappa}$.
The uncertainties in $\hat{\kappa}$ are estimated by approximating $Pr(\kappa | data)$ by a multivariate Gaussian: $$Pr(\kappa | data) \approx \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2} (\kappa -
\hat{\kappa})^T \nabla_{\kappa} \nabla_{\kappa} F (\kappa - \hat{\kappa})
\right]
\notag$$ So we have the covariance matrix for the convergence pixel values, the (square root of the) diagonal elements of which provide an estimate of the uncertainty in each pixel value.
To produce the plots in this poster the reconstructed convergence distributions have been smoothed; the “signal to noise contours” were obtained by dividing the reconstructed convergence in each pixel by its uncertainty, and then smoothing on the same scale.
The MS1054-03 Data
==================
MS1054-03 is a high redshift ($z=0.83$) galaxy cluster; X-ray and dynamical measurements suggest a high mass ($T_X \approx 12.3 keV$,[@don], $\sigma \approx 1150$ km s$^{-1}$[@vdokk]). 2 sets of weak lensing data have been analysed:
- [Clowe et al 2000]{} – Single Keck pointing $\rightarrow$ $\epsilon$ measured for 2723 background galaxies in a 50 square arcminutes field
- [Hoekstra et al 2000]{} – Irregularly shaped mosaic of 6 HST WFPC2 images $\rightarrow$ $\epsilon \pm \delta \epsilon$ measured for 2446 background galaxies (in a region of area $\sim 30$ arcmin$^2$). A higher density of galaxy images combined with a much smaller point spread function means that the data is of higher quality – a higher resolution reconstruction can be performed.
The LensEnt Reconstructions
===========================
- [Keck data]{} – The cluster is visible as the central North-East/South-West elongated blob; the highest contour is 3$\sigma$. Other features are present, possibly due to noise.
- [HST data]{} – The shape of the cluster is shown to apparently higher resolution, but again there are many noise peaks. As for the cluster, how many sub-clumps does it contain? 1, 2 or 3?
How Much Structure Do We Believe?
---------------------------------
The plotted signal-to-noise contours show the significance levels of structure if we accept both the data and the reconstruction at face value – if present, outliers in the data could introduce spurious signals.
As a test,[@hfk] the shears were rotated by $\frac{\pi}{4}$ to reconstruct the “imaginary” convergence – the cluster (having real mass!) disappears but spurious features in the North (Keck data) and South-East (HST data) remain, presumably due to noise spikes in the data.
We can illustrate our new knowledge of the cluster’s shape by plotting samples drawn from the posterior probability distribution – approximately $\frac{2}{3}$ of the sample images will lie within $\pm 1
\sigma$ of the best-fit reconstruction. A wide range of structure is consistent with the shear data!
Mass Estimation
---------------
Given the reconstructed convergence distribution $\hat{\kappa_i}$ (with associated covariance matrix $C_{ij}$), and a value for $\Sigma_{crit}$ (calculated by Hoekstra et al[@hfk] and so only really appropriate for that dataset), we can estimate the projected mass within a circular aperture:
[2]{} M &= \_i a\_i \_i & \_M &= \_[ij]{} a\_i a\_j C\_[ij]{}
where $a_i$ is the proportion of the area of the $i^{th}$ pixel lying within the aperture.
------------ -------------------- --------------- ---------------
HST data Keck data
$\Omega_m$ $\Omega_{\Lambda}$
0.3 0.0 $1.11\pm0.09$ $1.33\pm0.15$
0.3 0.7 $0.89\pm0.07$ $1.14\pm0.12$
------------ -------------------- --------------- ---------------
Is This The Best We Can Do?
===========================
So far we have assumed that the convergences in each pixel are independent; this is not the case for physical cluster structure on larger scales than one pixel. An intrinsic correlation function (ICF),[@rob] that maps some “hidden” convergence distribution (which has an entropic prior) onto the “visible” distribution used to fit the data, eases the introduction of large-scale structure into the reconstruction. One step further is to use a multiple-scale ICF (still under development). The reconstruction from the HST data is smoother, with the cluster appearing as a possible two-component extended feature. This map has been centred on the CD galaxy, with North upwards and East to the left. Contours are signal-to-noise as before.
The inclusion of an ICF does, to some extent, add unwanted smoothness – a small scale convergence distribution (fed back from the previous results) is reconstructed with some increase in smoothness. The converse is also true: the smooth output from the multi-resolution ICF reconstruction is made “grainier” by the single scale reconstruction code in the presence of high noise. So which reconstruction should we prefer? The one that maximises the probability of getting the data, given a hypothesis of the degree of smoothness of the convergence distribution – the EVIDENCE, $Pr(data)$. This does indeed turn out to be higher for the multi-scale ICF reconstruction.
Conclusions
===========
- Reconstruction of the mass distribution in MS1054-03 from both Keck and HST data show the non–spherical cluster shape found by previous authors.
- Evaluation of the reconstruction uncertainties show that the cluster substructure is present at relatively low significance; sample convergence maps show a wide range of possible cluster configurations consistent with the weak lensing data.
- Given the (small) statistical and (larger) systematic errors involved, a mass estimate of $1 \times 10^{15} h_{50}^{-1} M_{\odot}$ would be a reasonable consensus value for MS1054-03 – as found by Hoekstra et al.
- The inclusion of an ICF in the algorithm appears promising, particularly with regard to determining the level of substructure really present in clusters of galaxies; much more investigation is required before drawing any definite conclusions!
The LensEnt reconstruction code used for the first part of this analysis is available from
`http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/projects/lensent/`
with the ICF extensions to follow in the very near future.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} S. Bridle, M. Hobson, A. Lasenby and R. Saunders, , astro-ph/9802159.
D. Clowe, G.A. Luppino, N. Kaiser and I. Gioia, , astro-ph/0001356.
H. Hoekstra, M. Franx and K. Kuijken, , astro-ph/9910487.
N. Kaiser and G. Squires, .
M. Donahue, G.M. Voit, I. Gioia, G.A. Luppino, J.P. Hughes and J.T. Stocke, , astro-ph/9707010.
P. van Dokkum (1999), PhD. thesis, University of Groningen.
D. Robinson (1992), PhD. thesis, University of Cambridge.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The compound FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ has been studied by magnetic measurements, Mössbauer spectroscopy and electronic structure and total energy calculations. An unexpected high magnetic hyperfine field for Fe atoms located at the tetrahedral Me(1) site in the Fe$_2$P structure is found. The saturation moment derived from magnetic measurements corresponds to 4.4 $\mu_B$/f.u. at low temperatures, a value substantially higher than previously reported, but in accord with the results from our electron structure calculations. This high saturation moment, a first order nature of the ferromagnetic transition and a tunable transition temperature make the Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_x$P$_{1-y}$Si$_y$ system promising for magnetocaloric applications.'
author:
- Matthias Hudl
- Lennart Häggström
- 'Erna-Krisztina Delczeg-Czirjak'
- Viktor Höglin
- Martin Sahlberg
- Levente Vitos
- Olle Eriksson
- Per Nordblad
- Yvonne Andersson
title: 'Strongly enhanced magnetic moments in ferromagnetic FeMnP$_{0.50}$Si$_{0.50}$'
---
Fe$_2$P based compounds are promising materials for magnetocaloric applications. A study of the FeMnP$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$ series by Cam Thanh et al. showed strong magnetocaloric effects [@Thanh08]. It was found that FeMnP$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$ crystallizes in the hexagonal Fe$_2$P-type structure which persists for a Si content from y $\approx$ 0.24 up to y $\approx$ 0.65 and undergoes a first order para- to ferromagnetic phase transition with T$_C$ tunable around room temperature. The low temperature saturation moment for FeMnP$_{0.50}$Si$_{0.50}$ was of the order 3.8 $\mu_B$ per formula unit (f.u.)[@Thanh08].
In the hexagonal Fe$_2$P-type and the closely related orthorhombic Co$_2$P-type (y $\leq$ 0.24) structures two equally populated metal sites are present, the tetragonally coordinated Me(1) and the pyramidally coordinated Me(2) site [@Rundqvist59]. The initial compound Fe$_2$P has a saturation moment of 2.94 $\mu_B$/f.u. with the site specific magnetic moments of $\mu$(Fe(1),Fe(2)) = (1.03, 1.91)$\mu_B$ and a magnetic hyperfine field of B$_{hf}$(Fe(1),Fe(2)) = (-11.4, -18.0) T, Ref. . By substitution of Fe for Mn antiferromagnetic ordering and a structural phase transition into the orthorhombic Co$_2$P-type structure are induced. In pure FeMnP, the Fe atoms preferentially populate the Me(1) site and the Mn atoms the Me(2) site [@Sjostrom88]. Substitution of P for Si restores the hexagonal Fe$_2$P-type structure and stabilizes ferromagnetic ordering. At the border region between the orthorhombic and hexagonal structure, y $\approx$ 0.25, the compound with hexagonal structure could either be in an antiferromagnetic or a ferrimagnetic state depending on the heat treatment after the synthesis [@Hudl10].
In this study of the FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ compound it is found that the magnetic hyperfine field for Fe atoms located at the tetrahedral Me(1) site is strongly enhanced in comparison to other compounds within the Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_x$P$_{1-y}$Si$_y$ system. The enhanced magnetic hyperfine field is accompanied by a correspondingly high saturation moment of 4.4 $\mu_B$/f.u. at 5 K. An enhanced saturation moment can promote the magnetocaloric properties and make this material suitable for applications. In addition, the FeMnP$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$ series is favorable for applications due to its cheap, nonhazardous and environmentally friendly element composition.
Samples of stoichiometric FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ were prepared by the drop synthesis method [@Rundqvist59]. Fabrication details and structural characterization are reported elsewhere [@Hoeglin10]. The magnetic properties were investigated by means of magnetization measurements using a vibrating sample magnetometer and a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design PPMS and MPMS). Mössbauer absorption spectra on samples of composition y = 0.46 and 0.50 were recorded in the constant acceleration mode at temperatures between 5 K and 440 K using a $^{57}$CoRh source.
The electronic structure and total energy calculations were performed using the exact muffin-tin orbital method (EMTO) [@Andersen94; @Vitos01] in combination with the coherent potential approximation (CPA) [@Soven67; @Vitos01a]. The ab initio calculations were carried out for three different phases of FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$. Two ordered phases were considered: one with Mn atoms occupying the pyramidal (high moment) positions and one with Mn atoms occupying the tetrahedral (low moment) positions. These structures are labeled “Mn-pyramidal” and “Fe-pyramidal”, respectively. In the third case, the Mn and Fe atoms are randomly distributed on the Me(1) and Me(2) positions, referred to as “Disordered”. It was assumed that all these phases have the hexagonal Fe$_2$P structure with the elements P and Si uniformly distributed over the pnictide sites. The internal positions and lattice parameters were taken from structure refinements of neutron powder diffraction data by Höglin et al. [@Hoeglin10]. The numerical details of the calculations are similar to those reported in Ref. .
Magnetization measurements indicate a first order para- to ferromagnetic phase transition at 382 K (measured on cooling) as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. The magnetic phase transition is accompanied by a 7-12 K wide thermal hysteresis region. In the magnetization vs. magnetic field data a soft magnetic behavior with marginal magnetic hysteresis is seen. At 295 K the saturation magnetization is 156 Am$^2$/kg which correspond to 3.9 $\mu_B$/f.u., see Fig. \[fig1\]. At 5 K the saturation moment is 4.4 $\mu_B$/f.u. which is higher than found in previous experimental studies, 3.8 $\mu_B$/f.u., [@Thanh08], and slightly higher than earlier theoretical calculations indicate, 4.2 $\mu_B$/f.u., [@Divis08]. The magnetic entropy change was estimated from magnetization data and for a magnetic field change of 1.8 T a magnetic entropy change of about 8 J/kgK is obtained.
![Magnetization data for FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$; Left graph: Magnetization vs. temperature measured in 1 T field. Right graph: Magnetization vs. magnetic field at 295 K.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1){width="42.00000%"}
The room temperature XRD pattern for FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ reveals a hexagonal Fe$_2$P-type structure, space group P-62m, with lattice parameters *a*=6.2090(3) Å[ ]{}and *c*=3.2880(3) Å. The first order magnetic transition is accompanied by a structural transition where the lattice parameter *a* decreases by 2 %, *c* increases by about 5 % and the cell volume increases approx. 1 %, however the compound remains in the Fe$_2$P-type structure[@Hoeglin10].
![Mössbauer spectra for FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ measured at 295 and 440 K. Inset: Magnetic hyperfine field distribution at 295 K.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2){width="30.00000%"}
Mössbauer spectra for y $=$ 0.50 at 440 K and at 295 K are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. The spectra in the paramagnetic regime show a broad single line centered at around 0.17 mm/s. The average electric quadrupole splitting was 0.32 mm/s. Reducing the isomer shift value with the high temperature limit of -7.3 $\cdot$ 10$^{-4}$ $\Delta$T for the second order Doppler shift gives an isomer shift value $\delta$ = 0.28 mm/s at room temperature, which is in good agreement with room temperature values for Fe(1) in hexagonal Fe$_{2}$P$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$, [@Srivastava87] and in FeMnP$_{0.75}$Si$_{0.25}$ [@Hudl10]. This indicates that Fe only populates Me(1) in the present samples since the isomer shift values at room temperature for Me(2) in these compounds are much larger, being 0.54 mm/s (Fe$_2$P) and 0.57 mm/s (FeMnP$_{0.75}$Si$_{0.25}$).
The spectra in the ferromagnetic regime show a well resolved six-line pattern together with a central broad line. Due to the difference in the line intensities between outer lines the spectra were fitted with two sextets and an electric quadrupole splitted doublet. The doublet was absent at 77 K and below. The average hyperfine interaction parameters at 295 K for the Fe(1) sextet were: the magnetic hyperfine field B$_{hf}$ = 20.6(3) T and the isomer shift $\delta$ = 0.30(1) mm/s. At 5 K, B$_{hf}$ was found to be 22.8(3) T. Figure \[fig3\] shows the magnetic hyperfine fields for different Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_x$P$_{1-y}$Si$_y$ compounds from the current investigation and earlier publications[@Hudl10; @Sjostrom88; @Srivastava87; @Jernberg84]. The relation between the magnetic hyperfine field and the magnetic moment is not straightforward but can be written as B$_{hf}$ = -12.6$\mu$ + B$_v$ (omitting small dipolar and orbital contributions)[@Eriksson88]. For the present compound the s-valence term was calculated to B$_v$(Me(1), Me(2)) = (-1.96, 17.1) T. Using the experimental B$_{hf}$ we arrive at a saturation Fe(1) moment of 1.65 $\mu_B$ which corresponds to an increase of 60% compared with 1.03 $\mu_B$ in Fe$_2$P . For the closely related compound Fe$_2$P$_{1-y}$Si$_y$ an almost linear relation between the magnetic moments and the average nearest neighbor (nn) Fe-P distance is known. [@Severin95] The average nn Fe(1) to P distance in Fe$_2$P is 2.26 Å[ ]{} while the corresponding distance in FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ is 2.32 Å. Using the linear relation with the found lattice expansion would correspond to an increase of the Fe(1) moment from 1.03 $\mu_B$ to 1.24 $\mu_B$. Additionally, first-principle band calculations on the hexagonal compound FeMnP$_{0.66}$Si$_{0.33}$ [@Liu09] showed an Fe(1) moment of 1.35 $\mu_B$ for random occupation of Si atoms over the pnictide sites but an increase to 1.46 $\mu_B$ for Si preferentially occupying the P(1) site. For both, lattice expansion and Si ordering on the pnictide sites an increase of the magnetic moment is known.
![Magnetic hyperfine fields B$_{hf}$ for Fe at the tetrahedral Me(1) site for different Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_x$P$_{1-y}$Si$_y$ compounds. All compounds show hexagonal crystal structure except along the green lines around FeMnP which have the closely related orthorhombic Co$_2$P structure. Data taken from this study and references [@Hudl10; @Sjostrom88; @Srivastava87; @Jernberg84].[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3){width="32.00000%"}
Calculated total energies as a function of the lattice parameter *a* (for fixed *c/a* $=$ 0.5296) for three different phases (defined above): Mn-pyramidal, Fe-pyramidal and Disordered are shown in Figure \[fig4\] (upper panel). We find that the Mn-pyramidal phase has the lowest energy for all volumes (lattice parameters). This is in line with the experimental observation, namely that Mn atoms preferentially occupy the high moment site. The energy difference between the considered phases is rather significant (5-10 mRy/site). The Mn pyramidal phase has a shallow energy minimum for lattice constants around 6.16 Å, whereas our experimental value is 6.209 Å[ ]{}for the hexagonal FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$. The site projected magnetic moments of the Fe and Mn atoms for the ordered phases are displayed in Fig. \[fig4\] (lower panel). Note that the magnetic moments of the Fe and Mn atoms are always ferromagnetically aligned in the ordered phases. A decrease of the magnetic moments towards lower volumes occurs due to the magnetovolume effect[@Mohn06]. Energetically the Mn-pyramidal phase is the stable one which corresponds to Mn atoms occupying the high moment site, with Mn(Fe) moment 2.81(1.64) $\mu_B$/atom for the equilibrium volume (lattice parameter). In the Fe-pyramidal phase the Mn moments are always lower than in the Mn-pyramidal phase, and it is tempting to explain the stabilization of the Mn-pyramidal phase to be due to the exchange energy of the larger Mn moment in the pyramidal site. These calculations give a total magnetic moment of 4.3 $\mu_B$ per formula unit, which is in good agreement with our experimental measurements and with previous theory [@Divis08].
From Mössbauer spectroscopy it is found that Fe atoms in FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$ occupy the tetrahedral Me(1) site. Our ab initio caculations support this distribution of the metal atoms and indicate a ferromagnetic structure with a total moment of 4.3 $\mu_B$, in good agreement with the measured low temperature saturation moment, 4.4 $\mu_B$ per formula unit. The low temperature magnetic hyperfine field, -22.8 T, for Fe at the Me(1) site is much larger than earlier results for compounds in the Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_{x}$P$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$ system, cf. Fig. \[fig3\]. However, this value of the hyperfine field indicates a magnetic moment of 1.65 $\mu_B$ for Fe(1), which agrees well with the calculated value 1.64 $\mu_B$. This large magnetic moment is especially interesting since it can enhance the magnetocaloric properties of the Fe$_{2-x}$Mn$_{x}$P$_{1-y}$Si$_{y}$ system.
![Theoretical results for FeMnP$_{0.5}$Si$_{0.5}$. Total energy per site (upper panel) and site-projected magnetic moments (lower panel) of the Mn-pyramidal- (cirles) and Fe-pyramidal (squares) Ordered phases as a function of the lattice parameter *a* and for fixed *c/a* $=$ 0.5296. The dashed line indicates the experimental lattice parameter.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4corr){width="28.00000%"}
Financial support from the Swedish Energy Agency (STEM) and the Swedish Research Council (VR) is acknowledged. Supercomputer resources provide by SNIC are acknowledged.
[10]{}
D. T. CamThanh, E. Brück, N. T. Trung, J. C. P. Klaasse, K. H. J. Buschow, Z. Q. Ou, O. Tegus, and L. Caron. , 103:07B318, 2008.
S. Rundqvist and F. Jellinek. , 13:425, 1959.
O. Eriksson, J. Sjöström, B. Johansson, L. Häggström, and H. L. Skriver. , 74:347, 1988.
J. Sjöström, L. Häggström, and T. Sundqvist. , 57:737, 1988.
M. Hudl, P. Nordblad, T. Björkman, O. Eriksson, L. Häggström, E.-K. Delczeg-Czirjak, L. Vitos, M. Sahlberg, and Y. Andersson. .
V. Höglin, M. Hudl, M. Sahlberg, P. Nordblad, P. Beran, and Y. Andersson. .
O. K. Andersen, O. Jespen, and G.Krier. . World Scientific, 1994.
L. Vitos. , 64:014107, 2001.
P. Soven. , 156:809, 1967. & B. L. Györffy. , 5:2382, 1972.
L. Vitos, I. A. Abrikosov, and B. Johansson. , 87:156401, 2001.
M. Diviš and I. Turek. , 403:3276� 3278, 2008.
B. K. Srivastava, T. Ericsson, L. Häggström, H. R. Verma, Y. Andersson, and S. Rundquist. , 20:463, 1987.
P. Jernberg, A. A. Yousif, L. Häggström, and Y. Andersson. , 53:313, 1984.
L. Severin, L. Häggström, L. Nordström, Y. Andersson, and B. Johansson. , 7:185, 1995.
X. B. Liu and Z. Altounian. , 105:07A902, 2009.
Peter Mohn. . Springer Berlin, 2006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
Galaxy Harassment and the Evolution of Clusters of Galaxies
**Ben Moore$^1$, Neal Katz$^1$, George Lake[^1],**
0.1truecm
**Alan Dressler[^2] and Augustus Oemler, Jr[^3]**
[**Disturbed spiral galaxies with high rates of star formation pervaded clusters of galaxies just a few billion years ago, but nearby clusters exclude spirals in favor of ellipticals. “Galaxy harassment" (frequent high speed galaxy encounters) drives the morphological transformation of galaxies in clusters, provides fuel for quasars in subluminous hosts and leaves detectable debris arcs. Simulated images of harassed galaxies are strikingly similar to the distorted spirals in clusters at $z \sim 0.4$ observed by the Hubble Space Telescope.**]{}
Clusters of galaxies are unique cosmological laboratories. There are several hundred galaxies moving at relative velocities up to several thousand in regions no larger than the distance between the Milky Way and its nearest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy (M31). Clusters of galaxies have been observed at redshifts up to 2$^{\bf\rm 1}$. By understanding their evolution over cosmic times, we probe the geometry of the Universe and the development of its largest structures.
Nearby rich galaxy clusters are dominated by elliptical “E" and lenticular “S0" galaxies$^{\bf\rm 2}$, mostly low luminosity dwarfs. Twenty years ago Butcher and Oemler$^{\bf\rm 3,4}$ discovered that clusters at $z \gsim 0.4$ have a substantial population of “blue galaxies" seen only as fuzzy blobs in their ground based images. Recent Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images revealed that the “fuzzy blue blobs" are low luminosity, often disturbed, spiral galaxies “Sp"$^{\bf\rm 5-8}$. The HST imaging teams stress that the disturbed blue galaxies are ubiquitous, but few have other galaxies nearby$^{\bf\rm 5}$ and there were multiple bursts of star formation spanning up to 2 Gyr$^{\bf\rm 8}$. The dramatic transformation of clusters (shown in Figure 1) occured during a “look-back time" of just 4-5 billion years, only a few cluster orbital times. In contrast, the morphological fraction in the field shows far less evolution$^{\bf\rm 9}$.
Given a mechanism for distorting galaxies and promoting star formation that operates when a spiral first enters a cluster, hierarchical clustering models will naturally enhance the number of “Butcher-Oemler clusters" at $z \sim 0.4$$^{\bf\rm 13}$. Proposed mechanisms include: mergers$^{\bf\rm 14,15}$, compression of gas in the high pressure cluster environment$^{\bf\rm 16,17}$ and tidal compression by the cluster$^{\bf\rm 18,19}$. Each of these scenarios can produce star-bursts, but none address morphological evolution or identify the remnants of these distorted blue galaxies in present day clusters. By analyzing their HST images, Oemler $^{\bf\rm 20}$ conclude that merging is implausible as the blue galaxy fraction is large and the merging probability is low. They observe disturbed spirals throughout the cluster, whereas both ram pressure stripping and global tides will only operate efficiently near the cluster’s center.
What mechanism drives star-bursts and rapid morphological evolution [*throughout*]{} a cluster of galaxies? Although direct mergers are extremely rare, every galaxy experiences a high speed close encounter with a bright galaxy once per Gyr. Here, “close" means within 50 kiloparsecs (several optical radii) and “bright galaxy" is one as luminous as $L_*$, the characteristic break in the galaxy luminosity function$^{\bf\rm 10}$. (The Milky Way has a luminosity of approximately $L_*$.) We use high resolution numerical simulations of galaxies in clusters to examine the resulting damage of these close encounters. To distinguish this from other collisional effects such as galaxy mergers and galaxy cannibalism, we refer to these frequent encounters as “galaxy harassment”.
The cluster environment and galaxy harassment
=============================================
We simulate the evolution of a small bulgeless spiral galaxy orbiting within a dense cluster modeled on Coma (Figure 1). Figure 2 shows an edge on view of the model galaxy along with an inventory of its stars, gas and dark matter. Some of our simulations use smoothed particle hydrodynamics$^{\bf\rm 21}$, to evolve the gas component of the disk at resolutions of 100 - 500 pc.
We simulated galaxies on circular and elliptical orbits in smooth cluster potentials before examining the effects of harassment. The disk galaxy shows little evolution over 5 Gyrs when placed on a 450 kpc circular orbit in a smooth cluster potential. The disk becomes bar unstable after the first pericentric passage$^{\bf\rm 18}$ when placed on an eccentric orbit with apocenter and pericenter at 600 kpc and 300 kpc respectively. Thereafter, each time the galaxy passes through pericenter, the halo loses a small fraction of its mass but stars and gas remain bound. The evolution is far more dramatic after including the other cluster galaxies.
When we include harassment, the havoc wreaked is determined by the masses of bright galaxies in clusters. Galaxies in the field have massive dark halos, but there has been speculation that these were stripped from individual galaxies within clusters$^{\bf\rm 25}$. All galaxies are tidally limited by the potential field of the cluster. Over the 5 Gyr evolution of the cluster, bright galaxies retain more than half of the mass within their tidal radius (measured at the pericenter of their orbit), the rest being liberated by fast encounters with other bright galaxies$^{\bf\rm 24}$.
We have been conservative in our simulations to insure that our results are robust. At a fixed mean orbital radius or “guiding center", the effects of harassment becomes stronger as orbits become more elongated. In our cluster model, the mean ratio of a perturbing galaxy’s apocenter to its pericenter is greater than 10-to-1. A galaxy in a rich cluster with a guiding center of 450 kpc will have a typical pericenter ($r_{peri}$) slightly greater than 150 kpc. The masses we assign galaxies are $\sim 2.8\times10^{11} (r_{peri}/150kpc)
(L/L_*)^{3/4} M_\odot$. As a result, their mass-to-light ratios are $M/L = 44 h^2 (r_{peri}/100kpc)(L/L_*)^{-1/4}$. The luminous parts of elliptical galaxies are observed to have mass-to-light ratios of $12 h M_\odot/L_\odot$$^{\bf\rm 26}$, so the perturbing galaxies have modest amounts of dark matter. However, we follow the evolution of individual harassed galaxies that have apo/peri ratios of 2 ([*i.e.*]{} apocenter at 600 kpc, pericenter at 300 kpc). As a result, this galaxy avoids extremes of the cluster distribution and starts with a large dark halo mass since its pericentric distance is not far from its guiding center. Both effects serve to underestimate the effects of harassment.
The changing morphologies of harassed galaxies
==============================================
In Figure 3, we follow the evolution of a harassed galaxy through its slightly eccentric orbit. At each phase, we compare with images of galaxies in clusters. Our initial conditions look like a normal spiral galaxy found in the field (Figure 3a). Typically, the first encounters create “disturbed barred spirals" with sharp and dramatic features drawn out from the dynamically cold disk (Figure 3b). Tails of material can be pulled out and distorted by the tidal field of the cluster (Figure 3c). The gas distribution often forms ring structures that tumble within the stellar bar (Figure 3d).
[**Figure 3: *Comparisons of synthetic images from our simulations with observations of harassed galaxies. In the simulated images, the stellar distribution is smoothed and filtered to model the resolution of the observations. The limiting brightness contours are about 27 magnitudes per square arcsecond. (a) The left panel shows the initial model galaxy viewed face and edge on. The size of each image is 40 kpc across. (b) The upper image shows a disturbed spiral galaxy taken from the Butcher-Oemler cluster CL1447. The lower image shows our model galaxy 150 million years after suffering a single strong encounter that has pulled the two tails of material from the disk. At this time, the perturbing galaxy has already moved over 200 kpc away. (c) The upper image is NGC 4438, a spiral galaxy near the center of the Virgo cluster (from Sandage and Bedke$^{\bf\rm 27}$). The close companion in this image is probably not responsible for the disturbance$^{\bf\rm 28}$. The lower image shows a snapshot of our model galaxy after a Gyr in the cluster. The tidal tails of material pulled from the galaxy have been subsequently tidally distorted. (d) The upper image is a spiral galaxy with a prominent ring in the distant rich cluster CL0939. The lower image shows the ring structure often observed in harassed galaxies. (e) Our model galaxy after 3 Gyrs of evolution. The stellar distribution shown here should be compared with the initial model shown in Figure 3a and with the dwarf elliptical galaxies shown in Figure 3f. (f) CCD images of dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Coma cluster. The pixel scale is roughly the same physical size as shown in Figures 3(a-e).*** ]{}
The evolution is driven by several close encounters that would drive the multiple starbursts inferred from HST data$^{\bf\rm 8}$. Another observational puzzle has been the ubiquity of disturbed galaxies with no sign of current interaction$^{\bf\rm 6}$. None of the images of our model galaxy has another cluster galaxy within 50 kpc. Over the course of 3 Gyr, the closest approach of another galaxy is more than 30 kpc away. Since the relative velocity of strong encounters is $\sim 1,500$ , and the velocity impulse internal to the galaxy is only $\lsim$50 , the perturbing galaxy moves $\sim 100$ kpc by the time the disk’s response is visible.
After several strong encounters, the loss of angular momentum to their own dark halos and the perturbing galaxies, combined with impulsive heating, leads to a prolate figure supported equally by random motions and rotation. The gas sinks to the very center of the galaxy and the stellar distribution is heated to the extent that it closely resembles a dwarf elliptical, although some retain very thick stellar disks and would be classed as dwarf lenticulars. At this stage in the evolution encounters cease to create sharp distortions and fail to remove any more material from the compact remnant.
The final stellar systems have a large degree of rotational support, surface density profiles and shapes that are in good agreement with observations. Figure 3e shows the stellar configuration after 3 Gyrs and can be compared with real images of dwarf elliptical galaxies taken from the Coma cluster (Figure 3f). Note that the final photometric axes of the model galaxy are tilted with respect to the initial plane of rotation of the disk.
Using our simulations, we can identify the present-day remnants of the disturbed spirals seen at $z \sim 0.4$. Below $L_*$, two distinct classes of elliptical galaxies are observed. Low luminosity Es with high central surface brightness are a rare extension to the sequence of bright ellipticals; the archetype is M32. The most numerous galaxies in clusters are in a second class of dwarf ellipticals, also known as dwarf spheroidals (dE/dSph). Their exponential surface brightness profiles resemble those of spirals, as does the correlation of their low central surface brightnesses with total luminosity. They are faint, at least 3 magnitudes below $L_*$ and as many as 14 magnitudes if one extrapolates to the faintest known galaxies in the Local Group, Draco and Ursa Minor$^{\bf\rm 29,30}$. Harassment transforms spirals into this latter class of galaxies.
The observed stellar populations of dE galaxies implies recent star formation activity that can easily be understood in our model as a result of recent encounters with cluster galaxies. Harassed Sd spiral galaxies undergo a remarkable transformation from one morphological class to another without any merging taking place. Their dynamical states can account for all of the dissimilarities between dwarf elliptical and normal elliptical galaxies. Harassment provides the link between the dominant populations of galaxies in clusters at $z
\sim 0.4 $ and the present-day.
Other effects of harassment: tidal debris and quasar fuel
=========================================================
Stellar and gaseous material torn from the disk during violent encounters creates debris tails that lead and follow the galaxy’s orbit through the cluster. At pericenter, the tidal debris creates a giant arc that could be mistaken for a gravitational arc when viewed face-on (Figure 4). However, the transverse size is slightly greater than a lensed galaxy and its redshift will match the cluster. The harassment of the debris tails should create tidal shocks that promote the formation of dwarf galaxies, as seen in observations and simulations of tails in merging galaxies$^{\bf\rm 31,32}$. Low surface brightness features punctuated with dwarf galaxy formation should be detectable in most HST images of $z \sim 0.4$ clusters.
Future observations of intra-cluster light coupled with simulations covering the large parameter space of orbits and luminosities will provide interesting constraints on our evolutionary scenario. Current observations are conflicting, anywhere from 0% to 30% of the total cluster luminosity could reside in a diffuse component$^{\bf\rm
33,34}$. In our cluster model, 20% of the light starts off in galaxies fainter than $L_*/5$. After 5 Gyrs, $\sim$20% of the stars are lost to the intra-cluster medium from our small Sd galaxies. The bulk of the evolution is driven by the few ($\lsim$ 5) strong encounters with galaxies brighter than $\sim L_*$. As a result, the evolution is chaotic: whereas one fragile disk galaxy can avoid strong encounters for a few Gyrs, another may be completely destroyed. The total quantity of stripped material can vary from a few percent, to rarer cases where the entire galaxy is disrupted after several strong encounters.
Recent HST images of quasars suggest that many quasar hosts are [*not*]{} galaxies as luminous as $L_*$ $^{\bf\rm 36}$. This is surprising as simple energy considerations imply that quasars need $10^8M_\odot -
10^9M_\odot$ to fuel the black hole engine. To be conservative, one would prefer models where no more than 10% of a galaxy’s gas must be channeled to the center. This argues for hosts at least as large as our own Milky Way, which has a few times $10^9M_\odot$ of gas. From 8 HST images of low redshifts quasars, Bahcall $^{\bf\rm 36}$ found that 5 of the host galaxies must be 0.5 to 1.5 magnitudes fainter than $L_*$. Spiral galaxies of this luminosity have gas masses of order $10^8M_\odot$, a quasar needs nearly all of it for fuel!
Galaxy harassment can give the quasar the fuel it needs. While 10% of the gas is tidally stripped from the galaxy, the remaining 90% of the gas ($\gsim 10^8M_\odot$) sinks to the inner few hundred parsecs—the resolution of our simulation—by rapidly losing angular momentum to the perturbing galaxies, dark halo and stellar bar.
Clearly, many quasars have luminous hosts$^{\bf\rm 36}$. Also, quasars are known to avoid rich clusters$^{\bf\rm 37}$, so how could they be harassed? Oddly, three of the five quasars with subluminous hosts found by Bahcall $^{\bf\rm 35}$ lie in clusters. A fourth is probably in a cluster and the environment of the fifth has not been studied. Harassed galaxies provide ideal hosts for quasars at intermediate redshifts known to lie in subluminous galaxies$^{\bf\rm
38}$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
Galaxies are metamorphised by their mutual interactions. “Merging" of spirals in groups creates bright ellipticals$^{\bf\rm 39}$. In a cluster, one of these “cannablises " its neighbors to become the giant central ellpitical$^{\bf\rm 40}$. The dwarf ellipticals are created by the harassment of low luminosity spirals. Harassment has the potential to change any internal property of a galaxy within a cluster including the gas distribution and content, the orbital distribution of stars and the overall shape. Our first examination has only touched on some of the most dramatic changes, the phenomenology of harassment promises to be even richer than that of merging and cannibalism.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} This research was funded by NASA through the LTSA, ATP and HPCC/ESS programs.
[**References**]{}
1\. Dressler A, Oemler A., Gunn J.E. & Butcher H. 1993, [*Astrophys.J. Lett.*]{}, [**404**]{}, L4-6.
2\. Dressler A. 1980, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**236**]{}, 351-65.
3\. Butcher H. & Oemler A. 1978, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**219**]{}, 18-33.
4\. Butcher H. & Oemler A. 1984, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**285**]{}, 426-38.
5\. Dressler A, Oemler A., Butcher H. & Gunn J.E. 1994a, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**430**]{}, 107-20.
6\. Dressler A, Oemler A., Sparks W.B. & Lucas R.A. 1994b, [*Astrophys.J.Lett.*]{}, [**435**]{}, L23-6.
7\. Couch W.J., Ellis R.S., Sharples R. & Smail I. 1994, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**430**]{}, 121-38.
8\. Barger, A. J., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Ellis, R. S., Couch, W. J., Smail, I. and Sharples, R. M. 1995, [*Mon.Not.R.Astr.Soc.*]{}, in press.
9\. Griffiths R.E. 1994, [*Astrophys.J.Lett.*]{}, [**435**]{}, L19-22.
10\. Schechter P. 1976, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**203**]{}, 297-306.
11\. Binggeli B., Tammann G.A. & Sandage A. 1987, [*Astron.J.*]{}, [**94**]{}, 251-77.
12\. Thomspon L.A.& Gregory S.A. 1993, [*Astron.J.*]{}, [**106**]{}, 2197-212.
13\. Kauffmann G. 1995, [*Mon.Not.R.astr.Soc.*]{}, [**274**]{}, 153-60.
14\. Icke V. 1985, [*Astron.Astrophys.*]{}, [**144**]{}, 115-23.
15\. Miller R.H. 1988, [*Comment. Astrophys.*]{}, [**13**]{}, 1-11.
16\. Dressler A. & Gunn J.E. 1983, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**270**]{}, 7-19.
17\. Evrard A.E. 1991, [*Mon.Not.R.astr.Soc.*]{}, [**248**]{}, 8p-10.
18\. Byrd, G. and Valtonen-M. 1990, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**350**]{}, 89-94.
19\. Valluri M. 1993, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**408**]{}, 57-70.
20\. Oemler, A., Dressler, A. and Butcher, H. R. 1995, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, submitted.
21\. Hernquist L. & Katz N. 1989, [*Astrophys.J.Supp.*]{}, [**70**]{}, 419-46.
22\. Tully R.B. & Fisher J.R. 1977, [*Astro.Ap.*]{}, [**54**]{}, 661.
23\. Faber S.M. & Jackson R.E. 1976, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**204**]{}, 668-83.
24\. Moore B., Katz N. & Lake G. 1995, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, in press.
25\. White S.D.M. & Rees M.J. 1978, [*Mon.Not.R.Astr.Soc.*]{}, [bf 183]{}, 341-58.
26\. van der Marel, R. P. 1991, [*Mon.Not.R.Astr.Soc.*]{}, [**253**]{}, 710-26.
27\. Sandage, A. and Bedke, J. 1994, [*The Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies*]{}, Carnegie Institute of Washington.
28\. Combes F., Dupraz C., Casoli F. & Pagani L. 1988, [*Astron.Astrophys.*]{}, [**203**]{}, L9-12.
29\. Kormendy, J. and Bender, R. 1995, in [*ESO/OHP Symposium on Dwarf Galaxies,*]{}, ed. G. Meylan and P. Prugniel, European Southern Observatory, in press.
30\. Ferguson H.C. & Binggeli B. 1994, [*Astronomy and Astrophysics Review*]{}, [**6**]{}, 67-122.
31\. Barnes J.E. & Hernquist L. 1992, [*Nature*]{}, [**360**]{}, 715-17.
32\. Mirabel I.F., Dottori H. & Lutz D. 1992, [*Astron.Astrophys.*]{}, [**256**]{}, L19-22.
33\. Gudehus D.H. 1989, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**340**]{}, 661-5.
34\. Tyson J.A. & Fischer P. 1995, [*Astrophys.J.Lett.*]{}, in press.
35\. Bahcall, J.N., Kirkhakos S. & Schneider D.P. 1994, [*Astrophys.J. Lett.*]{}, [**435**]{}, L11-14.
36\. Disney M.J. 1995, [*Nature*]{}, [**376**]{}, 150-3.
37\. French H.B. & Gunn J.E. 1983, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, [**269**]{}, 29-34.
38\. Lake G., Katz N. & Moore B. 1995, [*Astrophys.J.*]{}, in press.
39\. Toomre A. 1977, In [*The Evolution of Galaxies and Stellar Populations*]{}, ed. B.M. Tinsley & R.B. Larson, p. 401-17. Yale University Observatory.
40\. Ostriker J.P. & Hausman M.A. 1977, [*Astrophys.J.Lett.*]{}, [**217**]{}, L125-9.
[^1]: Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1580, USA
[^2]: Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pasadena, CA 91101-1292, USA
[^3]: Yale University Astronomy Department, New Haven, Ct 06511, USA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the nonlinear optical process of third-harmonic generation in the thus far unexplored regime of focusing the pump light from a full solid angle, where the nonlinear process is dominantly driven by a standing dipole-wave. We elucidate the influence of the focal volume and the pump intensity on the number of frequency-tripled photons by varying the solid angle from which the pump light is focused, finding good agreement between the experiments and numerical calculations. As a consequence of focusing the pump light to volumes much smaller than a wavelength cubed the Gouy phase does not limit the yield of frequency-converted photons. This is in stark contrast to the paraxial regime. We believe that our findings are generic to many other nonlinear optical processes when the pump light is focused from a full solid angle.'
author:
- Rojiar Penjweini
- Markus Weber
- Markus Sondermann
- 'Robert W. Boyd'
- Gerd Leuchs
title: 'Nonlinear optics with full three-dimensional illumination'
---
Introduction
============
The first multi-photon process was described by Göppert-Mayer when calculating the spontaneous decay of the $2s$ state of the hydrogen atom [@goeppert-mayer1931]. But it took until the invention of the laser and the first investigation of second-harmonic generation by *Franken* and coworkers in 1961[@franken1961] before the field of nonlinear optics took off. Since then most of the experiments have been performed in the paraxial regime with mildly focused Gaussian beams, cf. Fig. \[fig:1\]a. One can find only a few reports on experiments where the pump light driving the nonlinear process has been focused such that the paraxial approximation is not valid [@yew2003; @biss2003; @reichenbach2014; @horneber2015; @wang2016]. These investigations treated second-harmonic generation at an interface [@yew2003; @biss2003] or measured the nonlinear optical response of nano particles [@reichenbach2014; @horneber2015; @wang2016]. In a wider sense, also multi-photon-excitation microscopy [@zipfel2003] and stimulated-emission depletion microscopy (STED) [@westphal2005] can be considered as nonlinear optics under non-paraxial conditions when using microscope objectives with large enough numerical aperture (NA) as depicted in Fig. \[fig:1\]b. There is even one report on STED in a 4Pi-microscopy setup using two microscope objectives [@dyba2002focal], which however is still far away from full $4\pi$ solid angle focusing. Investigations in *isotropic* nonlinear media under clearly non-paraxial conditions are lacking.
Here, we investigate the nonlinear response under close to full-solid-angle focusing, when the transmitted beam interferes with the incoming beam to form a $4\pi$ standing wave (cf. Fig. \[fig:1\]c). Such a wave is a superposition of a converging (inward moving) and a diverging (outward moving) dipole wave [@basset1986; @cohen-tannoudji1989]. In this standing wave with a spherical phase front the wave vector of the pump naturally averages to zero, while the broad spread of wave vectors has implications on the phase matching of the nonlinear optical process, as we will discuss later. This is unlike the standing wave in a cavity, where the wave vectors are typically confined within a small cone. Furthermore, the focal volume within a standing dipole-wave is much smaller than a wavelength cubed [@bokor2008; @gonoskov2012]. This is a new experimental regime in which no nonlinear optics experiments have been conducted so far. We perform such an experiment in studying a paradigmatic process, third-harmonic generation (THG) in an isotropic homogeneous medium (argon gas).
![\[fig:1\] Illustration of different focusing regimes: (a) paraxial regime using low NA. (b) non-paraxial regime of focusing with high NA. (c) focusing from a full solid angle. Solid/dotted arrows represent the propagation direction of a wave coming toward/going out of the focus. In non-paraxial regimes (b) and (c), the vector properties of the field are important. The ros$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$ ellipse in the center indicates the size of the focal spot. Note that in (c) the spot is not spherical which is a result of the vector properties of the light, not shown in the diagrams. ](1-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
To focus the pump light from a full solid angle we use a parabolic mirror (PM) with a focal length much shorter than its depth. The PM is illuminated with a mode that after reflection off the PM surface resembles the radiation pattern of a linear electric dipole [@lindlein2007].
Under such conditions, several questions as posed below arise. In order to address these questions, we briefly recall some essential features of THG with Gaussian beams in the paraxial regime (see e.g. Ref. [@boyd2008nonlinear]): When the nonlinear medium is longer than twice the Rayleigh length of the Gaussian beam and the beam waist is located in the middle of the medium, the nonlinear polarization induced in the interaction region before the beam waist is 180 degree out of phase with the one generated in the diverging beam behind the beam waist due to the Gouy phase. Under conditions of nominal phase matching this results in destructive interference of the light fields generated in these two distinct half spaces. One can only compensate for the Gouy phase when choosing a nonlinear medium with a positive phase mismatch. Hence, in normally dispersive media such as noble gases driven far from resonance, where the phase mismatch is always negative, THG by four-wave mixing (FWM)
[^1] is not expected to occur (see e.g. section 2.10.3 in Ref. [@boyd2008nonlinear]). Thus, the generation of frequency-tripled photons can occur only as the result of higher-order processes, and accordingly the observed power dependence is not of third order (see e.g. Refs. [@ganeev2006; @ganeev2000; @marcus1999; @malcuit1990; @lhuillier1988; @ganeev1986; @vaicaitis2009; @vaicaitis2013]).
When focusing from a full solid angle with a dipole-like radiation pattern, the full width at half maximum of the spatial intensity distribution in the focus is on the order of the wavelength of the pump light or smaller. Consequently, the field amplitude of the pump light varies from practically zero to its maximum value within a wavelength and strictly violates the slowly-varying-amplitude approximation that is inherent to the paraxial approximation. Phase matching in the paraxial regime is equivalent to velocity matching such that the phase relation between pump, signal and idler is preserved. In the regime with light propagating in all directions this concept no longer makes sense. It will even turn out that over the relevant length scale of the focal pump field distribution the phase of the pump varies so weakly that it practically can be neglected.
Therefore, one can ask the general questions: “What determines the efficiency of the nonlinear coupling in this extreme case?”, “Which predictions of the paraxial approximation are still valid in the regime of extreme focusing” and “If one observes THG under this experimental condition, how will the third-harmonic signal scale with pump power and with the solid angle used for focusing?”
In this paper, we give answers to these questions. In Sec. \[sec:exp\] we describe our experimental apparatus and present the experimental results. As we will show, one indeed observes the generation of frequency-tripled photons when focusing from a large fraction of the full solid angle. Based on our observations, we identify six-wave mixing (SWM) as the underlying process, somewhat resembling other experiments in the paraxial regime [@ganeev2000; @vaicaitis2009; @vaicaitis2013]. Guided by this finding we compare our experimental observations to numerical simulations. In the last section, we discuss our results and draw some further conclusions.
Experiment {#sec:exp}
==========
Experimental setup
------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:2\] shows a simplified scheme of our experimental setup. A pulsed Nd:YAG laser is used as the light source for the fundamental beam. This laser has a wavelength of 1064nm, a pulse duration of 2ns, a repetition rate of 50Hz and a pulse energy of up to 1mJ. The beam power is adjusted by means of a half-wave-plate and a polarizing beam-splitter. The pump beam is transformed to a radially polarized doughnut beam by passing the fundamental Gaussian beam through a liquid-crystal polarization-converter (ARCoptix, RADPOL). Unwanted modes present in the beam leaving the polarization-converter are rejected by means of a spatial filter. Fig. \[fig:2\]b shows the intensity distribution and the orientation-angle of the local polarization vector of the resulting beam, both determined by a spatially resolved measurement of the Stokes parameters [@schaefer2007]. This mode has an overlap with the optimum mode for generating a linear dipole-wave in excess of 90%.
The pump beam is aligned to the PM by using two mirrors such that the beam propagates along the optical axis of the PM. The PM is made of aluminum and manufactured by single-point precision diamond-turning (Kugler GmbH, Germany). The focal length is $f=2.1\,\text{mm}$ and the diameter of the exit PM’s pupil is 20mm. In addition, the PM exhibits a bore hole of 1.5mm diameter at its vertex. The PM is placed inside a vacuum chamber which is first evacuated to the order of $10^{-2}$mbar and then filled with argon gas. The PM exhibits deviations from a perfect parabolic shape, introducing significant aberrations. The aberrations are characterized by interferometric measurements [@leuchs2008]. Based on the results of these measurements, a compensation mirror (CM) was manufactured which nominally imprints a wavefront modulation onto the incident beam that is conjugate to the one imprinted by the aberrations of the PM. The actual wavefront imprinted by the CM is also determined by interferometry. The CM serves as one of the alignment mirrors mentioned above (cf. Fig. \[fig:2\]a). In order to avoid changes to the imprinted wavefront occurring upon propagation, the electric field distribution emerging from the CM is imaged 1:1 onto the entrance aperture of the PM by means of a telescope.
We have assessed the impact of the PM’s aberrations and the degree of aberration compensation by the CM by simulating the focal intensity distribution for various cases exploiting all available interferometric data; see Fig.\[fig:2\]c. In comparison to an aberration-free mirror, the PM alone exhibits a Strehl ratio of only 19%, i.e., the maximum intensity in the focal region is about five times below that observed for diffraction-limited focusing. However, the simulations predict that by using the CM the Strehl ratio can be improved to 79%. This imperfect compensation is due to the fact that the CM does not apply exactly the targeted phase distribution.
In the experiments presented below, we investigate the generation of TH photons using different solid angles for focusing. This variation is achieved by aperturing the pump beam with an iris of adjustable size. The iris is positioned close to the CM and is thus likewise imaged onto the PM aperture with the same telescope that is used for imaging the CM. By using the relation $\tan{\vartheta/2}=r/2f$ [@lindlein2007] one can compute the effective half-opening angle $\vartheta$ for a given iris radius $r$. $\vartheta$ is then used for calculating the solid angle used for focusing.
Because a strongly focused, radially polarized doughnut beam produces an electric field distribution that closely resembles that of a linear dipole oscillating along the optical axis of the focusing device [@quabis2000], here we define the solid angle as the one obtained when weighted with the angular intensity emission pattern of a linear dipole: $\Omega=2\pi\int_{\vartheta_{min}}^{\vartheta_{max}}
\sin^{2}\vartheta \cdot \sin \vartheta d\vartheta$. Using this definition, $\Omega$ has an upper limit of $\frac{8\pi}{3}$ when $\vartheta_{min}=0$ and $\vartheta_{max}=\pi$ [@sondermann2008]. The specific geometry of our PM corresponds to $\vartheta_{min}$= 20$^{\circ}$ and $\vartheta_{max}\cong$134$^{\circ}$. Therefore, the maximum weighted solid angle covered by our PM is $0.94\times
\frac{8\pi}{3}$.
Frequency-tripled photons generated in the focal region are collimated by the PM and afterwards reflected by a dichroic mirror (DM). The same DM directs a small fraction of the incident pump pulses onto a photodiode (PD). The PD signal serves as a trigger for detecting the frequency-tripled beam. To suppress any remaining pump light in the detection path for the frequency-tripled photons, a grating (G) separates this light from the frequency-tripled beam. The pump beam is finally dumped at a beam block (BB). The frequency-tripled beam is detected by a photomultiplier tube (PMT, Hamamatsu R11540) after passing through a 355nm laser line filter and neutral density (ND) filters. The PMT cannot distinguish between pulses with different photon numbers. It rather responds nonlinearly to pulses with more than one photon. Therefore, the ND filters are chosen such that they attenuate the frequency-tripled beam to an average photon number per pulse smaller than unity. In all experiments, the detected average photon-number per pulse is obtained from a series of about 2500-3000 laser pulses focused by the PM. Accounting for the attenuation factors of the used ND filters and other optical losses (in total $0.17\%$), we finally calculate the average number of frequency-tripled photons generated in the focal region of the PM.
Experimental results {#subsec:experimental result}
--------------------
At first, we check whether the generation of frequency-tripled photons under strongly non-paraxial conditions is observed at all. We monitor the number of photons detected at a wavelength of 355nm while varying the diameter of the iris limiting the beam size from 7mm to 20mm. These diameters correspond to solid angles $36\%\le\Omega/(8\pi/3)\le94\%$. The smallest solid angle investigated here corresponds to a half-opening angle of 80$^\circ$ or a NA of 0.98, respectively. Hence, all measurements are carried out under strongly non-paraxial conditions. For each iris diameter, the laser power is adjusted such that the power transmitted through the iris is the same.
![\[fig:3\] Number of generated frequency-tripled photons versus the solid angle subtended by the pump beam. Red points show the experimental results for a pressure of 668mbar and a fixed pump pulse energy of 114$\mu$J. The dash-dotted blue line shows the result of a simulation when using the nonlinear susceptibility $\chi^{(5)}$ as a fit parameter (cf. Sec. \[sec:sim\] for simulation details).](3-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
As is evident from Fig. \[fig:3\], we indeed observe the generation of frequency-tripled photons. As one increases the solid angle used for focusing, one observes a higher yield of frequency-tripled photons. The number of frequency-tripled photons per pulse is affected by an interplay between the focal intensity and the focal volume as the main nonlinear interaction region, as discussed below. To investigate the generation of frequency-tripled photons in more detail and to unveil the mechanism of the frequency conversion, we measure the number of generated photons as a function of the peak power of the fundamental beam. Fig. \[fig:4\] shows the results for two cases of focusing from $55\%$ and from $94\%$ of the full solid angle. A linear fit to the data in a double-logarithmic representation produces a line with a slope of approximately 5 in both cases. Thus, the number of the generated frequency-tripled photons scales with the fifth power of the optical power of the fundamental beam.
![\[fig:4\] Frequency-tripled photon generation vs. power of the fundamental beam at a pressure of 657mbar for two different solid angles: $55\%$ (red stars) and $94\%$ (blue circles) of full solid angle. The data is presented in double logarithmic scale (symbols). The error bars are obtained from the Poisson statistics of the detected photons. The line denotes the result of fitting a linear function to the data.](4-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="7.5"}
This result answers one of the questions posed above: Under strongly non-paraxial conditions, frequency-tripled photons are not generated by a simple FWM process. In the paraxial regime, dependences of the frequency-tripled photon number on the pump power with orders ranging from 3.5 to 5 have been reported [@ganeev2006; @ganeev2000; @marcus1999; @malcuit1990; @lhuillier1988; @ganeev1986; @vaicaitis2009; @vaicaitis2013]. Possible explanations for this fifth-order dependence include a SWM process [@ganeev2000; @vaicaitis2009; @vaicaitis2013] and FWM with phase matching achieved by by a Kerr effect [@ganeev1986; @malcuit1990; @ganeev2006]. However, our investigations exclude THG by FWM with phase matching enabled by the Kerr effect. As explained in detail in Appendix \[sec:Kerr\], this conclusion results from the fact that for argon gas and the pump beam powers used in our experiment a positive phase mismatch cannot be achieved via the Kerr effect.
Therefore, as done elsewhere for several experiments in the paraxial regime [@ganeev2000; @vaicaitis2009; @vaicaitis2013], we attribute the generation of frequency-tripled photons in our experiments to SWM: The argon atoms absorb four photons at frequency $\omega$ and emit two photons, one of them with frequency $\omega$ and the other one with frequency $3\omega$. Unlike for THG with focused light, frequency-tripled generation through SWM is possible for both positive and negative phase mismatch [@kutzner1998]. In either case, in SWM one can compensate for the phase mismatch by suitable off-axis wave vectors (see also Ref. [@vaicaitis2009]). When focusing from large fractions of the solid angle, a broad spread of such wave vectors is readily provided.
Having identified the dependence of the THG on pump power, we now discuss the dependence of THG on solid angle in more detail: The intensity in the focus of the PM is proportional to the solid angle $\Omega$ [@sondermann2008]. Therefore, for a SWM process as found here one would expect the TH signal to scale with $\Omega^5$. However, the experimental data underlying Fig. \[fig:3\] reveal a slightly weaker dependence ($\Omega^4$). This dependence results from the fact that with increasing solid angle the focal volume decreases (see simulations in Fig. \[fig:7\] of App. \[sec:sim\]). The decrease of focal volume is weaker than the increase of the peak intensity in the focal region, resulting in the observed increase of TH photons when focusing from a larger solid angle.
Building upon these arguments, we simulate frequency-tripled photon generation, modeling the response of the medium with a fifth-order susceptibility. The detail of our theoretical simulation is explained in App. \[sec:sim\].
In Fig. \[fig:3\] we directly compare the simulation results to the experimental data. To within the experimental uncertainties we find a good qualitative agreement between simulation and experiment. By fitting the simulation results to the experiment we obtain $\chi^{(5)}=1.53^{+0.21}_{-0.18}\times10^{-48}\,(\text{m/V})^4/\text{bar}$ as the only fit parameter. This value is of the same order of magnitude as the value reported for the case of fifth harmonic generation in Ref. [@li1989] and therefore appears to be reasonable. The main uncertainty of the fitting procedure is given by the accuracy of the pump power measurements, which is about 5%. Furthermore, in implementing our model numerically we made several approximations, cf. App. \[sec:prop\], which might influence the uncertainty of the value obtained for $\chi^{(5)}$. Nevertheless, we conclude that our model yields a good agreement with the experimental results.
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:discuss}
==========================
In the introduction of this paper we have raised several questions on potential differences between harmonic generation in the paraxial regime and when focusing the pump light from full solid angle.
Indeed, also in the latter case one observes the generation of frequency-tripled photons in an isotropic medium with normal dispersion. As in the paraxial regime, one does not observe a third-order dependence of the frequency-converted photons on pump power as expected for a FWM process. Rather, we have found a fifth-order dependence which hints at SWM as the underlying process.
What is the origin of the suppression of the FWM contribution to THG when focusing from a full solid angle? The tempting answer might be that the Gouy phase has the same detrimental effects as in the paraxial regime. And indeed, the standing spherical waves that are generated by focusing from a full solid angle exhibit the Gouy phase, i.e. a phase shift relative to a running spherical wave that emerges from the focus [@tyc2012]. But being defined in such a way, the Gouy phase does not reflect the total phase at a certain position in the focal region. As our simulations reveal, the spatial variation of the phase of the pump field in the relevant focal region is not strong enough to result in a complete suppression of a FWM signal. As shown in Fig. \[fig:5\], the intensity distribution of the pump light decays more quickly towards zero than the phase of the pump field changes by $\pi/2$. This is clearly different from what is found for a focused Gaussian beam in the paraxial regime, for which a phase distribution as the one displayed in Fig. \[fig:5\] can only be found when choosing an unphysical beam waist. The latter would correspond to a lateral width-at-half-maximum that is smaller than the minimal one obtainable in free space [@gonoskov2012].
![\[fig:5\] Theoretical on-axis intensity (solid line) and phase distribution (dashed line) of the pump light on the optical axis of the PM when focusing with the complete PM covering $94\%$ of the full solid angle without any aberrations.](5-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
Another possible reason for the suppression of FWM is found when discussing wave vector diagrams (e.g. Refs. [@vaicaitis2009; @boyd2008nonlinear]): For a FWM process in a normally dispersive medium, there is no combination of three wave vectors of the fundamental beam that results in a wave vector of the TH light. The wave vector mismatch is smallest for collinear wave vectors. In the experiment performed here, the strong focusing of the fundamental beam induces a large spread of the directions of the corresponding wave vectors. This large spread results in larger wave vector mismatches than in the paraxial regime. Hence the FWM process is suppressed even more strongly. Contrarily, for the SWM process focusing from full solid angle provides many possible combinations in which five wave vectors of the fundamental beam can be matched to a wave vector of the TH light. We thus conclude that SWM is the lowest-order process that can generate frequency-tripled photons in the case of very tight focusing.
Although we investigated the influence of full-solid-angle focusing on a specific nonlinear optical process, our findings – especially the ones about the role of the Gouy phase – are valid for all nonlinear optical processes, in particular to those of higher order. Furthermore, collecting the generated photons over a full solid angle minimizes losses and facilitates the investigation of the spatial properties of many phenomena in nonlinear optics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank K.Mantel for the characterization of the compensation mirror and M.Bader for discussions. GL acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council (ERC) via the Advanced Grant ’PACART’. RWB acknowledges support through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chairs program.
[35]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/andp.19314010303) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.7.118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.optcom.2007.03.065) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.28.000923) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nbt899) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.143903) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.86.053836) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1134/S1054660X07070055) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
DOI:10.1119/1.2386162) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.39.5751) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.37.000924) @noop [“,” ]{} (), @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) in @noop [**]{}, Vol. (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1186/s41476-017-0043-y),
Influence of four-wave mixing and Kerr effect {#sec:Kerr}
=============================================
It is well known that THG by FWM with light focused such that the beam waist lies in the middle of the interaction region is possible only if the phase mismatch, $\Delta k=3k_{1}-k_{3}$, is positive [@boyd2008nonlinear]. Here, $k_{1}$ is the wave number of the fundamental beam and $k_{3}$ is the wave number of the TH beam. In normal dispersive media (such as argon driven by 1064nm light), with increasing frequency the refractive index increases and $\Delta
k=\frac{6\pi}{\lambda_{1}}(n^{(0)}_{1}-n^{(0)}_{3})$ is negative, where $\lambda_{1}$ is the wavelength of the fundamental beam and $n^{(0)}_{1}$ and $n^{(0)}_{3}$ are the linear refractive indices for the fundamental beam and TH beam, respectively. Thus, THG by FWM is not possible in the normal dispersive media.
If THG is influenced by the Kerr effect, the phase mismatch will become a function of intensity and nonlinear refractive indices as $$\Delta k_{\text{Kerr}}=\frac{6\pi}{\lambda_{1}}
[(n^{(0)}_{1}-n^{(0)}_{3})+(n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3})I] \, ,
\label{eq:nonlineardeltak}$$ with $n^{(2)}_{1}$ and $n^{(2)}_{3}$ denoting the *nonlinear* refractive indices for fundamental and TH beam. $I$ is the intensity of the fundamental beam. The nonlinear refractive index for a single intense fundamental beam with angular frequency $\omega$ is given by [@boyd2008nonlinear] $$n^{(2)}_{1}=\frac{3}{4(n^{(0)}_{1})^{2}\epsilon _{0} c_{0}}
\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega=\omega+\omega-\omega)$} \, ,
\label{eq:n21}$$ where $\epsilon _{0}$ is the vacuum permittivity, $c_{0}$ is the speed of light in vacuum and $\chi^{(3)}$ is the third-order nonlinear susceptibility. The nonlinear refractive index for a weak frequency-tripled beam with angular frequency $\omega'=3\omega$ in a medium influenced by an intense fundamental beam with angular frequency $\omega$ is [@boyd2008nonlinear] $$n^{(2)}_{3}=\frac{3}{2(n^{(0)}_{3})^{2}\epsilon _{0} c_{0}}
\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega'=\omega'+\omega-\omega)$} \, .
\label{eq:n23}$$
Since the detuning of the pump as well as of the TH wave with respect to the lowest excited state of argon has the same sign, $\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega=\omega+\omega-\omega)$} $ and $\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega'=\omega'+\omega-\omega)$}$ have the same sign, too. Obviously, then the same holds true for $n^{(2)}_{1}$ and $n^{(2)}_{3}$.
From Eq.(\[eq:n21\]) and Eq.(\[eq:n23\]) we conclude that
& n\^[(2)]{}\_[1]{}-n\^[(2)]{}\_[3]{} =\
& ( -) . \[eq:dn2\]
According to Eq.(\[eq:nonlineardeltak\]), to get a positive $\Delta k_{\text{Kerr}}$ and hence the possibility of THG for focused light, two conditions should be fulfilled. The first condition is $$\label{eq:cond1}
n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3} > 0$$ and the second condition reads $$\label{eq:cond2}
|(n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3})I|>|(n^{(0)}_{1}-n^{(0)}_{3})| \, .$$
We cannot check the first condition quantitatively, because, to the best of our knowledge, the value of $\chi^
{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega'=\omega' + \omega - \omega)$}$ for a strong beam at 1064nm and a weak beam at 355nm has not been reported. If $\chi ^ {(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega=\omega + \omega -
\omega)$}$ is sufficiently smaller than $2\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega'=\omega' + \omega - \omega)$}$ such that the first condition is not fulfilled, then THG by FWM will not be possible. However, assuming that $\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega=\omega+\omega-\omega)$}$ is greater than $2\chi^{(3)}\scalebox{0.85}{$(\omega'=\omega' + \omega -
\omega)$}$ and knowing that $n_{3}^{(0)}>n_{1}^{(0)}$, the first condition given by Eq. \[eq:cond1\] is fulfilled. With this assumption, we check the second condition, setting $n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3} \cong n^{(2)}_{1}$ which is the case at which the intensity $I$ needed to achieve the condition given by Eq. \[eq:cond2\] is minimum.
Considering the linear refractive indices of argon at 1064nm and 355nm [@rii], we calculate $n^{(0)}_{1}-n^{(0)}_{3}\cong-2.6\times 10^{-5}$. For the fundamental beam at 1064nm, the third-order nonlinear susceptibility of argon gas is $\chi ^ {(3)}=7.8\times
10^{-27}\,(\text{m}^2/\text{V}^2)/\text{bar}$ [@li1989]. The maximum intensity which we reach just before the breakdown threshold in argon gas is about $3.5\times 10^{13}\,\text{W}/\text{cm}^2$. Our experimental measurements are always done below the breakdown threshold. Setting $I$ to the intensity at the breakdown threshold and using Eq.(\[eq:n21\]) to calculate the nonlinear refractive index, we conclude that $|(n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3})I| \cong
|n^{(2)}_{1}I|=7.7\times 10^{-7}$ which is more than an order of magnitude smaller than $|(n^{(0)}_{1}-n^{(0)}_{3})|$. The difference would be even more pronounced when $n^{(2)}_{1} \approx n^{(2)}_{3}$, since then $|(n^{(2)}_{1}-n^{(2)}_{3})I|$ would be even smaller. Therefore, even assuming most favorable conditions Eq. \[eq:cond2\] cannot be fulfilled. Thus we conclude that the generation of frequency-tripled photons in our experiment is not the result of THG by FWM, even when phase matching is influenced by the Kerr effect.
Theoretical considerations {#sec:sim}
==========================
In what follows, we model the generation of frequency-tripled photons in the focus of a parabolic mirror.
The electric field of the incident focused beam induces a nonlinear polarization in the focal region of the PM. The contribution of the nonlinear polarization relevant for generating frequency-tripled photons is $\textbf{P}_{3\omega}$. In section \[subsec:experimental result\] we have argued that SWM is the responsible process for the generation of photons with frequency $3\omega$. Hence, we write
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\textbf{P}_{3\omega}&=\textbf{P}^{(5)}\\ &=5 \epsilon_{0} \chi^{(5)}
\scalebox{.85}{$(3 \omega=\omega+\omega+\omega+\omega-\omega)$}
\textbf{E}^4(\textbf{r})\textbf{E}^{*}(\textbf{r}) ,
\label{eq:p5}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
where the factor 5 is the degeneracy factor, $\chi^{(5)}$ is the fifth-order nonlinear susceptibility and $\textbf{E}(\textbf{r})$ is the electric field of the focused fundamental beam. $\textbf{r}=0$ is the position of the geometrical focus of the PM.
Because $\textbf{P}_{3\omega}$ is a dipole-moment density, the dipole moment oscillating at $3\omega$ that is induced in a volume element $V_i$ is given by $$\boldsymbol\mu_{3\omega,i}=\int_{V_i}\textbf{P}_{3\omega}
d^3\textbf{r}\, .
\label{eq:mu&p}$$ In our simulations we associate $V_i$ with the volume of a unit cell of the simulation grid. The light emitted by each dipole is collected by the parabolic mirror and propagates towards the detector. The detected signal is given by the interference of all these fields, with the amplitude of the field emerging from $V_i$ being proportional to $\mu_{3\omega,i}$. We anticipate this interference process by introducing an effective dipole moment $$\label{eq:M3omega}
M_{3\omega}=\sum_i \gamma_i\cdot \mu_{3\omega,i}$$ where the $\gamma_i$ are real weighting factors that account for the projection onto a detection mode (see App. \[sec:prop\] for a discussion on the influence of the spatial separation of the dipole moments $\mu_{3\omega,i}$ onto the overall signal).
The total power that is radiated at frequency $3\omega$ by the dipole moment $M_{3\omega}$ amounts to [@jackson1999 Eq. 9.24] $$W_{3\omega}=\frac{(3\omega)^4}{12 \pi \epsilon_{0}
c_{0}^3}|M_{3\omega}|^2\, .
\label{eq:jackson}$$ The medium is excited with pulses of Gaussian envelope of FWHM $\tau$. Accounting for the observed 5$^\text{th}$-order dependence of the THG photons on excitation power, the duration of the THG pulse is $\tau/\sqrt{5}$. Therefore, the number of frequency-tripled photons per pulse becomes $$N_{3\omega}=\frac{W_{3\omega}\tau}{3\sqrt{5}\hbar\omega}\, ,
\label{eq:N3}$$ where $3\hbar\omega$ is the energy of a frequency-tripled photon. Combining Eqs. (\[eq:mu&p\]) to (\[eq:N3\]) we arrive at $$N_{3\omega}=\frac{225 \epsilon_0 \omega^3 \tau
\chi^{(5)^{2}}}{4\sqrt{5}\pi\hbar c_{0}^3} \left| \sum_i
\gamma_i\int_{V_i}\textbf{E}^4(\textbf{r}) \textbf{E}^*(\textbf{r})
d^3\textbf{r}\right|^2 \, .
\label{eq:N3swm}$$
The complex electric field $\textbf{E}(\textbf{r})$ in the focal region of the PM is calculated by using the Debye integral method [@richards1959]. By integrating over complex fields we explicitly account for the spatial variation of the phase of $\textbf{P}_{3\omega}$. In our calculations we take into account the measured aberrations of our PM, the measured phase-front induced by the CM as well as the field distribution of the radially polarized doughnut mode. All aberrations are modeled as relative phases of the electric field distribution incident onto the PM. The pulse energy and duration are the same as in the experiment underlying Fig. \[fig:3\].
For the nonlinear susceptibility $\chi^{(5)}$ there is – to the best of our knowledge – no value reported in literature that was obtained in a comparable experimental setting, i.e. the generation of the TH of 1064nm light by SWM. Ref. [@li1989] reports $\chi^{(5)}$ for generating the fifth harmonic of 1064nm light, whereas some $\chi^{(5)}$ values have been determined for SWM processes involving (deep) ultraviolet light, see Ref. [@kutzner1998] and references therein. Therefore, we here use $\chi^{(5)}$ as a fit parameter with which we quantitatively match the outcome of the simulations to the experimental results.
Fig. \[fig:6\] shows the result of simulating the generation of frequency-tripled photons as a function of the solid angle used for focusing. We consider three cases, as shown in Fig \[fig:6\].
![\[fig:6\] Simulated frequency-tripled photon number vs solid angle used for focusing. The dotted line is for the case of using our PM without correcting for its aberrations. The dash-dotted line is for the case of employing a CM in our setup, which compensates the aberrations of our PM up to a Strehl ratio of 79%. The solid line is for the case of an ideal PM without any aberrations. The dashed line denotes a curve $\propto\Omega^5$ for comparison. The absolute values of frequency tripled photons per pulse were obtained by fitting the case with CM to the experimental data. ](6-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="7cm"}
In the first case, we model a PM without any aberrations, i.e. at the diffraction limit. The number of photons at frequency $3\omega$ grows monotonically with increasing solid angle. This result can intuitively be understood from the fact that the focal intensity of the pump beam scales linearly with the solid angle $\Omega$ [@sondermann2008]. One would thus expect the conversion efficiency of an $N$-th order process to scale with solid angle as $\Omega^N$. However, our simulation results do not show this $\Omega^5$ dependence. We attribute this different result to the complicated spatial distribution of $\textbf{E}(\textbf{r})$ in the focal region: for increasing solid angle, the maximum intensity of the pump field in the focal region grows with $\Omega$. However, the focal volume shrinks when increasing the solid angle (see simulations in Fig. \[fig:7\]). Also the spatial distribution of the phase of $\textbf{E}(\textbf{r})$ changes upon varying $\Omega$. All these effects result in the behavior observed in the simulation.
{width="14"}
As a second case, we model the PM used in the experiments without any aberration compensation, the number of generated frequency-tripled photons is very low at each investigated solid angle, cf. Fig. \[fig:6\]. The maximum of $\sim0.5$ photons per pulse occurs at a solid angle of $\Omega=0.57\cdot8\pi/3$. That is, the steady increase of the photon number for increasing $\Omega$ is no longer observed. The latter observation can be explained by the spatial distribution of the aberrations over the surface of the PM. Similar effects are also observed for other parabolic mirrors [@alber2017]. Such aberrations appear to be typical for deep parabolic mirrors, and seem to represent the current state of the art.
Finally, as a third case we calculate the number of frequency-tripled photons for the case of compensating the aberrations of the PM with a CM, cf. Sec. \[sec:exp\]. This case is used to fit the simulations to the experimental results with $\chi^{(5)}$ as the only fit parameter. The simulation yields a steady increase of the photon number with increasing solid angle. Despite some saturation behavior at solid angle fractions beyond 90%, the results for the combination PM+CM shows *qualitative* similarities with the diffraction-limited case. However, the absolute photon numbers are considerably smaller than in the diffraction limited case. This latter observation is readily explained by the still non-optimum aberration compensation, which is expressed through a Strehl ratio of 79%. In the case of a nonlinear optical process as investigated here, the influence of a non-unit Strehl ratio should exponentiate to the order of the nonlinear process. For the largest solid angle used for focusing and for a fifth-order process, the simulation results approximately exhibit this behavior.
Collecting third-harmonic signals from spatially separated dipoles {#sec:prop}
==================================================================
In typical nonlinear optics experiments the light generated in a wave-mixing process is collected from an extended spatial region. This necessitates the account of the relative phases of the electric fields generated at different positions when calculating the total power that is generated in the nonlinear process. There are two contributions to the relative phases. One stems from the relative phase of the local pump field, which determines the phase of the nonlinear polarization. This contribution is directly included in our simulations, cf. Eq. \[eq:N3swm\]. The second contribution is determined by the optical path-length difference (OPD) from the different source dipoles in the nonlinear medium to the point of detection. We now discuss how to account for this contribution in our particular scenario.
Whereas the OPD is readily defined in an experiment in which the detection occurs only under a small solid angle, the situation is more complicated when collecting light over the full solid angle. For two sources separated by a distance $d$ the OPD to a point of observation lying on a circle with radius $\gg d$ is given by $$\label{eq:OPD}
\text{OPD}=d\cdot\cos\vartheta$$ with $\vartheta$ the angle to some reference direction. Thus, there is no unique OPD that is valid along all of the directions defined by the wave vectors of the dipolar emission of two separated sources. Moreover, the OPD is zero when averaging over $\vartheta$.
However, when collecting light over the entire solid angle with a deep PM as in this work, the position of the light source determines the phase front of the mode that is reflected off the parabolic surface. These phase fronts can be expressed in terms of misalignment functionals, which in general have to be calculated numerically by ray tracing [@leuchs2008]. For the experimental scenario treated here, we can make some simplifying assumptions that lead to analytic expressions.
First, the focused pump field is predominantly polarized parallel to the optical axis of the PM. Thus the nonlinear polarization and consequently all induced dipole moments oscillating at $3\omega$ are oriented along this direction. Since the extent of the focus is on the order of a wavelength or even smaller, we assume that the intensity distribution of the emission of all these dipoles is the same as the one for a dipole located at the geometric focus of the mirror. After collimation by the PM and ignoring an overall amplitude factor this intensity distribution reads [@lindlein2007] $$\label{eq:intDipole}
I(r)\propto\frac{(r/f)^2}{[(r/f)^2/4+1]^4}$$ with $f$ the PM focal length and $r$ the distance of a point in the aperture plane of the PM to the optical axis.
Second, the simulations of the focal intensity distribution of the pump light (cf. Sec. \[sec:sim\]) reveal that the electric field $\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r})$ is effectively concentrated in a narrow region along the optical axis of the PM. Since we observe that the generation of frequency-tripled photons is proportional to the fifth order of the pump power, we examine the distribution of $|\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r})|^{10}$. We find that the half-width at half-maximum of this distribution in lateral direction is about $0.1\lambda_1$ for using the full mirror. In the axial direction the width is slightly larger. For somewhat smaller solid angles, as was the case in our measurements, the focal field distribution elongates along the optical axis while the lateral extent is practically constant. We therefore infer that the phase fronts of the TH light collected by the PM are mainly influenced by the axial position of the emitters and that phase front distortions due to lateral displacements can be neglected. Identifying $\vartheta$ in Eq. \[eq:OPD\] with the emission angle of the dipole radiation pattern, the optical path-length difference of the emission from a dipole after collimation by the PM can be written as $$\label{eq:front}
\text{OPD}_i(r)=z_i ~ \frac{1-(r/2f)^2}{1+(r/2f)^2}\quad ,$$ where $z_i$ is the axial displacement of the induced dipole $\mu_{3\omega,i}$ from the PM focus.
For calculating the interference of the fields emitted by all dipoles $\mu_{3\omega,i}$ in the focal region, we project each field distribution on a detection mode. We take the detection mode to be the field distribution that is emitted by the largest dipole moment. This dipole is located where the amplitude of the pump field is maximum, the corresponding axial coordinate is $z_\text{max}$. Then, the overlap of the emission from dipole $\mu_{3\omega,i}$ with the detection mode reads $$\label{eq:gammai}
\gamma_i=\frac{\int I(r)\cdot\cos\left( \frac{6\pi}{\lambda_1}
(z_i-z_\text{max})\frac{1-(r/2f)^2}{1+(r/2f)^2} \right)\,rdr}
{\int I(r)\,rdr}\quad,$$ with the integration performed over the entire aperture of the PM. This is the factor $\gamma_i$ employed in the calculation of the number of frequency-tripled photons in Eq. \[eq:N3swm\] in the main part.
[^1]: By THG through FWM, we mean the process\
$\omega + \omega + \omega \longrightarrow 3
\omega$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, a two-dimensional cylindrical Lens antenna based on the parallel plate technique is designed. It supports beam-steering capability of $58^0$ at 28 GHz. The antenna is composed of low loss rectangular waveguide antennas, which are positioned around a homogeneous cylindrical Teflon lens in the air region of two conducting parallel plates. The Beam scanning can be achieved by switching between the antenna elements. The main advantages of our design include its relative simplicity, ease of fabrication, and high-power handling capability. Compared to previous works including a curvature optimization for the plate separation of the parallel plates, the proposed antenna has a constant distance between plates. At the 28 GHz, the maximum simulated gain value is about 19 dB. Furthermore, the designed antenna only deviates about 0.4 dB over the $58^0$ scan range.'
author:
-
title: 'Waveguide-Fed Lens Based Beam-Steering Antenna For 5G Wireless Communications '
---
Rectangular waveguide, lunberg lens, mm-wave, beamsteering, fan beam.
Introduction
============
Millimeter-wave antenna design is considered as the first step for realizing mm-wave wireless communication systems. Design requirements for such antennas include highly directional patterns. Based on this demand, Luneburg lens (LL) antenna is an attractive choice at next generation wireless communications (5G) systems to create high gain directional radiation patterns [@citation1; @citation2]. Recently, several works of two-dimensional parallel plates waveguide (PPW) designs with fan beam scanning capability have been a subject of extensive research [@citation4; @citation5]. In this letter, a simple structure of PPW inspired multibeam antenna is demonstrated. In contrast to previous works used planar microstrip feeds, we are using metallic waveguides which have low loss, compact and slim features to fit between plates. Furthermore, the two parallel plates are separated by a constant distance. However, in previous PPW antennas the distance between the two parallel plates varies along with the plate’s length, forming a non-linear curvature.
![Geometry of the waveguide-fed cylindrical dielectric lens (${R_o}/{\lambda_0}$ = 4.6, ${R_p}/{\lambda_0}$ = 3.7, ${h}/{\lambda_0}$ = 0.54).[]{data-label="fig:view"}](view.pdf){width="85mm"}
Design and Configuration
========================
Fig. 1 shows the three-dimensional view of the proposed beamsteering antenna. It mainly consists of three parts: feeding-network, the dielectric lens and conductive two parallel plates. The proposed lens with relative dielectric constant of $\epsilon_r = 2.1$ and $tan\delta = 0.0002$ has cylindrical cross section sandwiched between the plates. To estimate lens parameters, from antenna theory [@citation3], the E-plane half-power beamwidths of the LL is given by the expression: $$BW_E\approx 29.4(\frac{\lambda_0}{R_0})
\vspace{-0.2cm}$$
where $\lambda_0$ represents the free space wavelength and $R_0$ is the radius of cylindrical lens. A radius of $\approx$ 49.2 mm is required to produce a radiation pattern ($BW_E$) of $6.5^0$ for the operating frequency of 28 GHz. A simple coaxial-line to rectangular-waveguide (RW) transition has been designed to feed antenna. The transition consists of a stepped impedance and mode transformer in waveguide structure. A standard 2.92mm-type connector has been used as coaxial connector. For the PPW, the plate separation is considered in the range of ${\lambda_0}/{2}<$h$<{\lambda_0}$ to excite $TE_{10}$ mode between two plates. Waveguide feed is embedded in the initial section of the parallel plates. The phase center of the RW feed needs to be coincident with the focal point of the lens. The beam steering capability is achieved by arranging of nine RW elements in arc direction in azimuthal plane with respect to dielectric lens. Then, feeds are placed in a focal arc with $7.2^0$ spacing. Each feeding element is represented with F1, F2,...F9 \[Fig. 1\].
Simulation Results
==================
The single RW feed with a coaxial transition has been designed and simulated at 28 GHz. Initially, we started with one feeding element to illuminate dielectric lens. Since it is desirable to have good illumination over an extended portion of the cylindrical lens, positioning of the feed is a critical part of the simulation. According to [@citation6], first we placed the RW feed at a 0.4${Ro}$ distance from the edge of the lens. From this approximation, for achieving maximum gain and less sidelobe level the aperture of the RW was swept in a distance from the lens surface to determine the optimal feed position. Ultimately, the optimal position is achieved at 0.32${Ro}$ distance from the edge of the lens. The E-palne and H-plane radiation patterns of the feeding element integrated with parallel plate and lens is shown in Fig. \[fig:Gainonefeed\]. At the Plate spacing of 0.54${\lambda_0}$, the simulated 3-dB beamwidth in E-plane and H-plane is about $6.4^0$ and $40^0$ degree respectively. Since the cylindrical lens has a continuous focal arc around its circumference, multiple feed elements placed next to each other with a angular spacing of 7.2 degree. Fig. \[fig:S11allport-2\] depicts the simulated reflection coefficient of the multiple RW feeds versus frequency (GHz). It can be seen that the simulated reflection coefficient is less than -18.0 dB at 28 GHz for all ports. Due to symmetry around the center port, symmetrical ports are shown with the same color. Ideally, signals of two adjacent ports will interfere with each other. By exciting each port, a distinct beam is created in the desired direction. The radiation pattern of the resulting beam-steering for all feeds is shown in Fig. \[fig:Total\]. Table I demonstrates the radiation characteristics achieved by each excited port. As displayed, multiple beams within a range of $58^0$ with a gain variation of less than 0.4 dB resulted in a 3-dB beamwidth of about $6.15^0$[–]{} $6.42^0$.
port 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
---------------------- ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- -- --
Beam width(deg) 6.37 6.15 6.56 6.22 6.38 6.36 6.42 6.15 6.37
Peak gain (dB) 18.5 18.9 18.7 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.5 18.9 18.5
Beam direction (deg) 151 158.5 166 173 180 187 194 201.5 208.5
![The simulated radiation pattern at 28 GHz of the feeding element.[]{data-label="fig:Gainonefeed"}](Gainonefeed.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![The simulated reflection coefficient of the Lens based beam-steering antenna at 28 GHz excited by ports: $F_1-F_9$.[]{data-label="fig:S11allport-2"}](Stotal.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![The E-plane radiation patterns of the Lens based beam-steering antenna at 28 GHz.[]{data-label="fig:Total"}](gaintotal.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
A simple and low loss design of PPW lens based antenna with beam steering capability has been designed at 28GHz. The antenna is fed with an array of metallic rectangular waveguides to overcome the transmission losses of conventional PPW antennas at high frequencies. The simulated results show a good impedance bandwidth and good radiation patterns at the operation frequency.
[11]{} Y. Wang et al., “5G Mobile: Spectrum Broadening to Higher-Frequency Bands to Support High Data Rates,” IEEE Vehic. Tech. Mag., vol. 9, no. 3, Sept 2014, pp. 39–46.
R. Amiri and H. Mehrpouyan, “Self-organizing mm-wave networks: A power allocation scheme based on machine learning,” in Proc. IEEE GSMM, pp. 1–4, May 2018. R. Webster,“Radiation patterns of a spherical Luneberg lens with simple feeds,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 301–302, Jul. 1958.
Omid Manoochehri et al., “A Parallel Plate Ultrawideband Multibeam Microwave Lens Antenna” *IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag*., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 4878– 4883, Sept 2018. X. Wu et al. “Fan-beam millimeter-wave antenna design based on the cylindrical Luneberg lens,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 2147–2156, Aug. 2007.
Bernhard Schoenlinneret al., “Wide-Scan Spherical-Lens Antennas for Automotive Radars, ”IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 50, no. 9, 2002.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
\
author:
- |
T. Mestdag$^1$, A.M. Bloch$^2$ and O.E. Fernandez$^2$\
$^1$Department of Mathematical Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University\
Krijgslaan 281, S9, 9000 Gent, Belgium\
$^2$Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan\
530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI-48109, USA\
email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
nocite: '[@*]'
title: Hamiltonization and geometric integration of nonholonomic mechanical systems
---
Introduction
============
[M]{}[any]{} interesting mechanical systems are subject to additional velocity-dependent (i.e. nonholonomic) constraints. Typical engineering problems that involve such constraints arise for example in robotics, where the wheels of a mobile robot are often required to roll without slipping, or where one is interested in guiding the motion of a cutting tool.
The direct motivation for our paper [@paper] was to be found in interesting results that appeared in [@QB], where the authors propose a way to quantize some of the well-known classical examples of nonholonomic systems. On the way to quantization, the authors propose an alternative Hamiltonian representation for those nonholonomic systems. However, the “Hamiltonization” method introduced in [@QB] can only be applied to systems for which the solutions are already known explicitly.
Nonholonomic systems have a more natural description in the Lagrangian framework. In [@paper], we explained how one can associate to the nonholonomic equations of motion a family of systems of second-order ordinary differential equations and we applied the conditions of the inverse problem of the calculus of variations on those associated systems to search for the existence of a regular Lagrangian. (The inverse problem of the calculus of variations deals with the question of whether or not a given system of second-order differential equations is equivalent with the Euler-Lagrange equations of a yet to be determined regular Lagrangian, see e.g. [@Santilli]). If such an unconstrained regular Lagrangian exists for one of the associated systems, we can always find an associated Hamiltonian by means of the Legendre transformation. Since our method only made use of the equations of motion of the system it did not depend on the knowledge of its explicit solutions.
A system for which no exact solutions are known can only be integrated by means of numerical methods. In addition to the above mentioned application to quantization, our Hamiltonization method may also be useful from this point of view. Numerical integrators that preserve the underlying geometric structure of a system are called geometric integrators. A geometric integrator of a Lagrangian system uses a discrete Lagrangian that resembles as much as possible the continuous Lagrangian (see e.g. [@West]). On the other hand, the succes of a so-called nonholomic integrator (see e.g.[@CortesMartinez; @FedZen]) relies not only on the choice of a discrete Lagrangian but also on the choice of a discrete version of the constraint manifold. It seems therefore reasonable that if a free Lagrangian for the nonholonomic system exists, the Lagrangian integrator may perform better than a nonholonomic integrator with badly chosen discrete constraints.
In the next section we recall the set-up and the main results of our paper [@paper]. In section \[sec3\] we compare some nonholonomic and variational geometric integrators for a few of the classical nonholonomic systems. In section \[sec4\], we indicate some ideas on how we wish to extend the results of this paper.
A class of nonholonomic systems {#sec2}
===============================
We will consider only a certain class of nonholonomic systems on ${\mathbb R}^n$: We will assume that the configuration space of the system is a space with coördinates $(r_1,r_2,s_\alpha)$, that the Lagrangian of the system is given by the function $$\label{nonholLag} L=\frac{1}{2}(I_1{\dot r_{1}}^2+I_2{\dot r_{2}}^2 +
\sum_\alpha I_\alpha {\dot s}_\alpha^2)$$ and that the nonholonomic constraints are all of the form $$\label{con} {\dot s}_\alpha =-A_\alpha(r_{1})\dot r_{2}.$$ The nonholonomic equations of motion follow from d‘Alembert’s priciple (see e.g. [@Bloch]). For systems in our class they are given by the equations $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\fpd{L}{{\dot r}_1}\Big) - \fpd{L}{r_1} =
0,\\[3mm] \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\fpd{L}{{\dot r}_2}\Big) - \fpd{L}{r_2} =
\lambda_\alpha A_\alpha, \\[3mm]\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big(\fpd{L}{{\dot s}_\alpha}\Big) - \fpd{L}{s_\alpha} =
\lambda_\alpha,\end{array}\right.$$ together with the constraint equations (\[con\]). After eliminating the Lagrange multipliers by means of the constraints, one gets $$\label{nonhol} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \ddot r_{1} =0,\\[2mm] \ddot r_{2} =
-N^2 K \dot r_{1}\dot r_{2},\\[2mm] {\dot s}_\alpha =-A_\alpha\dot
r_{2}, \end{array}\right.$$ where $ N(r_{1})=(I_2+\sum_\alpha I_\alpha
A_\alpha^2)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ is related to the invariant measure of the system and $K=\sum_\beta I_\beta A_\beta A'_\beta$. with $A'_\beta = \partial_{r_1}A_\beta$.
Some basic examples of nonholonomic systems that lie in this class are the following ones. The classic example of a nonholonomically constrained free particle has a Lagrangian and constraint given by $$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^{2} + \dot{y}^{2} +
\dot{z}^{2}\right)\quad\mbox{and}\quad \dot{z} +x\dot{y}=0.$$ A knife edge on a horizontal plane corresponds physically to a blade with mass $m$ moving in the $xy$ plane at an angle $\phi$ to the $x$-axis. Its Lagrangian and constraint are given by $$L =
\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2})+\frac{1}{2}J\dot{\phi}^{2}\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\dot{x}\sin(\phi) - \dot{y}\cos(\phi) = 0
.$$ Also the vertically rolling disk is an example in our class. The assumption that the disk rolls without slipping over the plane gives rise to nonholonomic constraints. Let $R$ be the radius of the disk. If the triple $(x,y,z=R)$ stands for the coördinates of its centre of mass, $\varphi$ for its angle with the $(x,z)$-plane and $\theta$ for the angle of a fixed line on the disk and a vertical line, then the nonholomic constraints are of the form $$\dot x = R\cos\varphi \dot\theta\quad \mbox{and}\quad \dot y = R
\sin\varphi \dot\theta.$$ The Lagrangian of the disk is $$L = \frac{1}{2}M ({\dot
x}^2 + {\dot y}^2) + \frac{1}{2}I {\dot\theta}^2 + \frac{1}{2}J
{\dot\varphi}^2,$$ where $I=\frac{1}{2}MR^2$ and $ J=\frac{1}{4}MR^2$ are the moments of inertia and $M$ is the total mass of the disk. For the vertically rolling disk $N$ is a constant and $K=0$.
Finally, also the examples of the mobile robot with fixed orientation and the two-wheeled carriage (see e.g. [@FB]) lie within our class.
The equations of motion (\[nonhol\]) are a mixed set of first- and second-order differential equations. On the other hand, the Euler-Lagrange equations $$\frac{d}{dt}\left( \fpd{\tilde L}{{\dot q}^i}
\right)-\fpd{\tilde L}{q^i}=0$$ of a regular Lagrangian $\tilde L$ are second-order differential equations (only) \[The tilde in $\tilde L$ will always denote that the Lagrangian is free, and that it should not be confused with the original Lagrangian $L$ of the nonholonomic system.\]. We therefore need a way to associate a second-order system to our nonholonomic system. One possible choice of doing so is the system $$\label{first} \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\ddot r_{1} =0,\\[2mm] \ddot r_{2} = -N^2 K \dot r_{1}\dot r_{2},\\[2mm] {\ddot
s}_\alpha = -\Big(A'_{\alpha} - N^2 K A_\alpha \Big) \dot r_{1} \dot
r_{2}. \end{array}\right.$$ The above second-order system has the property that its solution set contains, among other, also the solutions of the nonholonomic dynamics (\[nonhol\]) when restricted to the constraints. Another choice for an ‘associated system’ with the same property is e.g.$$\label{second} \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\hspace*{-2mm} \ddot r_{1} =0,\\[2mm] \ddot r_{2} = -N^2 K \dot r_{1}\dot
r_{2},\\[2mm] \displaystyle
{\ddot s}_\alpha = (A'_{\alpha} - N^2 K A_\alpha) \dot r_{1} \left(\frac{{\dot
s}_\alpha}{A_\alpha}\right) \end{array}\right.$$(no sum over $\alpha$). It is clear, that there are in fact an infinite number of such associated second-order systems, but we will concentrate in this paper on the above two. For some other possible choices, see [@paper].
[*\[Prop1\] 1. There does not exist a regular Lagrangian whose Euler-Lagrange equations are equivalent with the second-order system (\[first\]) (for the classical examples cited above). 2. The Euler-Lagrange equations of the Lagrangian $$\label{Lag1} \tilde L = \frac{1}{2}I_1{\dot r_{1}}^2 + \frac{1}{2N} \left( C_2 \frac{{\dot
r_{2}}^2}{\dot r_{1}} +\sum_\beta C_\beta \frac{{\dot
s}_\beta^2}{A_\beta \dot r_{1}}\right)\quad (C_\alpha\neq 0)$$ are equivalent with the second-order system (\[second\]). If the invariant measure density $N$ is a constant, then also$$\label{Lag2} \tilde L =
\frac{1}{2}I_1{\dot r_{1}}^2 + \frac{1}{2} I_2 {\dot r}_2^2 +
\frac{1}{2 N} \sum_\beta a_\beta \frac{{\dot s}_\beta^2}{A_\beta
\dot r_{1}}\quad (C_\alpha\neq 0)$$ is a regular Lagrangian for the system (\[second\]).*]{}
We give here only an outline of the method we’ve used to prove the statements. For full details, see [@paper]. Assume we are given a system of second-order ordinary differential equations $${\ddot
q}^i=f^i(q,\dot q).$$ The search for a regular Lagrangian is known in the literature as ‘the inverse problem of the calculus of variations’, and has a long history (for a recent survey on this history, see e.g. [@KP] and the long list of references therein). In order for a regular Lagrangian $\tilde L(q,\dot{q})$ to exist we must be able to find functions $g_{ij}(q,\dot q)$, so-called multipliers, such that $$g_{ij}({\ddot q}^j-f^j) = \frac{d}{dt}\left( \fpd{\tilde L}{{\dot q}^i}
\right)-\fpd{\tilde L}{q^i}.$$ It can be shown [@Douglas; @Santilli] that the multipliers must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&&\det(g_{ij})\neq 0,\quad\quad g_{ji}=g_{ij},\quad\quad
\fpd{g_{ij}}{{\dot q}^k}=\fpd{g_{ik}}{{\dot q}^j};\\&&
\Gamma(g_{ij}) - \nabla^k_j g_{ik}- \nabla^k_i g_{kj}=0,\\ &&
g_{ik}\Phi^k_j = g_{jk}\Phi^k_i;\end{aligned}$$ where $$\nabla^i_j = -\onehalf
\partial_{{\dot q}^j}f^i$$ and $$\Phi^k_j = \Gamma\left(\partial_{{\dot
q}^j}{f^k}\right)-2\partial_{q^j}{f^k}-\onehalf\partial_{{\dot
q}^j}{f^l}\partial_{{\dot q}^l}{f^k}.$$ The symbol $\Gamma$ stands for the vector field ${\dot
q}^i\partial_{q^i} + f^i
\partial_{{\dot q}^i}$ that can naturally be associated to the system ${\ddot
q}^i=f^i(q,\dot q)$. Conversely, if one can find functions $g_{ij}$ satisfying these conditions then the equations $\ddot{q}^i=f^i$ are derivable from a regular Lagrangian. Moreover, if a regular Lagrangian $\tilde L$ can be found, then its Hessian $\spd{\tilde L}{{\dot
q}^i}{{\dot q}^j}$ is a multiplier.
The above conditions are generally referred to as the Helmholtz conditions. They are a mixed set of coupled algebraic and PDE conditions in $(g_{ij})$. We will refer to the penultimate condition as the ‘$\nabla$- condition,’ and to the last one as the ‘$\Phi$-condition.’ The algebraic $\Phi$-conditions are of course the most interesting to start from. In fact, we can easily derive more algebraic conditions (see e.g. [@Towards]). For example, by taking a $\Gamma$-derivative of the $\Phi$-condition, and by replacing $\Gamma(g_{ij})$ everywhere by means of the $\nabla$-condition, we arrive at a new algebraic condition of the form $$g_{ik}(\nabla\Phi)^k_j = g_{jk}(\nabla\Phi)^k_i,$$ where $$(\nabla\Phi)^i_j = \Gamma(\Phi^i_j) -
\nabla^i_m\Phi^m_j-\nabla^m_j\Phi^i_m.$$ This $(\nabla\Phi)$-condition will, of course, only give new information as long as it is independent from the $\Phi$-condition (this will not be the case, for example, if the commutator of matrices $[\Phi,\nabla\Phi]$ vanishes). One can repeat the above process on the $(\nabla\Phi)$-condition, and so on to obtain possibly independent $(\nabla\ldots\nabla\Phi)$-conditions. A second route to additional algebraic conditions arises from the derivatives of the $\Phi$-equation in $\dot q$-directions. One can sum up those derived relations in such a way that the terms in $\partial_{{\dot q}_k}g_{ij}$ disappear on account of the symmetry in all their indices. The new algebraic relation in $g_{ij}$ is then of the form $$g_{ij}R^j_{kl} + g_{lj}R^j_{ik} + g_{kj}R^j_{li}= 0,$$ where $$R^j_{kl}= \partial_{{\dot q}^j}(\Phi^k_i)-
\partial_{{\dot q}^i}(\Phi^k_j).$$ As before, this process can be continued to obtain more algebraic conditions. Also, any mixture of the above mentioned two processes leads to possibly new and independent algebraic conditions. Once we have used up all the information that we can obtain from this infinite series of algebraic conditions, we can start looking at the partial differential equations in the $\nabla$-conditions.
Let us now come back to the second-order systems (\[first\]) and (\[second\]) at hand. The proof of the proposition relies on the fact that for the first systems (\[first\]), the only matrices $(g_{ij})$ that satisfy the first few algebraic conditions must be non-singular. On the other hand, the two Lagrangians for the system (\[second\]) follow from an analysis of the Helmholtz conditions with carefully chosen anszatzes. For more details, see [@paper].
Remark that the Lagrangians are not defined for ${\dot r}_1=0$, and we will in general exclude the solutions with that property from the further considerations in this paper. Any regular Lagrangian system with Lagrangian $\tilde L$ can be transformed into a Hamiltonian one, by making use of the Legendre transformation $$(q^i,{\dot q^i})\mapsto (q^i,p_i = \fpd{\tilde L}{{\dot q}^i}).$$ The corresponding Hamiltonian is then $$\tilde H = p_i q^i -\tilde L.$$ Similarly, the Legendre transformation maps the constraints, viewed as a submanifold of the tangent manifold, onto a submanifold in the cotangent manifold.
[*Using the Legendre transformation, the Hamiltonian that corresponds to the Lagrangian (\[Lag1\]) is given by $$\tilde H= \frac{1}{2I_1} \left(p_{{1}}+
\frac{1}{2} N \left( \frac{p_{{2}}^2}{C_2} + \sum_\beta A_\beta
\frac{p_\beta^2}{C_\beta} \right)\right)^2.$$ The corresponding constraints are $$C_2p_\alpha=-C_\alpha
p_{{2}}.$$ If $N$ is constant, the Hamiltonian that corresponds to the Lagrangian (\[Lag2\]) is $$\tilde H= \frac{1}{2I_2} p_2^2 +
\frac{1}{2I_1} \left(p_1+ \frac{1}{2} {N} \left( \sum_\beta
\frac{A_\beta}{a_\beta} {p_\beta^2} \right)\right)^2,$$ and the constraints transform into $$I_2{
{N}{\dot r}_1 p_\alpha} +{a_\alpha} p_2=0,$$ where ${\dot
r}_1=(p_1 + \frac{1}{2} {N} \sum_\alpha A_\alpha
p_\alpha^2/a_\alpha)/I_1$.*]{}
In [@paper; @CDC] we explain how the above Hamiltonians can be directly derived from Pontryagin’s Maximum principle.
Geometric integrators {#sec3}
=====================
Set-up
------
As we explained in the introduction, there are now two ways to compute a numeric approximation of a solution of a system in our class: we can use either a nonholonomic integrator for the original Lagrangian (\[nonholLag\]) and constraints (\[con\]) , or we can use a [variational integrator]{} for one of the Lagrangians (\[Lag1\]) and (\[Lag2\]) we have found in Proposition \[Prop1\]. Let us come to some details.
Geometric integrators are integrators that preserve the underlying structure of the system. In particular, variational integrators are integrators that are derived from a discrete version of Hamilton’s principle. From this discrete variational principle one obtains the so-called discrete Euler-Lagrange equations as follows. For a mechanical system with Lagrangian $L$, one needs to choose a discrete Lagrangian $L_d(q_1,q_2)$ (a function on $Q\times Q$ which resembles as close as possible the continuous Lagrangian). A solution $q(t)$ is then discretised by an array $q_k$ which are the solutions of the so-called discrete Euler-Lagrange equations $$\label{discretevar}
D_1L_d (q_k,q_{k+1}) + D_2 L_d (q_{k-1},q_k)=0.$$ These integrators preserve the symplectic and conservative nature of the algorithms. It is important to realize that a different choice for the discrete Lagrangian may lead to a different geometric integrator. The presence of additional holonomic constraints (i.e. ‘integrable’ nonholonomic constraints) can be included by introducing Lagrange’s multipliers.
On the other hand, for a nonholonomic integrator of a nonholonomic system with Lagrangian $L$ and constraints $\omega^a(q){\dot q}^a=0$, we need to choose both a discrete Lagrangian $L_d$ and discrete constraint functions $\omega^a_d$ on $Q\times Q$. The nonholonomic discrete equations are then $$\label{discretenonhol} \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
D_1L_d (q_k,q_{k+1}) + D_2 L_d (q_{k-1},q_k)= (\lambda_k)_a
\omega^a(q_k), \\[2mm] \omega^a_d (q_k,q_{k+1}) =0.\end{array} \right.$$ Usually, if $Q$ is a vector space, one takes the discretization in one of the following ways (for certain $\alpha$ and certain $h$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ld}
L_d (q_1,q_2) &=& L \left(q= (1-\alpha)q_1 + \alpha q_2, {\dot q} =
\frac{q_2-q_1}{h}\right),\\[2mm]
\omega^a_d (q_1,q_2) &=& \omega^a_i \left(q= (1-\alpha)q_1 + \alpha q_2\right)\frac{q^i_2-q^i_1}{h}.\label{omegad}\end{aligned}$$ For the rest of the paper, we will concentrate on this discretization procedure. There are, however, many more possibilities to obtain a discrete Lagrangian and discrete constraints. For example, one could take a symmetrized version of the above procedure and use discrete Lagrangians and discrete constraints of the form $$\begin{aligned}
L_d (q_1,q_2) &=& \onehalf L \left(q= (1-\alpha)q_1 + \alpha q_2, {\dot q} =
\frac{q_2-q_1}{h}\right) \\ && + \onehalf L \left(q= \alpha q_1 + (1- \alpha) q_2, {\dot q} =
\frac{q_2-q_1}{h}\right),\\[2mm]
\omega^a_d (q_1,q_2) &=& \onehalf \omega^a_i \left(q= (1-\alpha)q_1 + \alpha q_2\right)\frac{q^i_2-q^i_1}{h}\\ && + \onehalf \omega^a_i \left(q= \alpha q_1 + (1-\alpha) q_2\right)\frac{q^i_2-q^i_1}{h}.\end{aligned}$$Also, if the system is invariant under a symmetry group, it is advantageous to construct the integrator in such a way that the discrete system inherits as many as possible of those symmetry properties, see e.g. [@CortesMartinez].
The bottom line of the next sections is the following one. If a free Lagrangian for the nonholonomic system exists, it seems reasonable that the Lagrangian integrator may perform better than a nonholonomic integrator with badly chosen discrete constraints. In the next sections, we will test this conjecture on a few of the classical examples in our class: the vertically rolling disk, the knife edge and the nonholonomic particle. It will be convenient that for those systems an exact solution of the nonholonomic equations (\[nonhol\]) is readily available.
The vertically rolling disk
---------------------------
For the vertically rolling disk, we have $(r_1,r_2,s_\alpha) = (\varphi,\theta,x,y)$. It is well-known that the solutions of the nonholonomic equations with initial conditions $u_\varphi=\dot \varphi(0) \neq 0$ and $u_\theta = \dot\theta(0)$ are all circles with radius $R(u_\theta/u_\phi)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(t) &=& u_{\theta}t + \theta_{0},\qquad \varphi(t) =
u_{\varphi}t + \varphi_{0},\nonumber\\[2mm]
x(t) &=& \left(\frac{u_{\theta}}{u_{\varphi}}\right)R\sin(\varphi(t)) + x_0, \nonumber\\[2mm]
y(t) &=&
-\left(\frac{u_{\theta}}{u_{\varphi}}\right)R\cos(\varphi(t)) + y_0.
\label{vd2}\end{aligned}$$ Let us put for convenience $M=1$ and $R=1$ and therefore $I=\frac{1}{2}$ and $J = \frac{1}{4}$. With that the (nonholonomic) Lagrangian and constraints are simply $$L = \frac{1}{2} ({\dot
x}^2 + {\dot y}^2) + \frac{1}{4} {\dot\theta}^2 + \frac{1}{8}
{\dot\varphi}^2,\quad \dot x = \cos\varphi \dot\theta, \quad \dot y =
\sin\varphi \dot\theta.$$ We will first compute the solution of the discrete nonholonomic equations (\[discretenonhol\]) with the discrete Lagrangian (\[Ld\]) and the discrete constraints (\[omegad\]). Second, since the vertically rolling disk is one of those examples with a constant invariant measure density $N$, we can choose a Lagrangian from the second type (\[Lag2\]). The simplest choice is probably $$\label{free}
\tilde L =
1/2\left({\dot\varphi}^2+{\dot\theta}^2+ \frac{{\dot x}^2}{\cos(\varphi) {\dot\varphi}} +\frac{{\dot y}^2}{\sin(\varphi)\dot\varphi}\right).$$ We now investigate the variational integrator of this Lagrangian, where the discrete Lagrangian is given by (\[Ld\]). We will fix $h$ (changing it did not have a significant effect) and only concentrate on what happens if we keep $\alpha$ variable.
In figure \[fig1\] we have plotted the situation for $\alpha = 0$. For a given set of initial positions $(x_0,y_0,\theta_0,\varphi_0,\theta_1,\varphi_1)$ the other initial conditions were chosen in such a way that the solution lies initially on the discrete constraint manifold, i.e. in such a way that $$x_1= x_0 + \cos\varphi_0 (\theta_1-\theta_0), \quad y_1= y_0 + \sin\varphi_0 (\theta_1-\theta_0).$$ Unlike the nonholonomic integrator (in grey with circle symbols) the variational integrator (in black with cross symbols) does not show a strong spiral-type solution but a circular path. It is true, however, that the variational solution deviates from the circle predicted by the initial conditions of the solution (\[vd2\]) (in grey in figure \[fig1\]). However, since any circle is determined by 3 of its points, we can find a better match for the circle the variational discrete solution follows by considering the outcome $(x_{k_i},y_{k_i})$ at three different times and by solving the three equations $$(x_{k_i} - A)^2 + (x_{k_i} - B)^2 = C^2$$ for $(A,B,C)$. If we do so, we obtain the matching circle (in dots) in figure \[fig2\].
![Vertically rolling disk: circular path.\[fig2\]](fig3b)
It is well-known that the energy $$E= \frac{1}{2}({\dot x}^2 + {\dot y}^2) + \frac{1}{4} {\dot\theta}^2 + \frac{1}{8} {\dot\varphi}^2,$$ is conserved along the solutions (\[vd2\]) of the nonholonomic equations of motion. In figure \[fig3\] we investigate the performance of the two integrators on the energy function. The discrete version of the energy is the function we get by substituting, as usual, $1/h(q_k -q_{k-1})$ for ${\dot q}$ in the function $E$ above. The straight line in figure \[fig3\] is the energy level predicted by the initial conditions. It is clear that the variational integrator (with crosses) does a better job than the nonholonomic one (with circles).
![Vertically rolling disk: the energy.\[fig3\]](fig4)
By construction the nonholonomic integrator conserves the constraints and the variational integrator does not. Indeed, in figure \[fig5\] we have plotted the constraint $\dot x - R\cos(\varphi) \dot\theta = 0$. Positive is that, although the variational integrator does not conserve this constraint, it reasonably oscillates around the zero level. Moreover, there is a method to fix this problem. We can introduce a ‘modified’ variational integrator which does conserve the constraints. This integrator considers the constraints as a constant along the (nonholonomic) motion. That is, it will use the variational discrete Lagrange equations (\[discretevar\]) for the variables $\theta$ and $\varphi$ (for the free Lagrangian $\tilde L$ given in (\[free\])), but not the corresponding equations for $x$ and $y$. To get a full system of equations, we supplemented this with the discrete constraints $\omega^a_d (q_k,q_{k+1}) =0$ which can be written in terms of $x_{k+1}$ and $y_{k+1}$. Figure \[fig4\] shows the modified integrator for $\alpha=0$ (with box symbols). The circle in that figure is the one we had before, i.e. the one that matches the variational integrator. It shows that the modified integrator has the same circular behaviour as the variational integrator, and on top, it keeps the constraints conserved, see the box symbols on the zero level in figure \[fig5\].
![Vertically rolling disk: the modified integrator. \[fig4\]](fig5)
![Vertically rolling disk: the constraints. \[fig5\]](fig6)
Finally, figure \[fig6\] shows the effect of changing the parameter $\alpha$. The results for the variational integrator (in black with cross symbols) remain accurate and more or less unchanged. For the nonholonomic integrator (in grey with circle symbols) the effect of changing $\alpha$ is that the inward spiral becomes an outward spiral. At some point (here $\alpha=1/2$) the variational and nonholonomic integrator have the same accuracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Vertically rolling disk with $\alpha=1/3, 1/2, 1$, repectively. \[fig6\]](fig7a2) ![Vertically rolling disk with $\alpha=1/3, 1/2, 1$, repectively. \[fig6\]](fig7b2) ![Vertically rolling disk with $\alpha=1/3, 1/2, 1$, repectively. \[fig6\]](fig7c2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The knife edge
--------------
As was the case with the vertically rolling disk, also the solutions of the knife edge form a circular path in the $(x,y)$-plane. Continuing the analogue with the previous example, the nonholonomic integration (in grey with circle symbols) results in a spiral, while the variational integration (in black with crosses) follows more closely the circular path, see figure \[knife\].
![The knife edge with $\alpha=0$ \[knife\]](fig8)
The nonholonomic particle
-------------------------
The function $$\tilde L = \frac{1}{2} {\dot x}^2+ \frac{\sqrt{1+x^2}}{2} \left(\frac{{\dot y}^2}{{\dot x}} +\frac{{\dot z}^2}{x{\dot x}}\right)$$ is a free Lagrangian for the nonholonomic particle. In each of the figures \[fig7\] and \[fig8\] the dashed black curve represents the exact solution, the thick black the variational solution and the thick grey the nonholonomic solution. The figures show that both the variational method and the nonholonomic one do not give very accurate solutions. However, changing the parameter $\alpha$ does not seem to affect the variational solution as much as it does the nonholonomic one. Indeed, the variational solution remains more or less of the same accuracy for the different $\alpha$-values. On the other hand, the nonholonomic solution can be made more or less accurate by changing $\alpha$. It seems that the best accuracy is reached somewhere in the neighbourhood of $\alpha = 1/3$, but how could one have guessed this beforehand? Remark also that this value is not same as the the best choice we had found for the nonholonomic integrator of the vertically rolling disk (where $\alpha = 1/2$ gave the best accuracy).
![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-, $xz$- and $yz$-solution with $\alpha=0$.\[fig7\]](fig9a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-, $xz$- and $yz$-solution with $\alpha=0$.\[fig7\]](fig9b) ![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-, $xz$- and $yz$-solution with $\alpha=0$.\[fig7\]](fig9c)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig9a) ![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig10b)
![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig10c) ![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig10d)
![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig10e) ![The nonholonomic particle: $xy$-solution with $\alpha=0, 1/5, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 4/5$, respectively.\[fig8\]](fig10f)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary conclusion
----------------------
In each of the discussed examples the variational integrator (with one of the Lagrangians (\[Lag1\]) and (\[Lag2\]) of proposition \[Prop1\]) seemed to give better results than the known nonholonomic integrators. Unlike the outcome for the nonholonomic integrator, the results for the variational integrator seemed to be independent of or, at least, stable under changing the parameter $\alpha$. Needless to say, the results above are, of course, very partial and are they are only intended to motivate further investigation on this topic. For example, we need to check if more involved discretization procedures, such as the ones mentioned at the end of section \[sec3\]A demonstrate the same behaviour as the one we have encountered so far.
Further systems {#sec4}
===============
The class of nonholonomic systems treated above is very restricted. The reason is, of course, that the search for a solution of the inverse problem of the calculus of variations (in the proof of proposition \[Prop1\]) is too hard and too technical to be treated in the full generality of a nonholonomic systems with an arbitrary given Lagrangian and arbitrary given constraints. Also, since there are infinitely many possible choices for the associated systems, it is not clear from the outset which one of them will be variational, if any.
For these reasons, future extensions of the obtained results will strongly depend on well-chosen particular new examples. For example, we could try to find a free Lagrangian for a nonholonomic system with a potential of the form $V(r_2)$. Typical examples of such systems are the mobile robot with a fixed orientation$$\begin{array}{l}
L= \onehalf m ({\dot x}^2 + {\dot y}^2) + \onehalf I
{\dot\theta}^2 + \frac{3}{2}J {\dot\psi}^2 - 10 \sin\psi, \\[2mm]
\dot x = R\cos\theta\dot\psi,\quad \dot y = R\sin\theta\dot\psi, \end{array}$$ (an example that also appears in the paper [@CortesMartinez]) or the knife edge on an inclined plane, where $$L= \onehalf m ({\dot x}^2
+ {\dot y}^2) + \onehalf J {\dot\phi}^2 + mg x \sin\alpha, \quad
\dot x \sin \phi = \dot y \cos\phi.$$ In more general terms, such systems have a Lagrangian of the form $$L=\frac{1}{2}(I_1{\dot r_{1}}^2+I_2{\dot r_{2}}^2 +
I_3 {\dot s}^2) - V(r_2)$$ and a constraint of the form $${\dot s} =-A (r_{1})\dot r_{2},$$ and we can we can consider associated second-order equations, in a way that is analogous to the way we arrived at the second system (\[second\]) before: They are now of the form $$\label{extension} \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\ddot r_{1} =0, \\[2mm] \ddot r_{2} = \Gamma_2 (r_1) \dot r_{1}\dot
r_{2} + t_2 (r_1,r_2),\\[2mm]
{\ddot s} = \Gamma_3(r_1) \dot r_{1} {\dot s} +
t_3(r_1,r_2). \end{array} \right.$$ Remark that compared to the equations (\[second\]), the presence of the extra potential brings the terms $t_i(r_1,r_2)$ into the picture. A first result is the following.
[*There does not exists a regular Lagrangian for the second order systems (\[extension\]).*]{}
As before, the proof follows from a careful analysis of the algebraic conditions which can be derived from the Helmholtz conditions.
For systems with more than one constraint, the result is still open. Remark that the proposition does not exclude the existence of an other variational ‘associated’ system.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
TM acknowledges a Marie Curie Fellowship within the 6th European Community Framework Programme and a postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation - Flanders. The research of AMB and OEF was supported in part by the Rackham Graduate School of the University of Michigan, through the Rackham Science award, and through NSF grants DMS-0604307 and CMS-0408542.
[1]{}
A.M. Bloch, [Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control]{}, Springer (2003). A.M. Bloch, O.E. Fernandez and T. Mestdag, Hamiltonization of nonholonomic systems and the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, to appear in [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{}, arXiv:0812.0437. M. Abud Filho, L.C. Gomes, F.R.A. Simao and F.A.B. Coutinho, The Quantization of Classical Non-holonomic Systems, [Revista Brasileira de Fisica]{} [**13**]{} (1983) 384-406.
J. Cortes and S. Martinez, Nonholonomic integrators, [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**14**]{} (2001), 1365-1392.
M. Crampin, W. Sarlet, G.B. Byrnes and G.E. Prince, Towards a geometrical understanding of Douglas’s solution of the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, [*Inverse Problems*]{} [**10**]{} (1994) 245-260.
J. Douglas, Solution of the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**50**]{} (1941) 71–128.
Y.N. Fedorov and D.V. Zenkov, Discrete Nonholonomic LL systems on Lie Groups, [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**18**]{} (2005), 2211–-2241.
O.E. Fernandez and A.M. Bloch, Equivalence of the Dynamics of Nonholonomic and Variational Nonholonomic Systems for certain Initial Data, [*J.Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**41**]{} 344005 (20pp).
O. Fernandez, A.M. Bloch and T.Mestdag, The Pontryagin maximum principle applied to nonholonomic mechanics, Proc. 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Cancun (Mexico), Dec. 9-11, 2008, 4306–4311.
O. Krupková and G.E. Prince, Second-order ordinary differential equations in jet bundles and the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, Chapter 16 of D. Krupka and D.J.Saunders (eds.), [*Handbook of Global Analysis*]{}, Elsevier (2007), 837-904.
J.E. Marsden and M. West, Discrete mechanics and variational integrators, [*Acta Num.*]{} [**10**]{} (2001), 357–514.
R.M. Santilli, [Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics I]{}, Spinger (1978).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This is a progress report on a preliminary feasibility study of experimental setups for preparing and probing a gravitational cat state [@ProbeCat2014].'
address:
- 'New York, New York.'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece.'
- |
Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics and Joint Quantum Institute,\
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742-4111 U.S.A.
author:
- 'M. Derakhshani'
- 'C. Anastopoulos'
- 'B. L. Hu'
title: 'Probing a gravitational cat state: Experimental Possibilities'
---
Introduction
============
As a follow-up to the theoretical studies of [@ProbeCat2014], this short note opens the explorations for the best suited schemes for the making and probing of a gravitational cat (g-cat) state, using the currently available experimental proposals. In the nature of a progress report, we aim here to share our thoughts for further discussions, leaving plenty of room for improvements and broader collective wisdom.
Gravitational cat states
------------------------
Consider the quantum description of a stationary point mass $M$ localized around $\bf x = 0$ with spread $\sigma$, described by a Gaussian wave function with zero mean momentum. $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_0(\bfx) = \frac{1}{(2 \pi \sigma^2)^{3/4}} {e^{ - \frac{{\bfx}^2}{4\sigma^2}} }. \label{Gausswfn}\end{aligned}$$ The position ${\bfx}$ of the particle is a random variable described by the probability distribution $|\psi_0(\bfx)|^2$. According to Newton’s law, a probability distribution for ${\bf x}$ defines a probability distribution for the Newtonian force acted on a particle of mass $m$ located at ${\bf R}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf F} = - \frac{GMm}{|\bf R - \bf x|^3}(\bf R - \bf x). \label{newtforce}\end{aligned}$$ For $|{\bf R}| >> \sigma$ the fluctuations of the Newtonian force are negligible, which leads one to view it as a deterministic variable.
Now consider a cat state, i.e., a superposition of two Gaussians, each located at $\pm \ha {\bf L}$ and with zero mean momentum, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\bfx) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{(2 \pi \sigma^2)^{3/4}} \left[e^{ - \frac{(\bfx + \bfL/2)^2}{4\sigma^2}} + e^{ - \frac{(\bfx - \bfL/2)^2}{4\sigma^2}} \right] \label{catwfn}\end{aligned}$$ If ${\bf L}$ is of the order of magnitude of ${\bf R}$, the fluctuations of the Newtonian force (\[newtforce\]) are non-negligible. Since the force is a function of ${\bf x}$, and ${\bf x}$ is described by an operator in quantum mechanics, the Newtonian force should also be described as an operator. But then, so would be the gravitational potential. In this sense, the cat state for the point mass has generated a cat state for the gravitational field.
The model presented in [@ProbeCat2014] for a gravitational cat state involves a quantum particle of mass $M$ confined in a symmetric potential, as in Fig. 1. The potential has two local minima located at $\bfr = \pm \frac{1}{2} \bfL$. We label the minima as $+$ and $-$. (At a macroscopic level of observation, the particle only lies in the $+$ region or in the $-$region.) With $|+ \rangle$ and $|-\rangle$ as the states localized around the minima $+$ and $-$ respectively, the most general state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi \rangle = c_+ |+\rangle + c_- |-\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We assume a Hamiltonian $\hat{H} = \nu \hat{\sigma}_1$, where $\nu$ is a small, but non-vanishing, tunneling rate between the two minima.
{width="40.00000%"}
Then we consider two ways of probing the gravitational field generated by the massive object in a g-cat state.
A classical probe
-----------------
We consider a test mass $m$ located near the confining potential, in a geometry described by Fig. 1. Assuming that the probe/detector is not allowed to move, the force $F$ in the horizontal direction takes only two values $f_0$ and $-f_0$, where $$\begin{aligned}
f_0= \frac{GMmL}{2D^3} \label{f0},
\end{aligned}$$ where $D = \sqrt{y^2+L^2/4}$ is the distance between the potential minimum and the location of the probe; $y$ is shown in Fig. 1.
We found that for an initial $|+\rangle$ state, the expectation value of $F$ and its two-time correlation function are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F(t)\rangle = - f_0 e^{-\Gamma t} \label{corrcon1}
\\
\langle F(t') F(t)\rangle = f_0^2 e^{- \Gamma |t'-t|}. \label{corrcon2}\end{aligned}$$ The decay constant $\Gamma$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma = \frac{\nu^2 \tau}{2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the temporal resolution of the probe.
A quantum probe
---------------
The quantum probe invoked in [@ProbeCat2014] is a harmonic oscillator of mass $m$ and frequency $\omega$ that is constrained to move along the horizontal axis of Fig. 1. If the amplitude of the oscillations is much smaller than $L$, the length scale of the cat state, the force acted upon the oscillator along the $x$ direction equals $\pm f_0$. Thus, the total Hamiltonian of the quantum massive object in a g-cat state interacting with the quantum oscillator probe is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} = \n \hat{\sigma}_1 + \omega \hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a} + g \hat{\sigma}_3 (\hat{a} + \hat{a}^{\dagger}), \label{hjc}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g = - \frac{f_0}{\sqrt{2m \omega}}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that this is the Hamiltonian of a single-mode Jaynes-Cummings model.
The oscillator can act as a probe of the gravitational cat only if $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{f_0}{m}\right)^2 \frac{m}{\omega^3} >> 1. \label{dist}\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds to the ultra-strong coupling limit of the Jaynes-Cummings model, which is the physically relevant regime. In this limit, the oscillator probe may undergo two types of quasi-classical oscillatory motion centered either at $x_0 = \frac{f_0}{m \omega^2}$ or at $x_0 = -\frac{f_0}{m\omega^2}$. The non-vanishing tunneling rate induces transitions between the two oscillatory motions and thus generates Rabi-type oscillations with frequency $\nu$.
Preparing a GravCat State
=========================
In what follows, we consider the best proposals in preparing a g-cat state. In the next section, we discuss the experimental schemes best suited to the detection of a g-cat state.
In our present assessment, the most promising experimental proposal for the preparation of a g-cat state is Romero-Isart et al.’s superconducting microsphere trapped in a harmonic potential created by a magnetic quadrupole field [@Romero-Isart2012]. Having considered various sources of environmental decoherence in their set up, they suggest that this trapping method should make it possible to isolate a lead (Pb) microsphere of $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{ mass} \hspace{0.2cm} M\sim10^{14} amu \hspace{0.2cm} \mbox{and radius} \hspace{0.2cm} R=2 \mu m \label{estimateRI}\end{aligned}$$ to a degree sufficient enough to place the microsphere in a coherent superposition of two position eigenstates. The protocol they propose for creating this microsphere cat state is parametric coupling to a qubit state.
The estimate of the mass and radius of the microsphere by Romero-Isart et al. is obtained as follows. The (superconducting) microsphere is trapped in a 3-D harmonic oscillator potential of the form
$$V_{trap}=\frac{M}{2}\left[\omega_{t}^{2}\hat{x}^{2}+\omega_{\perp}^{2}(\hat{y}^{2}+\hat{z}^{2})\right],$$
where the trapping frequency
$$\omega_{t}\simeq \frac{\left(\sqrt{\mu_{0}/\rho}\right)I}{l^{2}},$$
and $\omega_{\perp}=\frac{\omega_{t}}{2}$, because the potential is created by a quadrupole magnetic field that traps the microsphere via the Meissner effect. The mass density $\rho$ is assumed to be a constant. The parameter $l$ is the radius of and separation between the anti-Helmholtz coils surrounding the microsphere as illustrated in Figure 2-a of [@Romero-Isart2012], and $I$ is the current through the coils.
The microsphere can be trapped if the magnetic field at any point of the sphere is smaller than the critical field, $B_{crit}$, in order to allow superconductivity. This yields an upper bound on the radius of the sphere as
$$R<R_{max}\simeq \frac{B_{crit}}{\omega_{t}\sqrt{\mu_{0}\rho}}.$$
The radius $R$ must also be much larger than the sphere’s penetration length $\lambda$ and the coherence length $\xi$. The estimate (\[estimateRI\]) is obtained from the following choice of parameters: $\rho=11,360\frac{kg}{m^{3}}$, $\lambda=30.5nm$, $\xi=96nm$ (at T = 0), $B_{crit}=0.08T$, $l=25\mu m$, $I=10A$, and $\omega_{t}\simeq2\pi\times28kHz$. With these parameters, the maximum radius $R_{max}$ is about $3.7\mu m$.
With this they show that parametric coupling to a qubit state puts the microsphere in a spatial superposition described by the wave function
$$|\Psi_{s}>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\hat{T}(-2\chi)|\uparrow,0>+\hat{T}(2\chi)|\downarrow,0>\right],$$
where $\chi$ is a dimensionless parameter that characterizes the parametric coupling, and $\hat{T}(...)$ is the usual translation operator. The distance $L$ between the two superposed wave packets is $L = 4\chi x_{zp}$, where $x_{zp}$ is the zero-point motion of the microsphere in the trap. From the values Romero-Isart et al. give for $\chi$ and $x_{zp}$, it can be readily confirmed that $L\sim 10^{-12} m$.
Probing a GravCat state
=======================
One of us (MD) has examined the leading state-of-the-art proposals in the past five years for ultrasensitive force measurement. A survey of which is contained in the Appendix. Our analysis below will focus on classical probes.
Classical Probe
---------------
For the role of the classical probe, the most promising experimental proposal appears to be Reinhardt et al.’s “trampoline” resonator [@Sankey2015] made of Si$_{3}$N$_{4}$, with effective mass $m = 4.0 ng$, width $100 \mu m$, and projected force sensitivity of $\sim14 zN$ at cryogenic temperatures ($14 mK$).
While the resonator is a square-like membrane rather than a point particle, the latter assumed in the model of [@ProbeCat2014], we can employ Eq. (\[f0\]) for an order of magnitude estimate of the force. For a resonator of mass $m = 4.0 ng$, a microsphere of mass $M = 0.38 ng$, $L = 1pm$ and $D = 3\mu m$ ($1 \mu m$ larger than the radius of the microsphere of [@Romero-Isart2012]), we obtain $$f_{0} =\frac{GmML}{2D^3}
\sim 2\times10^{-30}N, \label{estimateF1}$$ which is about ten orders of magnitude out of reach from the projected force sensitivity range of the resonator.
In order to examine possible ways to enhance the resonator–microsphere gravitational interaction, we write the distance $D$ as $R + a$, where $R$ is the radius of the microsphere, which can be made variable, and $a$ is a fixed distance between the surface of the sphere and the resonator—we will consider $a$ to be of the order of one micrometer. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f_0 \simeq (2) \frac{G\rho_m m L}{(1 + a/R)^3},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_m = M/(\frac{4}{3} \pi R^3)$ is the density of the microsphere.
1. The most important parameter for increasing the gravitational interaction $f_0$ is the size $L$ of the cat state, since $f_0$ is directly proportional to $L$. Note, however, that in the scheme of [@Romero-Isart2012], $L$ is indirectly constrained by other variables, including the radius $R$ of the microsphere.
2. There is also a more modest increase of $f_0$ with the radius $R$ of the microsphere (and hence with the mass $M$ of the microsphere). However, the value of $R$ is constrained from the experimental set-up, because the magnetic field at any point on the sphere must be smaller than the critical field, $B_{crit}$, so that the Meissner state is preserved. The corresponding gradient $b_{max}=\frac{B_{crit}}{R}$ is proportional to the trapping frequency $\omega_t$. The latter must be at least of the order of tens of kHz, in order to allow cooling of the center of mass to the ground state [@Romero-Isart2012]. Taking these constraints into account, it can be readily confirmed that the absolute upper limit to $R_{max}$ for a Pb microsphere is about $8\mu m$.
3. Decreasing $a$ would slightly increase the force, but below a certain value, Casimir forces may become non-negligible. For example, Mohideen and Roy [@Mohideen] measured the Casimir force on the pN scale between a metallized sphere of radius $\sim 100 \mu m$ and a flat plate of diameter $1.25 cm$, with sphere-surface separations from 0.9 to 0.1 $\mu m$. Thus, even though the microsphere (made of Pb) and membrane (made of Si$_3$N$_{4}$) are much smaller in size than the sphere and plate used in [@Mohideen] , the microsphere-membrane Casimir force (to whatever extent present) may be many orders of magnitude greater than the microsphere-membrane gravitational force, when $D - R $ becomes smaller than $1 \mu m$. If so, this would seem to put a practical lower bound on $a \geq 1\mu m$.
4. Choosing a superconducting element with a much larger density may increase the force by a factor of about 2. A good choice is the (Type-I superconductor) Tantalum with density $16.7 \frac{g}{cm^{3}}$, and a critical field slightly larger than Pb (thus a slightly larger value of $R_{max}$).
Assuming that we can increase the size of the cat $L$ by one order of magnitude, and expecting that $R = 5 \mu m$ is feasible for a Tantalum microsphere we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
f_0 = 0.6 \times 10^{-28} N,
\end{aligned}$$ which is still about eight orders of magnitude from present level of detector sensitivities.
An obvious possibility would be to increase the mass of the probe $m$. However, this would mean increasing the area of the membrane and other factors would have to be taken into account. In particular, the *gravitational self-energy* of the probe may be of the same order of magnitude as the interaction energy between the g-cat and the probe. The effects of gravitational self-energy in this setting is an issue worthy of more careful considerations.
Quantum Probe
-------------
A quantum probe of the gravitational cat state has to satisfy the constraint (\[dist\]). In considering possible experimental implementations of this probe, one of us (MD) found that the most promising candidate seems to be the state-of-the-art optomechanical harmonic oscillator described in [@Aspelmeyer2014]. Such an oscillator has a mass $m = 100 ng$, and would experience a Newtonian gravitational force of $ 10^{-21}$ Newtons from a Pb microsphere cat state. However, the dimensionless quantity of Eq. (\[dist\]) is of the order of $10^{-53}$. This means that even with state-of-the-art optomechanical oscillators, we are still a long way off from experimentally realizing the quantum probe of a gravitational cat state.
Conclusions
===========
Here we discuss the key findings of this report and related (theoretical) questions under study.
Appraisal
---------
In this report we have examined the possibility of realizing and detecting a gravitational cat at the lab. From existing experimental proposals based on current and reachable technology we have identified a set-up which can best create a superposition of macroscopically distinct states and can best measure the ultraweak gravitational force involved.
In our preliminary assessment the measurement of a gravitational cat state is ten orders of magnitude from present capabilities, a difference that can perhaps be trimmed to eight orders of magnitude with relatively small improvement. More promising, perhaps, is an impending proposal by Romero-Isart and his collaborators [@Romero-IsartPrivate] to use free wave packet expansion in a “skatepark” potential to create coherent microsphere cat states (of the same mass) with an $L$ on the order of hundreds of nanonmeters. With this increase in $L$ the above force estimates would increase by five orders of magnitude or more, i.e., $\sim 10^{-25} N$ for the preliminary assessment and $\sim10^{-23} N$ with small improvement. Of course, these are optimistic estimates, as the combination of two set-ups, one for the creation of a cat state and one for the measurement of the force, will probably create unforeseen constraints on the main parameters of the experiment. What we have not examined is how to reproduce the specific predictions in the gravitational cat models of Ref. [@ProbeCat2014], which involve the crucial feature of tunneling between the distinct macroscopic configurations of the cat.
The preliminary estimates we presented above seem to suggest that the quantum effects of a matter source manifested through its gravitational field interactions could become measurable in the next (or next-next) generation of experiments. Hence, it is worth exploring improved designs built upon our simple theoretical prototype. The aim is to maximize the strength of the interaction between matter in the cat state and the probe, in order to make g-cat effects measurable.
Open theoretical issues
-----------------------
There are many additional theoretical issues related to both the gravitational cat state and the probes, e.g., 1) how intact a gravcat state could remain, how long it could exist, in the presence of massive objects (such as the Earth); 2) why the gravitational force interaction with a classical probe should necessarily collapse the cat state wave function (in contrast to other massive bodies in nature, such as the Earth).
Implications for alternative quantum theories
---------------------------------------------
In the theoretical model of the cat state used in [@ProbeCat2014], i.e., standard GR+QFT, it was *not* assumed that gravity is fundamentally quantum, but it was assumed that force measurements by a classical probe cause the gravitational field of the cat state to undergo quantum jumps (via quantum jumps of its mass density). Do alternative quantum theories of the objective collapse [@Bassi2013; @Adler2013; @Derak2014; @TilloyDiosi2016], hidden-variables [@Goldstein2013; @Struyve2015], and many-worlds [@Vaidman2014; @PageGeilker1981] type agree with or contradict this assumption, when extended to the domain of semi-classical gravity? This requires a detailed discussion, to be given elsewhere.
Appendix: Experimental Schemes for Classical Probes of a GravCat State {#appendix-experimental-schemes-for-classical-probes-of-a-gravcat-state .unnumbered}
======================================================================
This Appendix contains a summary of the search by one of us (MD) for the best experimental schemes which can function as classical probes of gravitational cat states. Amongst the handful of state-of-the-art proposals in the past five years for ultra-sensitive force measurements listed below he was able to to identify only one ultra-sensitive force measurement scheme that can play the role of a classical probe of sufficiently large mass and sufficiently high force-measurement sensitivity which, in combination with Romero-Isart et al.’s superconducting microspheres proposal [@Romero-Isart2012], could lead to an experimental scheme for measuring g-cat effects..
The six candidate proposals were:
1. Schreppler et al.’s scheme involving an ultra-cold atom cloud in a high finesse cavity [@Schreppler2014] which, to date, produced the smallest externally applied force measured of $42 yN$.
2. Moser et al.’s scheme involving carbon nanotube mechanical resonators with quality factors greater than a million [@Moser2013; @Moser2014], which yields force measurements on the zN scale.
3. Tao et al.’s scheme using single-crystal diamond nanomechanical resonators with quality factors exceeding one million [@Tao2014], which produces force sensitivities of a few hundred zN.
4. Ranjit et al.’s scheme involving laser-cooled silica microspheres as force sensors in a dual beam optical dipole trap in high vacuum [@Ranjit2015], which yields force measurement sensitivity at the aN scale.
5. Kleckner et al.’s [@Kleckner2011] and Reinhardt et al.’s [@Sankey2015] schemes involving the use of optomechanical trampoline resonators, which yield projected maximum force sensitivities on the aN and zN scales, respectively.
6. Wagner et al.’s use of state-of-the-art torsion balance pendulums to test for violations of the weak equivalence principle with a precision of one part in $10^{13}$ [@Wagner2012].
Of all these, proposal 5 seems the most promising for our purpose. The justification for this is the following.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proposal 1</span> yields the greatest force sensitivity, but the atom cloud used has a miniscule mass of only $1.8\times10^{-22} kg$. Using the center of mass of this atom cloud in place of the resonator in Eq. (\[f0\]) (and keeping the other parameters the same as those used in Eq. (17) of subsection 3.1), one obtains a gravitational force of $\sim10^{-40} N$, which is seventeen orders of magnitude smaller than the force sensitivity of Schreppler et al.’s scheme. In addition, the scheme requires that the measured force be an externally applied force that oscillates at the natural frequency of the center of mass motion of the atom cloud in the cavity ($\sim12
kHz$). It is unclear how this could be done with the gravitational force from a cat state, even if it were somehow possible to fashion an atom cloud with a center of mass of $\sim90 mg$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proposal 2</span> has a similar obstacle in that the mass of these carbon nanotube mechanical resonators is only $\sim10^{-20} kg$. Using this mass in Eq. (\[f0\]), under the point mass approximation, yields a gravitational force of $\sim10^{-39} N$, or eighteen orders of magnitude smaller than the force sensitivity of the Moser et al. scheme.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proposal 3</span> used several different kinds of single-crystal diamond nanomechanical resonators, the largest of which has a mass of $\sim10^{-12} kg$. When the largest resonator is used in place of the resonator in Eq. (\[f0\]), under the point mass approximation, it yields a gravitational force of $\sim10^{-31} N$. Since this resonator has a force sensitivity of only $540 zN$, the expected gravitational force is around twelve orders of magnitude smaller.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proposal 4</span> uses silica microspheres of 3 micron diameter, with an estimated mass of at most $\sim10^{-12} kg$. Thus these microspheres yield a gravitational force around thirteen orders of magnitude smaller than the force sensitivity of Ranjit et al.’s scheme.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proposal 6</span> is, of course, a different force measurement scheme than all the others in that the goal of a torsion balance is to detect a difference in the directions of the external force vectors applied to the test bodies, rather than the absolute magnitudes of the forces. The scheme described in Wagner et al. uses eight test bodies of masses $5 g$ each and has a force sensitivity of one part in $10^{13}$ (for the E[ö]{}tv[ö]{}s parameter), with a differential acceleration resolution of $\sim 10^{-15} m/s^{2}$. To compute the hypothetical (horizontal) gravitational force/acceleration between one of these test bodies and the Romero-Isart et al. microsphere cat state (i.e., using the latter as the attractor for the torsion balance), we need to know the size of one of these test bodies so that we can calculate the $D$ variable in Eq. (5). Although Wagner et al. do not specify the size or geometry of the test bodies, we can approximate the bodies as spherical mass distributions and deduce their radii from knowing what elements (hence mass densities) compose them. They state that four of the test bodies are made of element Be, the other four made of either Ti or Al. Let us consider a test body made of the element with the largest mass density (since, for fixed surface separation, $a$, this will give the smallest $R$ value hence the largest force). Among the three, Ti has the largest mass density with $\rho_{Ti} = 4.5g/cm^{3}$. The corresponding radius is then $R_{Ti} = 0.24 cm$. Assuming $a = 1 \mu m$, then $D = R_{Ti} + R_{sphere} + a \sim 10^{-3} m$. Using this $D$ value in Eq. (5), we obtain a force $\sim 10^{-29} N$, or a horizontal acceleration of $\sim10^{-28}m/s^{2}$ for one test body. This is around thirteen orders of magnitude smaller than the maximum sensitivity of the torsion balance. Of course, for such macroscopic test bodies, it seems implausible that experimentalists could arrange $a = 1 \mu m$; the experimental setup in Romero-Isart et al. [@Romero-Isart2012] (Figure 1-a therein) involves surrounding the microsphere by an anti-Helmholtz coil configuration only 25 microns in width. Much more experimentally feasible, it seems, is a surface separation on the order of a centimeter or possibly a millimeter, either of which only further decrease the magnitude of the force/acceleration.
Why then does proposal 5 seem the most promising for our purpose? First, the largest trampoline resonator used in the Kleckner et al. proposal has a mass of $110
ng$, diameter of 80 microns (see Figure 2 in [@Kleckner2011]), and a projected force sensitivity on the aN scale at cryogenic temperatures. To be more precise about this last feature, Kleckner et al. write:
> Trampoline resonators are also suitable for use as ultra-high resolution force sensors. Assuming the quality factor increase is also seen for the lowest frequency devices [\[]{}i.e., the resonator with *m* = 110 ng[\]]{}, it should be possible to obtain a thermal force noise in the aN/Hz regime at demonstrated \[cryogenic\] temperatures. This is comparable to or better than the single crystal Si resonators currently used in magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM) experiments... Furthermore, the rear side optical access can be used to provide extremely precise position sensitivity while leaving the front side free for surface modifications required for use as sensors. (Last page)
Now, for the gravitational force between the $110 ng$ trampoline resonator (approximated as a point mass) and the microsphere, Eq. (5) gives $\sim5\times10^{-29} N$. By comparison to the previous proposals, this is ’only’ ten to eleven orders of magnitude away from the projected force sensitivity range of their resonator. Second, the largest trampoline resonator used in the Reinhardt et al. proposal [@Sankey2015] has a mass of $4.0 ng$, width of 100 microns (Figure 1 therein), and a projected force sensitivity of $\sim14 zN$ at cryogenic temperatures ($14 mK$). For the gravitational force between the $4.0 ng$ resonator and the microsphere, Eq. (5) gives $\sim2\times10^{-25} N$, or about ten orders of magnitude away from the projected force sensitivity range of the resonator.
Because the Reinhardt et al. resonator yields a force closest to its projected maximum force sensitivity (for the assumed parameters), and because Reinhardt et al. are more specific than Kleckner et al. in regards to the magnitude and conditions of maximum force sensitivity, their resonator was chosen as the most promising force probe to combine with Romero-Isart et al.’s proposal.\
[**Acknowledgment**]{} BLH and MD wish to thank Gerhard Grössing and Jan Walleczek for their regal Viennese receptions at the EmQM (Emergent Quantum Mechanics) 2015 meeting. BLH also wishes to thank Philip Stamp and organizers of the second PITP- Galiano Island meeting (Probing the mystery: Theory & Experiment in Qunatum Gravity) in August 2015 for their eco-immersed Pacific-Northwest hospitality. The Galiano discussions amongst leading experimentalists working at the interface of quantum and gravitation physics provided a good stimulus for us to explore the experimental possibilities in the realization of the theoretical scheme proposed in [@ProbeCat2014]. We are particularly grateful to Oriol Romero-Isart for the many valuable correspondences about his proposed superconducting sphere experiment.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Anastopoulos C and Hu B L 2015 *Class. Quantum Grav.* 32 165022
Romero-Isart O, Clemente L, Navau C, Sanchez A and Cirac J I 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 109 147205
Romero-Isart O 2016 private communication
Reinhardt C, Mueller T, Bourassa A and Sankey J C Ultralow-Noise SiN Trampoline Resonators for Sensing and Optomechanics 2015 (*Preprint* cond-mat.mes-hall/1511.01769)
Mohideen U and Roy A 1998 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 21 4549
M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg and F. Marquardt 2014 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* 86 1391
Bassi A, Lochan K, Satin S, Singh T P and Ulbricht H 2013 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* 85 471
Adler S L 2013 *Class. Quantum Grav.* 30 195015
Derakhshani M 2014 *Phys. Lett.* A 378 14
Tilloy A and Diosi L 2016, *Phys. Rev.* D 93, 024026
Goldstein S 2013 (plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm)
Struyve W 2015 Semi-classical approximations on Bohmian mechanics (*Preprint* quant-ph/1507.04771)
Vaidman L 2014 (plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds)
Page D N and Geilker C D 1981 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 47 979
Schreppler S, Spethmann N, Brahms N, Botter T, Barrios M and Stamper-Kurn D M 2014 *Science* 344 1486
Moser J, Guettinger J, Eichler A, Esplandiu M J, Liu D E, Dykman M I and Bachtold A 2013 *Nature Nanotechnology* 8 493
Moser J, Guettinger J, Eichler A, Esplandiu M J, Liu D E, Dykman M I and Bachtold A 2014 *Nature Nanotechnology* 9 1007
Tao Y, Boss J M, Moores B A and Degen C L 2005 *Nature Communications* 5 3638
Ranjit G, Atherton D P, Stutz J H, Cunningham M and Geraci A A 2015 *Phys. Rev.* A 91 051805
Kleckner D, Pepper B, Jeffrey E, Sonin P, Thon S M and Bouwmeester D 2011 *Opt. Express* 19 19708
Wagner T A, Schlamminger S, Gundlach J H and Adelberger E G 2012 *Class. Quantum Grav.* 29 184002
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The stability of superfluid currents in a system of ultracold bosons was studied using a moving optical lattice. Superfluid currents in a very weak lattice become unstable when their momentum exceeds 0.5 recoil momentum. Superfluidity vanishes already for zero momentum as the lattice deep reaches the Mott insulator(MI) phase transition. We study the phase diagram for the disappearance of superfluidity as a function of momentum and lattice depth between these two limits. Our phase boundary extrapolates to the critical lattice depth for the superfluid-to-MI transition with 2$\%$ precision. When a one-dimensional gas was loaded into a moving optical lattice a sudden broadening of the transition between stable and unstable phases was observed.'
author:
- Jongchul Mun
- Patrick Medley
- 'Gretchen K. Campbell'
- 'Luis G. Marcassa'
- 'David E. Pritchard'
- Wolfgang Ketterle
title: 'Phase diagram for a Bose-Einstein condensate moving in an optical lattice'
---
The realization of condensed matter systems using ultracold atoms brings the precision and control of atomic physics to the study of many-body physics. Many studies have focussed on Mott insulator physics, an important paradigm for the suppression of transport by particle correlations. Previous studies of the superfluid(SF)-to-Mott insulator(MI) transition in optical lattices with ultracold bosons [@Jaksch-98; @Orzel-01; @Greiner-02; @stoferle-04; @Folling-05; @Gerbier-05; @Campbell-06; @Folling-06] adressed the quenching of superfluidity below a critical lattice depth. Here we extend these studies into a second dimension by studying stability of superfluid current as a function of momentum and lattice depth as suggested in ref. [@Altman-05]. These transport measurements show the stability of the quantum phase in a moving system, which is far from equilibrium.
Transport measurements extend previous work on stationary systems in two regards. First, superfluidity near the MI transition has only been indirectly inferred from coherence measurements, whereas in this work, we characterize the superfluid regime by observing a critical current for superfluid flow. Second, previous studies [@Jaksch-98; @Orzel-01; @Greiner-02; @stoferle-04; @Folling-05; @Gerbier-05; @Campbell-06; @Folling-06] were not able to precisely locate the phase transition, since the observed excitation spectrum and atomic interference pattern did not abruptly change [@Greiner-02; @Folling-05; @Gerbier-05], partially due to the inhomogeneous density. In contrast, the sudden onset of dissipation provides a clear distinction between the two quantum phases. In the SF phase, current flows without dissipation if the momentum does not exceed a critical momentum, while in the MI phase the critical momentum vanishes and transport is dissipative.
Bosonic atoms in an optical lattice are often described by the Bose-Hubbard Model where the tunneling between nearest neighbour lattice sites is characterized by the hopping matrix element $J$ and the repulsive interactions by the on-site matrix element $U$ [@Jaksch-98; @Fisher-89; @Krauth-92; @Freericks-94]. The dimensionless interaction energy $u\equiv U /J$ determines the quantum phase of the system. For $u>u_c$, the system is in the MI phase; for $u<u_c$, it is in the SF phase.
For weak interactions ($u \rightarrow 0$), the system approaches single-particle physics in a periodic potential well described by Bloch states and band structure. The critical momentum for a stable current-carrying state is $0.5$ $p_r$ ($p_r = h / \lambda$ is the recoil momentum of an atom, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the optical lattice light) [@Wu-2001]. At the critical momentum, it becomes possible for two atoms in the same initial Bloch state to scatter into two other states and conserve energy and quasi-momentum [@Campbell-PRL06; @Hilligsoe-05]. For sufficiently deep lattices this occurs when the effective mass becomes negative. Instabilities in a 1D optical lattice were studied theoretically using a linear stability analysis of the Gross-Pitaevskii Equation [@Wu-2001; @Modugno-04] , and experimentally [@Campbell-06; @Fallani-04]. The theoretical studies predicted that for increasing lattice depth or increasing atomic interactions the stability of superfluid flow should increase [@Wu-2001; @Modugno-04]: the dynamic instability would stay near $0.5$ $p_r$ whereas the Landau critical velocity and therefore the energetic instability would shift to larger momenta (For more discussions on dynamic and energetic instability, see ref. [@Sarlo-05; @BiaoWu-07]). However, these analyses neglect the growing importance of quantum correlations for larger lattice depth which lead to the SF-MI phase transition, where the critical momentum for a superfluid current vanishes. In this paper, we study the decrease of the critical momentum from its value for the weakly interacting regime towards zero at the MI transition.(Fig. \[expprocess\])
Most studies of the SF-MI phase transition monitor the coherence in the superfluid phase through an interference pattern observed in the ballistic expansion resulting from a sudden turn-off of the confining potential and lattice. Previous observations of the phase transition found the experimental transition point to lie in the range between $10$ and $13$ $E_R$ (with the recoil energy defined as $E_R = p_r
^2 /2m$ where $m$ is the atomic mass) [@Greiner-02]. This uncertainty is related to the inhomogeneous density profile of trapped atoms and to the fact that the visibility of the interference extends beyond the transition point due to short-range coherence in the MI phase [@Gerbier-05]. It has been suggested that observed kinks in the visibility are linked to the formation of the MI shells with occupation numbers $N=2$ and $3$ [@Gerbier-05]. Several authors have suggested other features in the momentum distribution beyond coherent interference peaks as a more distinct signature of the phase transition [@Wessel-04; @Kashurnikov-02]. Here we show that the disappearance of the critical momentum for superfluid flow provides such a signature and allows the determination of the transition point with high precision.
Our measurement was not limited by the inhomogeneous density profile. For our range of lattice depths, low critical momenta and the onset of dissipation occur only near the formation of MI shells with integer occupation numbers $N$ [@Altman-05]. The onset of dissipation related to the $N=1$ domains occurs at smaller momentum than for other $N$ domains. For instance, with increasing momentum $p$ the $N=1$ domain becomes unstable first, and this triggers dissipation over the whole atomic cloud [@Altman-05]. Therefore, the breakdown of superfluid flow in the system was determined by the formation of the $N=1$ domain and was not smeared out by the inhomogeneous density. Our criterion, the sudden onset of dissipation, depended on the formation of an insulating shell surrounded by a superfluid region, which occurs only in the inhomogeneous case.
In our experimental setup, a Bose-Einstein condensate of $^{87}$Rb atoms in the 5S$_{1/2}$ $\left|1,-1\right>$ state was prepared and trapped in a combination of an Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap and an optical dipole trap. The number of atoms in the BEC was typically $2
\times 10^5$, resulting in a maximum filling factor $N$ of around 3. The magnetic trap frequencies were $\omega_{x,y}=40$ Hz radially and $\omega_z=4.6$ Hz axially. The laser beam for the optical dipole trap was oriented along the x-axis. This laser beam was retroreflected and the polarization of the retroreflected beam was rotated in order to minimize interference between the two beams. Along the vertical direction (y-axis) a lattice was formed by a retroreflected laser beam. For the z-axis, a moving lattice was created by introducing a small frequency detuning $\delta f$ between the two counter-propagating laser beams using acousto-optical modulators driven by phase-locked frequency generators. The 3D optical lattice was ramped up in the following way: For the lattice along the x-axis, the polarization of the retroreflected beam was rotated to increase the interference contrast. For the other two axes, the power was increased exponentially in 160 ms. All lattice beams were derived from the same laser operating at $\lambda=1064$ nm and had an $1/e^2$ waist of 100 $\sim$ 200 $\mu$m. The lattice depth was calibrated with 1 $\%$ accuracy by applying a 12.5 $\mu$s lattice laser pulse to a BEC and comparing the observed Kapitza-Dirac diffraction pattern of a BEC to theory. Fits of more than twenty diffraction patterns for the lattice depth from $<$1 $E_R$ to 40 $E_R$ resulted in an accuracy of the calibration of 1 $\%$.
For transport measurements, we moved an optical lattice [@Fallani-04; @Dahan-96] which provides more flexibility to change the momentum than exciting a dipole oscillation by displacement of the BEC [@Cataliotti-01; @Fertig-05]. A moving optical lattice with velocity $v=\lambda \cdot \delta f/2$ was created along the long axis of the BEC by introducing a small frequency detuning $\delta f$ between two counter-propagating lattice beams. If the velocity $v(t)$ changes slowly enough not to induce interband excitations, the initial Bloch state $\left|p=0\right>$ of the condensate in the optical lattice adiabatically evolves into the current-carrying state $\left|
p(t)=-mv(t) \right>$ where $p$ is the quasi-momentum. For increasing lattice depth, the effective mass of atoms $m^*=[\partial^2
E(p)/\partial p^2]^{-1}$ increases, and the group velocity $v_g =
-(m/m^*) v(t)$ decreases. As a consequence, atoms prepared in a moving lattice with quasi-momentum $p = -m v$ travel in the frame of the moving lattice with $v_g$ and in the lab frame with velocity $\Delta v = v+v_g =(1-m/m^*)v$, which approaches $v$ in a deep lattice. Consequently, we observed that in a deep moving lattice atoms were dragged along to the edge of the trapping region limiting the experimental time scale to probe for dissipation. This became an issue for larger values of $p$ and was addressed by first ramping up the lattice with $p=0$ and then alternating the velocity of the moving lattice, thus performing a low-frequency AC transport measurement instead of DC.
We have used two sets of experimental procedures (Fig. \[expprocess\]), and our results were consistent for both. Close to the SF-MI phase transition, the lattice was increased to $V_{latt}$ with a fixed (and small) value of momentum $p$ (dahsed arrows in Fig. \[expprocess\]). After a variable hold time $t_{hold}$ at $V_{latt}$ the lattice was ramped down to zero, and the magnetic trap switched off. After 33 ms of ballistic expansion, the atoms were imaged and the condensate fraction was determined as a function of momentum. For smaller lattice depths, the lattice was ramped up with $p=0$ (Fig.\[expprocess\]). Then a sinusoidal momentum modulation of the moving lattice with amplitude $p_M$ was applied by modulating the frequency detuning $\delta f$ between the counter-propagating lattice beams. The 10 ms period of this momentum modulation was slow enough to meet the adiabaticity condition, but fast enough to limit the displacement of the atomic cloud to less than a few $\mu$m. Both the trapping potential and the optical lattice were then turned off suddenly. After 33 ms of ballistic expansion, the condensate fraction of the center peak of the superfluid interference pattern was recorded as a function of the momentum modulation amplitude $p_M$. Several cycles (typically, three to five) of the momentum modulation were applied to obtain a high contrast between the stable and dissipative regimes (Fig. \[CFplot\] (a)).
Fig. \[CFplot\] (a) shows how the transition between superfluid and dissipative currents became sharper with increasing number of cycles of the momentum modulation. The critical momentum was determined from a log-log plot of the condensate fraction as a function of momentum $p$ (Fig. \[CFplot\] (c)). For low $p$, the condensate fraction is constant. For high $p$, the condensate fraction decreases. The intersection between two linear fit functions was taken as the critical momentum. Our result was found to be independent of the time period and number of cycles of the momentum modulation at a few percent level.
In the MI phase, stable superfluid flow is not possible and the critical momentum should vanish. However, using the procedure described above, we measured a small critical momentum of $0.02$ $p_r$ for lattice depths $V_{latt}=14, 15, 16$ $E_R$. Up to this momentum, the SF-MI phase transition remained reversible. We interpret the non-zero critical momentum as a finite-size effect. For our cloud size of $60$ $\mu m$, the corresponding Heisenberg momentum uncertainty of $0.018$ $p_r$ agrees with our measured critical momentum. In cold atom experiments, some sloshing motion of the cloud in the trapping potential is unavoidable. The momentum uncertainty determined above indicates how much sloshing motion can be tolerated without affecting the observed phase transition.
The critical lattice depth for the SF-MI phase transition can be determined as the point where the critical momentum vanishes. Using the predicted functional form [@Altman-05] of the approach towards zero, $p_c \propto \sqrt{1-u/u_c}$, as a fit function for the data points close to the SF-MI phase transition (the data points shown in the inset of Fig. \[phasediagram\]) we determined the critical value $u_c = 34.2$ $(\pm 2.0)$ corresponding to a lattice depth of $13.5(\pm0.2)$ $E_R$ [^1]. Our result agrees with the mean field theory prediction $u_c =5.8\times6=34.8$ for $N=1$ SF-MI phase transition [@Jaksch-98] and deviates by 2 $\sigma$ from the predictions of $u_c=29.34(2)$ of quantum Monte Carlo(QMC) simulation [@Freericks-96; @capogrossosansone-07], which includes corrections beyond the mean field theory. This demonstrates that our method has the precision to identify non-mean field corrections. However, to turn precision into accuracy, experiments or QMC simulations [@Wessel-04; @Freericks-96; @capogrossosansone-07] have to address corrections due to finite size, finite temperature, and finite time to probe the onset of the instability [@capogrossosansone-07]. In our experiment, these corrections seemed to be small, but have not been characterized at the level of 1$\%$ in lattice depth.
The mean-field prediction for stable superfluid flow in 1D is similar to that for the 3D system [@Altman-05]. However, it is well known that fluctuations play a much more important role in 1D. For studying a 1D system, we prepared an array of one-dimensional gas tubes by ramping two pairs of optical lattice beams up to lattice depths of $V_x=V_y=30$ $E_R$ suppressing hopping between the tubes. After a hold time of 10 ms, a moving optical lattice was ramped up along the z-axis. As in our 3D experiment, a momentum modulation was applied, after which the moving optical lattice was ramped down to zero, followed by the other two optical lattices. The condensate fraction was determined after 33 ms of ballistic expansion as a function of the momentum modulation amplitude. The critical momentum, where the onset of dissipation begins, was identified from a log-log plot as in the 3D case. Since the transitions became very broad, we characterized them by an error function fit, with the center of the fitted error function taken as the center of the transition (Fig. \[1ddata\]).
In the 1D system, at a very shallow lattice depth of $0.25$ $E_R$ (corresponding to $u/u_c= 0.08$) a sharp transition was observed, and the measured critical momentum agreed very well with the prediction [@Altman-05; @Polkovnikov-05] of a critical momentum of $0.39$ $p_r$. However, a slight increase of the interaction strength (to $u/u_c=0.09$ at a lattice depth of $0.5$ $E_R$) led to a significant decrease of the critical momentum as well as a dramatic broadening of the transition as shown in Fig. \[1ddata\]. For lattice depths larger than $2$ $E_R$, the transition became very broad and showed complex behavior, and we could not obtain quantitative fits. Our results show a significant deviation from the mean-field theory predictions and are in agreement with previous experiments [@Fertig-05] where damped dipole oscillations of a 1D Bose gas in an optical lattice were observed, and the damping grew rapidly even at very shallow lattice depths around $0.25$ $E_R$.
The observed broadening of the transition confirms theoretical studies which emphasize the importance of quantum fluctuations in the 1D system. Quantum tunneling out of metastable states which are ignored in the mean-field description can lead to a decay of the superfluid current at very low momenta [@Polkovnikov-05]. In addition to quantum fluctuations, thermal fluctuations provide a mechanism for current decay [@Polkovnikov-05]. In our experiment, we used a “pure” BEC without a discernible thermal component. The close agreement with $T=0$ predictions indicates that thermal fluctuations were not dominant.
In conclusion we have used transport studies to connect a well-known dynamical instability for weakly interacting bosons with the equilibrium superfluid to Mott insulator transition. A comparison of 3D and 1D systems confirms the applicability of a mean-field description in 3D and the crucial importance of fluctuations in 1D. The disappearance of superfluid currents at the SF-MI phase transition precisely located the phase transition. Our results illustrate the control and precision of condensed matter physics experiments done with ultracold atoms and their suitability to test many-body theories.
This work was funded by NSF through the grant for CUA. L.G.M. acknowledges support from Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior. We thank E. Demler and A. Polkovnikov for insightful discussions, and David Weld for a critical reading of the manuscript.
[28]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
[^1]: The lattice depth was converted to dimensionless interaction energy $u$ following the method in ref. [@Jaksch-98] using Wannier function truncated at the 5th excited Bloch band and a s-wave scattering length $a=100.44 a_0$ [@harber-02] ($a_0$: Bohr radius).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Naoki Kobayashi
- Takeshi Tsukada
- Keiichi Watanabe
title: |
Higher-Order Program Verification\
via HFL Model Checking
---
### Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
We would like to thank anonymous referees for useful comments. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15H05706 and JP16K16004.
[10]{} \[1\][`#1`]{}
Axelsson, R., Lange, M., Somla, R.: The complexity of model checking higher-order fixpoint logic. Logical Methods in Computer Science 3(2) (2007)
Bj[ø]{}rner, N., Gurfinkel, A., McMillan, K.L., Rybalchenko, A.: Horn clause solvers for program verification. In: Fields of Logic and Computation [II]{} - Essays Dedicated to Yuri Gurevich on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday. LNCS, vol. 9300, pp. 24–51. Springer (2015)
Bj[ø]{}rner, N., McMillan, K.L., Rybalchenko, A.: Program verification as satisfiability modulo theories. In: [SMT]{} 2012. EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 20, pp. 3–11. EasyChair (2012)
Bj[ø]{}rner, N., McMillan, K.L., Rybalchenko, A.: Higher-order program verification as satisfiability modulo theories with algebraic data-types. CoRR abs/1306.5264 (2013)
Blass, A., Gurevich, Y.: Existential fixed-point logic. In: Computation Theory and Logic, In Memory of Dieter R[ö]{}dding. LNCS, vol. 270, pp. 20–36. Springer (1987)
Blume, M., Acar, U.A., Chae, W.: Exception handlers as extensible cases. In: Proceedings of APLAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5356, pp. 273–289. Springer (2008)
Burn, T.C., Ong, C.L., Ramsay, S.J.: Higher-order constrained horn clauses for verification. [PACMPL]{} 2([POPL]{}), 11:1–11:28 (2018)
Carayol, A., Serre, O.: Collapsible pushdown automata and labeled recursion schemes: Equivalence, safety and effective selection. In: LICS 2012. pp. 165–174. IEEE (2012)
Dijkstra, E.W.: Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. Commun. [ACM]{} 18(8), 453–457 (1975)
Filliâtre, J.C., Paskevich, A.: Why3 — where programs meet provers. In: Felleisen, M., Gardner, P. (eds.) Proceedings of ESOP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7792, pp. 125–128. Springer (2013)
Gr[ä]{}del, E., Thomas, W., Wilke, T. (eds.): Automata, Logics, and Infinite Games: A Guide to Current Research, LNCS, vol. 2500. Springer (2002)
Grellois, C., Melli[è]{}s, P.: Relational semantics of linear logic and higher-order model checking. In: Proceedings of [CSL]{} 2015. LIPIcs, vol. 41, pp. 260–276 (2015)
Haddad, A.: Model checking and functional program transformations. In: Proceedings of [FSTTCS]{} 2013. LIPIcs, vol. 24, pp. 115–126 (2013)
Hesselink, W.H.: Predicate-transformer semantics of general recursion. Acta Inf. 26(4), 309–332 (1989)
Hofmann, M., Chen, W.: Abstract interpretation from [B[ü]{}chi]{} automata. In: Proceedings of [CSL-LICS]{} ’14. pp. 51:1–51:10. [ACM]{} (2014)
Igarashi, A., Kobayashi, N.: Resource usage analysis. ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst. 27(2), 264–313 (2005)
Jurdzinski, M.: Small progress measures for solving parity games. In: Proceeding of [STACS]{} 2000. LNCS, vol. 1770, pp. 290–301. Springer (2000)
Knapik, T., Niwinski, D., Urzyczyn, P.: Higher-order pushdown trees are easy. In: FoSSaCS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2303, pp. 205–222. Springer (2002)
Kobayashi, N.: Types and higher-order recursion schemes for verification of higher-order programs. In: Proceedings of POPL. pp. 416–428. ACM Press (2009)
Kobayashi, N.: Model checking higher-order programs. Journal of the ACM 60(3) (2013)
Kobayashi, N., Lozes, [É]{}., Bruse, F.: On the relationship between higher-order recursion schemes and higher-order fixpoint logic. In: Proceedings of [POPL]{} 2017. pp. 246–259 (2017)
Kobayashi, N., Matsuda, K., Shinohara, A., Yaguchi, K.: Functional programs as compressed data. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation (2013)
Kobayashi, N., Ong, C.H.L.: A type system equivalent to the modal mu-calculus model checking of higher-order recursion schemes. In: Proceedings of LICS 2009. pp. 179–188 (2009)
Kobayashi, N., Ong, C.H.L.: A type system equivalent to the modal mu-calculus model checking of higher-order recursion schemes. <http://www-kb.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~koba/tmp/lics09-full.pdf>. A longer version of [@KO09LICS] (2012)
Kobayashi, N., Sato, R., Unno, H.: Predicate abstraction and [CEGAR]{} for higher-order model checking. In: Proc. of PLDI. pp. 222–233. ACM Press (2011)
Koskinen, E., Terauchi, T.: Local temporal reasoning. In: Proceedings of [CSL-LICS]{} ’14. pp. 59:1–59:10. [ACM]{} (2014)
Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional $\mu$-calculus. Theor. Comput. Sci. 27, 333–354 (1983)
Kuwahara, T., Sato, R., Unno, H., Kobayashi, N.: Predicate abstraction and [CEGAR]{} for disproving termination of higher-order functional programs. In: Proceedings of CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9207, pp. 287–303. Springer (2015)
Kuwahara, T., Terauchi, T., Unno, H., Kobayashi, N.: Automatic termination verification for higher-order functional programs. In: Proceedings of [ESOP]{} 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8410, pp. 392–411. Springer (2014)
Lange, M., Lozes, [É]{}., Guzm[á]{}n, M.V.: Model-checking process equivalences. Theor. Comput. Sci. 560, 326–347 (2014)
Ledesma-Garza, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Binary reachability analysis of higher order functional programs. In: SAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7460, pp. 388–404. Springer (2012)
Lozes, [É]{}.: A type-directed negation elimination. In: Proceedings [FICS]{} 2015. [EPTCS]{}, vol. 191, pp. 132–142 (2015)
Murase, A., Terauchi, T., Kobayashi, N., Sato, R., Unno, H.: Temporal verification of higher-order functional programs. In: Proceedings of POPL 2016. pp. 57–68 (2016)
Ong, C.H.L.: On model-checking trees generated by higher-order recursion schemes. In: LICS 2006. pp. 81–90. IEEE Computer Society Press (2006)
Ong, C.H.L., Ramsay, S.: Verifying higher-order programs with pattern-matching algebraic data types. In: Proceedings of POPL. pp. 587–598. ACM Press (2011)
Rondon, P.M., Kawaguchi, M., Jhala, R.: Liquid types. In: PLDI 2008. pp. 159–169 (2008)
Salvati, S., Walukiewicz, I.: Krivine machines and higher-order schemes. Information and Computation 239(Supplement C), 340 – 355 (2014), <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540114000984>
Sangiorgi, D.: Introduction to Bisimulation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press (2012)
Skalka, C., Smith, S.F., Horn, D.V.: Types and trace effects of higher order programs. J. Funct. Program. 18(2), 179–249 (2008)
Terauchi, T.: Dependent types from counterexamples. In: Proceedings of POPL. pp. 119–130. [ACM]{} (2010)
Tobita, Y., Tsukada, T., Kobayashi, N.: Exact flow analysis by higher-order model checking. In: Proceedings of FLOPS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7294, pp. 275–289. Springer (2012)
Tsukada, T., Ong, C.L.: Compositional higher-order model checking via *[$\omega$]{}*-regular games over b[ö]{}hm trees. In: Proceedings of [CSL-LICS]{} ’14. pp. 78:1–78:10. [ACM]{} (2014)
Unno, H., Kobayashi, N.: Dependent type inference with interpolants. In: PPDP 2009. pp. 277–288. [ACM]{} (2009)
Unno, H., Satake, Y., Terauchi, T.: Relatively complete refinement type system for verification of higher-order non-deterministic programs. [PACMPL]{} 2([POPL]{}), 12:1–12:29 (2018)
Unno, H., Terauchi, T., Kobayashi, N.: Automating relatively complete verification of higher-order functional programs. In: [POPL]{} 2013. pp. 75–86. [ACM]{} (2013)
Viswanathan, M., Viswanathan, R.: A higher order modal fixed point logic. In: CONCUR. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3170, pp. 512–528. Springer (2004)
Watanabe, K., Sato, R., Tsukada, T., Kobayashi, N.: Automatically disproving fair termination of higher-order functional programs. In: Proceedings of [ICFP]{} 2016. pp. 243–255. [ACM]{} (2016)
Winskel, G.: The Formal Semantics of Programming Languages: An Introduction. The MIT Press (1993)
Winskel, G.: Prime algebraicity. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(41), 4160–4168 (2009)
Zhu, H., Nori, A.V., Jagannathan, S.: Learning refinement types. In: Proceedings of [ICFP]{} 2015. pp. 400–411. [ACM]{} (2015)
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
---
[**A Computational Model of Liver Iron Metabolism** ]{}\
Simon Mitchell$^{1}$, Pedro Mendes$^{1,2}$$\ast$\
**[1]{} School of Computer Science and Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK\
**[2]{} Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA\
$\ast$ E-mail: [email protected]****
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Iron is essential for all known life due to its redox properties, however these same properties can also lead to its toxicity in overload through the production of reactive oxygen species. Robust systemic and cellular control are required to maintain safe levels of iron and the liver seems to be where this regulation is mainly located. Iron misregulation is implicated in many diseases and as our understanding of iron metabolism improves the list of iron-related disorders grows. Recent developments have resulted in greater knowledge of the fate of iron in the body and have led to a detailed map of its metabolism, however a quantitative understanding at the systems level of how its components interact to produce tight regulation remains elusive.
A mechanistic computational model of human liver iron metabolism, which includes the core regulatory components, is presented here. It was constructed based on known mechanisms of regulation and on their kinetic properties, obtained from several publications. The model was then quantitatively validated by comparing its results with previously published physiological data, and it is able to reproduce multiple experimental findings. A time course simulation following an oral dose of iron was compared to a clinical time course study and the simulation was found to recreate the dynamics and time scale of the systems response to iron challenge. A disease state simulation of haemochromatosis was created by altering a single reaction parameter that mimics a human haemochromatosis gene (HFE) mutation. The simulation provides a quantitative understanding of the liver iron overload that arises in this disease.
This model supports and supplements understanding of the role of the liver as an iron sensor and provides a framework for further modelling, including simulations to identify valuable drug targets and design of experiments to improve further our knowledge of this system.
Author Summary {#author-summary .unnumbered}
==============
Iron is an essential nutrient required for healthy life but, in excess, is the cause of debilitating and even fatal conditions. The most common genetic disorder in humans caused by a mutation, haemochromatosis, results in an iron overload in the liver. Indeed the liver plays a central role in the regulation of iron. Recently, an increasing amount of detail has been discovered about molecules related to iron metabolism, but an understanding of how they work together and regulate iron levels (in healthy people) or fail to do it (in disease) is still missing. We present a mathematical model of the regulation of liver iron metabolism that provides explanations of its dynamics and allows further hypotheses to be formulated and later tested in experiments. Importantly, the model reproduces accurately the healthy liver iron homeostasis and simulates haemochromatosis showing how the causative mutation leads to iron overload. We investigate how best to control iron regulation and identified reactions that can be targets of new medicines to treat iron overload. The model provides a virtual laboratory for investigating iron metabolism and improves understanding of the method by which the liver senses and controls iron levels.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Iron is an essential element from archaea to complex eukaryotes and man [@Aisen2001Chemistry], and is required for many processes including oxygen transport, DNA synthesis and respiration. Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency affecting a large proportion of all humans [@TussingHumphreys2012Review]. The redox activity which provides iron’s utility also means poorly regulated iron metabolism can lead to highly toxic free radicals [@Kell2009Iron]. Maintaining the delicate balance of iron requires robust cellular and systemic regulation since both iron deficiency and overload can cause cell death [@Hentze2004Balancing]. Recent research has lead to a much greater understanding of the mechanisms controlling iron metabolism and a global view of the interactions between iron-related components is beginning to emerge [@Dunn2007Iron; @Hower2009General].
The liver has been proposed to play a central role in the regulation of iron homeostasis [@Frazer2003Orchestration] through the action of the recently discovered hormone hepcidin [@Park2001Hepcidin]. Hepcidin is expressed predominantly in the liver [@Pigeon2001New] and distributed in the serum to control systemic iron metabolism. Hepcidin acts on ferroportin to induce its degradation. Ferroportin is the sole iron exporting protein in mammalian cells [@VanZandt2008Iron], therefore hepcidin expression reduces iron export into the serum from enterocytes, and reduces iron export from the liver. Intracellular iron metabolism is controlled by the action of iron response proteins (IRPs) [@Hentze1996Molecular]. IRPs post-transcriptionally regulate mRNAs encoding proteins involved in iron metabolism. IRPs combined with ferritin and the transferrin receptors (TfR) make up the center of cellular iron regulation. Ferritin is the iron-storage protein forming a hollow shell which counters the toxic effects of free iron by storing iron atoms in a chemically less reactive ferrihydrite [@Harrison1977Ferritin]. Extracellular iron circulates bound to transferrin (Tf), and is imported into the cell through the action of membrane bound proteins transferrin receptors 1 and 2 (TfR1 and TfR2). Human haemochromatosis protein (HFE) competes with transferrin bound iron for binding to TfR1 and TfR2 [@West2001Mutational].
Systems Biology provides an excellent methodology for elucidating understanding, through computational modelling, of the complex iron metabolic network. A quantitative model of iron metabolism allows for a careful and principled examination of the effect of the various components of the network. Modelling allows one to do “what-if” experiments leading to new hypotheses that can later be put to test experimentally. However, no comprehensive model of liver iron metabolism exists to date. Models have been published that cover specific molecular events only, such as the loading of iron in ferritin [@Salgado2010Mathematical]. A qualitative map of mammalian iron metabolism provides a detailed overview of the molecular interactions involved in iron metabolism, including in specific cell types [@Hower2009General]. Similarly, a detailed model of iron metabolism and oxidative stress was described but uses a Boolean approach and is specific for yeast [@Achcar2011]. Quantitative models of the iron network have been recently described [@Chifman2012Core; @Mobilia2012], yet these include only a few components of the iron network. The model from Chifman [*et al.*]{} suggests that the dynamics of this iron network is stable [@Chifman2012Core]. Large-scale models of the metabolism of the hepatocyte [@Gille2010; @Krauss2012] and a generic human metabolism stoichiometric model [@Thiele2013] have also been published, but these contain only four reactions relating to iron metabolism. While they include iron transport, the receptors are not considered, and regulatory details are absent altogether.
Existing models are therefore at two extremes of detail: very specific and very generic — but to address questions about hepatic iron regulation, what is desirable is a model that balances coverage and detail. This is the aim of the present work. One of the problems of modelling iron metabolism quantitatively and in detail arises from the lack of parameter values for many interactions. Recently, several of those parameters have been described in the literature (Table \[tab:reaction\_parameters\]), particularly using technologies like surface plasmon resonance. This has enabled us to construct a detailed mechanistic kinetic model of human hepatocyte iron metabolism. The model has been validated by being able to reproduce data from several disease conditions — importantly, these physiological data were not used in constructing the model. This validation provides a sense of confidence that the model is indeed appropriate for understanding liver iron regulation and for predicting the response to various environmental perturbations.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Our model was constructed based on many published data on individual molecular interactions (see Methods section), and is available in Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML) and COPASI formats in supplementary data, as well as from BioModels (http://identifiers.org/biomodels.db/MODEL1302260000) [@LeNovere2006BioModels]. Figure \[bigDiagram\] depicts a process diagram of the model, using the Systems Biology Graphical Notation (SBGN) standard [@Novere2009Systems], where all the considered interactions are shown. It is important to highlight that while results described below are largely in agreement with observations, the model was not forced to replicate them. The extent of agreement between model and physiological data provides confidence that the model is accurate enough to carry out “what-if” type of experiments that can provide quantitative explanation of iron regulation in the liver.
Steady State {#steady-state .unnumbered}
------------
Initial validation of the model was performed by assessing the ability to recreate experimentally-observed steady-state concentrations of metabolites and rates of reactions. Simulations were run to steady state using the parameters and initial conditions from Tables \[tab:tableOfParams\] and \[tab:reaction\_parameters\]. Table \[tab:tableOfSS\] compares steady-state concentrations of metabolites and reaction rates with experimental observations.
Chua [*et al.*]{} [@Chua2010Iron] injected radio-labeled transferrin bound iron into the serum of mice and measured the total uptake of the liver after 120 minutes. The uptake rate, when expressed as mol/s, was close to that found at steady state by the computational model (Table \[tab:tableOfSS\]).
A technical aspect of note in this steady state solution, is that it is very stiff. This originates because one section of the model is orders or magnitude faster than the rest: the cycle composed of iron binding to ferritin, internalization and release. Arguably this could be resolved by simplifying the model, but the model was left intact because this cycling is an important aspect of iron metabolism and allows the representation of ferritin saturation. Even though the stiffness is high, our software is able to cope by using an appropriate numerical method.
Response to Iron Challenge {#response-to-iron-challenge .unnumbered}
--------------------------
An oral dose of iron creates a fluctuation in serum transferrin saturation of approximately 10% [@Girelli2011Time]. The fixed serum iron concentration in the simulation was replaced by a transient increase in concentration equivalent to a 10% increase in transferrin saturation as a simulation of oral iron dosage on hepatocytes. The simulated hepcidin response (Figure \[fig:IronResponse\]A) is consistent with the hepcidin response measured by Girelli [*et al.*]{} [@Girelli2011Time] (Figure \[fig:IronResponse\]B & C). The time scale and dynamics of the hepcidin response to iron challenge has been accurately replicated in the simulation presented here. Although the exact dynamics of the simulated response is not validated by either experimental technique (mass spectrometry or ELISA) the simulation appears to present an approximation of the two experimental techniques reaching a peak between 4 and 8 hours and returning to around basal levels within 24 hours.
Cellular Iron Regulation {#cellular-iron-regulation .unnumbered}
------------------------
The computational model supports the proposed role of HFE and TFR2 as sensors of systemic iron. Figure \[fig:IronChangeHFETfR\]B shows that as the concentration of HFE bound to TfR2 (HFE-TfR2) increases with serum transferrin-bound iron (Tf-Fe\_intercell), at the same time the abundance of HFE bound to TfR1 (HFE-TfR1) decreases. The increase in HFE-TfR2 complex, even though of small magnitude, promotes increased expression of hepcidin (Figure \[fig:IronChangeHFETfR\]A). It is through this mechanism that liver cells sense serum iron levels and control whole body iron metabolism through the action of hepcidin. Although the labile iron pool increases with serum transferrin-bound iron in this simulation, this is only because the model does not include the action of hepcidin in reducing duodenal export of iron. Expression and secretion of hepcidin will have a global effect of reducing the labile iron pool.
Hereditary Haemochromatosis Simulation {#hereditary-haemochromatosis-simulation .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
Hereditary haemochromatosis is the most common hereditary disorder with a prevalence higher than 1 in 500 [@Asberg2001Screening]. Type 1 haemochromatosis is the most common and is caused by a mutation in the HFE gene leading to a misregulation of hepcidin and consequent systemic iron overload.
A virtual HFE knockdown was performed by reducing 100-fold the rate constant for HFE synthesis in the model, to create a simulation of type 1 hereditary haemochromatosis. The simulation was run to steady state and results were compared with experimental findings.
Qualitative validation showed the [*in silico*]{} HFE knockdown could reproduce multiple experimental findings as shown in Table \[table:tableHFEKO\]. Quantitatively the model was unable to reproduce accurately the finding that [*Hfe -/-*]{} mice have 3 times higher hepatic iron levels [@Fleming2001Mouse]. This was due to the fixed intercellular transferrin bound iron concentration in the model, unlike in [*Hfe -/-*]{} mice where there is an increase in transferrin saturation as a result of increased intestinal iron absorption [@Fleming2001Mouse]. Despite fixed extracellular conditions the model predicted an intracellular hepatocyte iron overload which would be further compounded by the systemic effects of the misregulation of hepcidin. The simulation recreated increased ferroportin levels despite the expression of ferroportin remaining the same as wild type which was consistent with mRNA measurements from Ludwiczek [*[*et al.*]{}* ]{} [@Ludwiczek2005Regulatory]. mRNA based experiments can be used to validate expression rates and protein assays are able to validate steady state protein concentrations as both expression rates and steady state protein concentrations are available as results from the computational model. The model of haemochromatosis was also able to replicate the dynamics of experimental responses to changing dietary iron conditions. An approximate 2-fold increase in hepatic ferroportin expression is caused by increased dietary iron in both haemochromatosis and healthy mice [@Ludwiczek2005Regulatory]. The model presented here recreated this increase with increasing intercellular iron as can be seen in Figure \[fig:IronChangeFPN\].
HFE knockout has been shown to impair the induction of hepcidin by iron in mouse [@Ludwiczek2005Regulatory], and human [@Piperno2007Blunted] hepatocytes and this was seen in the computational model as increasing transferrin bound iron did not induce hepcidin as strongly in HFE knockdown.
Although an increase in transferrin receptor 2 was observed in the model ($1.77\mu M$ healthy; $2.80\mu M$ type 1 haemochromatosis), the up-regulation was slightly smaller than the change observed in vivo [@Robb2004Regulation]. This is due to the model having fixed extracellular transferrin bound iron concentration, in contrast to haemochromatosis where this concentration increases due to higher absorption in the intestine.
Type 3 haemochromatosis results in similar phenotype as type 1 haemochromatosis, however the mutation is found in the TfR2 gene as opposed to HFE. A virtual TfR2 knockdown mutation was performed by decreasing 100-fold the rate constant of synthesis of TfR2 from the model. Model results were then compared with the findings of Chua [*et al.*]{} [@Chua2010Iron]. The simulation showed a steady state decrease of liver TfR1 from $0.29\mu M$ to $0.19\mu M$ with TfR2 knockdown. This is supported by an approximate halving of TfR1 levels in TfR2 mutant mice [@Chua2010Iron]. An increase in hepcidin and consequent decrease in ferroportin as seen in mice was matched by the simulation.
An iron overload phenotype with increased intracellular iron is not recreated by the model of the TfR2 mutant. This is, again, due to the fixed serum transferrin-bound iron concentration, while in the whole body there would be increased iron absorption from the diet through the effect of hepcidin.
### Metabolic Control Analysis {#metabolic-control-analysis .unnumbered}
Metabolic control analysis (MCA) is a standard technique to identify the reactions that have the largest influence on metabolite concentrations or reaction fluxes in a steady state [@Kacser1973Control; @Heinrich1974Linear]. MCA is a special type of sensitivity analysis and thus is used to quantify the distributed control of the biochemical network. A control coefficient measures the relative change of the variable of interest caused by a small change in the reaction rate (e.g. a control coefficient can be interpreted as the percentage change of the variable given a 1% change in the reaction rate).
The control over the concentration of the labile iron pool by each of the model reactions can be seen in Table \[table:MCA\]. The synthesis and degradation of TfR2, TfR1, HFE and the formation of their complexes were found to have the highest control over the labile iron pool. Synthesis and degradation of IRP was also found to have some degree of control, but synthesis and degradation of hepcidin have surprisingly a very small effect on the labile iron pool.
The control over the hepcidin concentration was also measured (Table \[table:MCAHepc\]), as the ability to control hepatic hepcidin levels could provide therapeutic opportunities to control whole system iron metabolism, due to its action on other tissues. Interestingly, in addition to the expression and degradation of hepcidin itself, the expression of HFE and degradation of HFETfR2 complex have almost as much control over hepcidin. The expression of TfR2 has a considerably lower effect, though still significant.
Flux control coefficients were also determined which indicate the control that reactions have on a chosen reaction flux. The flux control coefficients for the ferroportin mediated iron export reaction are given in Table \[table:MCAFlux\]. This reaction is of particular interest as it is the only method of iron export, therefore controlling this reaction rate could be important in treating various iron disorders including haemochromatosis and anemia. The reactions of synthesis and degradation of TfR1, TfR2 and HFE were found to have high control, despite not having direct interactions with ferroportin. TfR1 and TfR2 may show consistently high control due to having dual roles as iron importers and iron sensors which control hepcidin expression.
A drawback of MCA, and any other local sensitivity analysis, is that it is only predictive for small changes of reaction rates. However, the changes that result in disease states are usually large, and experimental parameter estimation can result in large uncertainty. Thus a global sensitivity analysis was also performed following the method described in [@Sahle2008New]. This calculates the maximal and minimal values of the sensitivity coefficients within a large space of parameter values. This technique is useful, for example, if there is uncertainty about the values of the model parameters as it reveals the possible range of control of each one given the uncertainty. All parameters were allowed to vary within $\pm$ 10% and the maximal and minimal control coefficients were measured (Tables \[table:MCA\], \[table:MCAHepc\] and \[table:MCAFlux\]).
In terms of the control of the labile iron pool (Table \[table:MCA\]), the reactions with highest control in the reference steady state are still the ones with highest control in the global case ([*i.e.*]{} when all parameters have an uncertainty of $\pm 10\%$). However TfR1 expression, TfR1 binding, TfR1 degradation, IRP expression and IRP degradation, which all have significant (but not the highest) control in the reference state, could have very low control in the global sense. On the other hand HFETfR2 degradation, hepcidin expression, hepcidin degradation and TfR2 binding 2, have low control in the reference steady state, but could have significant control in the global sense. All other reactions have low control in any situation.
In the case of the control of hepcidin concentration (Table \[table:MCAHepc\]) the differences between the reference state and the global are much smaller overall, and one could only identify a few reactions that have moderate control in the reference, but could have a bit less in the global sense (TfR2 expression, TfR2 binding, and TfR2 iron internalisation).
In the case of the control of the flux of iron export (Table \[table:MCAFlux\]), we find some reactions with high control in the reference that could have low control in the global sense: TfR1 expression, TfR1 biding, TfR1 degradation, IRP expression and IRP degradation. Hepcidin expression, hepcidin degradation, and HFETfR2 degradation have almost no control in the reference, but in the global sense they could exert considerable control. This is very similar to the situation of the control of the labile iron pool.
Chifman [*et al.*]{} [@Chifman2012Core] analysed the parameter space of their core model of iron metabolism in breast epithelial cells and concluded the system behavior is far more dependent on the network structure than the exact parameters used. The analysis presented here lends some support to that finding, since only a few reactions could have different effect on the system if the parameters are wrong. A further scan of initial conditions for metabolites found that varying initial concentrations over 2 orders of magnitude had no affect on the steady state achieved (Table \[tab:tableOfSS\]), indicating that the steady state found in these simulations is unique.
Receptor Properties {#receptor-properties .unnumbered}
-------------------
It is known that the iron sensing by the transferrin receptors is responsive over a wide range of intercellular iron concentrations [@Lin2007Iron]. The present model reproduces this well (Figure \[fig:TfRResponse\]A, $1\times$ turnover line). Becker [*et al.*]{} argued that a linear response of a receptor to its signal over a wide range could be achieved through a combination of: high receptor abundance, increased expression when required, recycling to the surface of internalised receptors and high receptor turnover [@Becker2010Covering]. This was illustrated with the behaviour of the erythropoietin (EPO) receptor [@Becker2010Covering]. Since the present model contains essentially the same type of reactions that can lead to such a behaviour, simulations were carried out to investigate to what extent this linearity of response is present here. In this case it is the response of the total amount of all forms of TfR1 and TfR2 bound to Tf-Fe against the amount of Tf-Fe\_intercell that is important. A variable was created in the model to reflect the total receptor response (see Material and Methods), and this variable was followed in a time course response to an iron pulse (Figure \[fig:EpoIron\]A). The response to the iron pulse is remarkably similar to the response of the EPO receptor to EPO [@Becker2010Covering].
Becker et al. [@Becker2010Covering] reported that the linearity of EPO-R response, [*i.e.*]{} the integral of the response curve, is increased by increasing turnover rate of the receptor and this property was also observed in the simulation of TfR1 response (Figure \[fig:TfRResponse\]). The range in which the iron response is linear is smaller than that found for EPO (Figure \[fig:TfRResponse\]). As TfR1’s half life in the model matches the experimentally determined value [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries] the non-linear receptor response seen in the simulation is expected to be accurate. This suggests that TfR1 is a poor sensor for high levels of intercellular iron. On the other hand TfR2 is more abundant than TfR1 [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries] and accordingly shows an increased linearity for a greater range of intercellular iron concentrations (Figure \[fig:TfR2Response\]). This suggests the two transferrin receptors play different roles in sensing intercellular iron levels with TfR2 providing a wide range of sensing and TfR1 sensing smaller perturbations. The activation of TfR2 directly influences the expression of hepcidin and therefore it is desirable for it to sense large systemic imbalances. TfR1 does not modulate hepcidin expression itself instead it plays a primary role as an iron transporter .
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
Iron is an essential element of life, in humans it is involved in oxygen transport, respiration, biosynthesis, detoxification, and other processes. Iron regulation is essential because iron deficiency results in debilitating anemia, while iron excess leads to free radical generation and is involved in many diseases [@Kell2009Iron]. It is clear that healthy life depends on tight regulation of iron in the body. The mechanisms involved in iron absortion, transport, storage and regulation form a complex biochemical network [@Hower2009General]. The liver has a central role in the regulation of systemic iron metabolism through secretion of the peptide hormone hepcidin.
Here we analysed the hepatic biochemical network involved in iron sensing and regulation through a mathematical model and computer simulation. The model was constructed mostly based on [*in vitro*]{} biochemical data, such as protein complex dissociation constants. The model was then validated by comparison with experimental data from multiple physiological studies at both steady state and during dynamic responses. Where quantitative data were available the model matched these well and also qualitatively recreated many findings from clinical and experimental investigations. The simulation accurately modelled the highly prevalent iron disorder haemochromatosis. The disease state was simulated through altering a single parameter of the model and showed quantitatively how an iron overload phenotype occurs in patients with a HFE mutation.
Due to the limited availability of quantitative clinical data on human iron metabolism, various other data sources, particularly from [*in vitro*]{} experiments and animal models, were integrated for the parameterisation of this model. This computational modelling effort constitutes a clinical translational approach, enabling data from multiple sources to improve our understanding of human iron metabolism. Several arguments could be raised to cast doubt on this approach, such as the the failure of [*in vitro*]{} conditions to mimic those [*in vivo*]{} or the difference between animal models and humans. This means that this type of data integration must be carefully monitored in terms of establishing the validity of the resulting model. Examining the behaviour of the model by simulating it at different values of initial conditions or other parameters (parameter scans) is important to establish the limits of utility of the model. Global sensitivity analysis is another approach that determines the boundaries of parameter variation that the model tolerates before it becomes too distant from the actual system behaviour. Model validation is an essential step in modelling. Validation should be carried out by enquiring if the model is able to match experimental observations that were not used to calibrate it. Here the model was validated by the simulation of haemochromatosis disease, where the model behaviour matched the clinical data (Table \[table:tableHFEKO\]).
The precise regulatory mechanism behind transferrin receptors and HFE controlling hepcidin expression remains to be validated experimentally, however the model presented here supports current understanding that the interaction of TfR2 and HFE form the signal transduction pathway that leads to the induction of hepcidin expression [@Gao2009Interaction].
The global metabolic control analysis results support the identification of the transferrin receptors, particularly TfR2, and HFE as potential therapeutic targets; a result that is robust even to inaccuracies in parameter values. Although hepcidin would be an intuitive point of high control of this system (and therefore a good therapeutic target), in the present model this is not the case. It seems that targeting the promoters of hepcidin expression may be more desirable. However this conclusion has to be expressed with some reservation that stems from the fact that the global sensitivity analysis identified the hepcidin synthesis and degradation reactions in the group of those with the largest uncertainty. By changing parameter values by no more than 10% it would be possible to have the hepcidin expression and degradation show higher control. So it seems important that the expression of hepcidin be studied in more detail. We also predict that the control of hepcidin over the system would be higher if the model had included the regulation of intestinal ferroportin by hepatic ferroportin.
The global sensitivity analysis, however, allows taking strong conclusions about the reactions for which the reference steady state is not much different from the maximal and minimal values. It turns out that these are the reactions that have the largest and the smallest control over the system variables. For example, the reactions with greatest control on the labile iron pool and iron export are those of the HFE-TfR2 system. But the reactions of the HFE-TfR1 system have always low control. These two conclusions are valid [*under a wide range of parameter values*]{}.
Construction of this model required several assumptions to be made due to lack of measured parameter values, as described in Material and Methods. These assumptions may or may not have a large impact on the model behaviour, and it is important to identify those that have a large impact, as their measurement will improve our knowledge the most. Of all the assumptions made, the rates of expression and degradation of ferroportin are those that have a significant impact on the labile iron pool in the model (see Table \[table:MCA\]). This means that if the values assumed for these rate parameters were to be significantly different the model prediction for labile iron pool behaviour would also be different. The model is therefore also useful by suggesting experiments that will optimally improve our knowledge about this system.
Limitations on the predictive power of the model occur due to the scope of the system chosen. Fixed serum iron conditions, which were used as boundary conditions in the model, do not successfully recreate the amplifying feedbacks that occur as a result of hepcidin expression controlling enterocyte iron export. To relieve this limitation, a more advanced model should include dietary iron uptake and the action of hepcidin on that process.
The model predicts a quasi-linear response to increasing pulses of serum iron, similar to what has been predicted for the erythropoietin system [@Becker2010Covering]. Our simulations display response of the transferrin receptors to pulses of extracellular transferrin-bound iron that is similar to the EPO-R response to EPO (Figure \[fig:TfRResponse\]). The integral of this response [*versus*]{} the iron sensed deviates very little from linearity in the range of physiological iron (Figure \[fig:EpoIron\]).
Computational models are research tools whose function is to allow for reasoning in a complex nonlinear system. The present model can be useful in terms of predicting properties of the liver iron system. These predictions form hypotheses that lead to new experiments. Their outcome will undoubtedly improve our knowledge and will also either confirm the accuracy of the model or refute it (in which case it then needs to be corrected). The present model and its results identified a number of predictions about liver iron regulation that should be investigated further:
- changes in activity of the hepcidin gene in the liver have little effect on the size of the labile iron pool,
- the rate of expression of HFE has a high control over the steady state level of hepcidin,
- the strong effect of HFE is due to its interaction with TfR2 rather than TfR1,
- the rate of liver iron export by ferroportin has a strong dependence on the expression of TfR1, TfR2 and HFE,
- the rate of expression of hepcidin is approximately linear with the concentration of plasma iron within the physiological range.
The present model is the most detailed quantitative mechanistic model of cellular iron metabolism to date, allowing for a comprehensive description of its regulation. It can be used to elucidate the link from genotype to phenotype, as demonstrated here with hereditary haemochromatosis. The model provides the ability to investigate scenarios for which there are currently no experimental data available — thus making predictions about the system and aiding in experimental design.
Materials and Methods {#materials-and-methods .unnumbered}
=====================
The model is constructed using ordinary differential equations (ODEs) to represent the rate of change of each chemical species. COPASI [@Hoops2006COPASIa] was used as the software framework for model construction, simulation and analysis. Cell Designer [@Funahashi2003CellDesigner] was used for construction of a SBGN process diagram (Figure \[bigDiagram\]).
The model consists of 2 compartments representing the serum and the liver. Concentrations of haeme and transferrin bound iron in the serum were fixed to represent constant extracellular conditions. Fixed metabolites simulate a constant influx of iron through the diet as any iron absorbed by the liver is effectively replenished. A labile iron pool (LIP) consumption reaction is added to represent various uses of iron and create a flow through the system. Some of the LIP consumption reaction would be attributed to heme biosynthesis however this process was not considered explicitly in this study to avoid unnecessary complexity and because the bone marrow is the major site of heme biosynthesis [@Ajioka2016]. Initial concentrations for metabolites were set to appropriate concentrations based on a literature survey (Table \[tab:tableOfParams\]). All metabolites formed through complex binding were set to zero initial concentrations (Table \[tab:tableOfParams\]). The concentration of a chemical species at a time point in the simulation is determined by integrating the system of ODEs. For some proteins a half-life was available in the literature, but sources could not be found for their synthesis rates (translation). In this occurrence, estimated steady-state concentrations were used from the literature and a synthesis rate was chosen such that at steady state the concentration of the protein would be approximately accurate, following Equation \[eq:synthrate\]:
$$\label{eq:synthrate}
\frac{d[\textrm{P]}}{dt} = +k-d[\textrm{P}] = 0.$$
This is solved for $k$ where $[\textrm{P}]$ is the steady-state concentration of the protein and $d$ is the degradation rate obtained from the half-life ($\lambda$) using:
$$\label{eq:lambda}
d=\frac{\ln{2}}{\lambda}.$$
Complex formation reactions, such as binding of TfR1 to Tf-Fe for iron uptake, are modelled using the on and off binding constants as a forward and reverse mass action reaction. For example:
$$\label{eq:rev}
\textrm{TfR1} + \textrm{Tf-Fe} \rightleftharpoons \textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}$$
is modelled using two reactions: $$\label{eq:irrevf}
\textrm{TfR1} + \textrm{Tf-Fe} \stackrel{k_a}{\rightarrow} \textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}$$
$$\label{eq:irrevr}
\textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1} \stackrel{k_d}{\rightarrow} \textrm{TfR1} + \textrm{Tf-Fe}$$
There is one ODE per each chemical species. The two reactions \[eq:irrevf\] and \[eq:irrevr\] add the following terms to the set of ODEs:
$$\label{eq:ode}
\begin{split}
\frac{d[\textrm{TfR1}]}{dt} =& -k_a[\textrm{TfR1}][\textrm{TF-Fe}]+k_d[\textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}] \ldots\\
\frac{d[\textrm{Tf-Fe}]}{dt} =& -k_a[\textrm{TfR1}][\textrm{TF-Fe}]+k_d[\textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}] \ldots\\
\frac{d[\textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}]}{dt} =& +k_a[\textrm{TfR1}][\textrm{TF-Fe}]-k_d[\textrm{Tf-Fe-TfR1}] \ldots
\end{split}$$
Intracellular haeme levels are controlled by a balance between uptake, export and oxygenation. haeme import through the action of haeme carrier protein 1 (HCP1), export by ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2 (ABCG2) and oxygenation by haeme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) follow Michaelis-Menten kinetics. HO-1 expression is promoted by haeme through by a Hill function (Equation ). $$\begin{aligned}
v = [\textrm{S}] \cdot a \cdot &\left( \frac{[\textrm{M}]^{n_{H}}} {K^{n_{H}}+[\textrm{M}]^{n_{H}}} \right),\label{eqn:Hill}\\
v = [\textrm{S}] \cdot a \cdot &\left( 1-\frac{[\textrm{M}]^{n_{H}}}{K^{n_{H}}+[\textrm{M}]^{n_{H}}} \right).\label{eqn:invHill}\end{aligned}$$ Where $S$ is the substrate, $M$ is the modifier, $a$ is the turnover number, $K$ is the ligand concentration which produces half occupancy of the binding sites of the enzyme, and $n_{H}$ is the Hill coefficient. Values of $n_{H}$ larger than $1$ produce positive cooperativity ([*i.e.*]{} a sigmoidal response); when $n_{H}=1$ the response is the same as Michaelis-Menten kinetics. A Hill coefficient of $n_{H}=1$ was assumed unless there is literature evidence for a different value. Where $K$ is not known it has been estimated to be of the order of magnitude of experimentally observed concentrations for the ligand.
IRP/Iron-responsive elements (IRE) regulation is represented by Hill kinetics using Equation to simulate the 3’ binding of IRP promoting the translation rate, and Equation to represent the 5’ binding of IRP reducing the translation rate. Ferroportin degradation is modelled using 2 reactions: one representing the standard half-life and the other representing the hepcidin-induced degradation. A Hill equation (Equation \[eqn:Hill\]) is used to simulate the hepcidin-induced degradation of ferroportin.
Hepcidin expression is the only reaction modelled using a Hill coefficient greater than 1. Due to the small dynamic range of HFE-TfR2 concentrations a Hill coefficient of 5 was chosen to provide the sensitivity required to produce the expected range of hepcidin concentrations. The mechanism by which HFE-TfR2 interactions induce hepcidin expression is not well understood, but is thought to involve the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling pathway [@Wallace2009Combined]. The stimulus/response curve of the MAPK cascade has been found to be equivalent to a cooperative enzyme with a Hill coefficient of 4-5 [@Huang1996Ultrasensitivity], making the steep Hill function appropriate to model hepcidin expression.
Ferritin modelling follows the work of Salgado [*et al.*]{} [@Salgado2010Mathematical]. Iron from the LIP binds to, and is internalised in, ferritin with mass action kinetics. Internalised iron release from ferritin occurs through 2 reactions (intact ferritin release and release due to ferritin degradation). The average amount of iron internalised per ferritin affects the iron release rate and this is modelled using Equation \[eq:salgado\] (adapted from [@Salgado2010Mathematical]):
$$\label{eq:salgado}
v = [\textrm{S}] \cdot k_\textrm{loss} \cdot \left(1+\frac{0.048 \cdot \frac{[\textrm{FT1}]}{[\textrm{FT}]}}{1+\frac{[\textrm{FT1}]}{[\textrm{FT}]}}\right).$$
Where $S$ is internalised iron, $k_\textrm{loss}$ is the rate constant and $[\textrm{FT1}]/ [\textrm{FT}]$ is the ratio of iron internalised in ferritin to total ferritin available. The value 0.0048 was obtained by dividing the value given in Salgado [*et al.*]{} [@Salgado2010Mathematical] by 50 as that simulation was scaled for 50 iron atom packages.
Iron is also released from ferritin when the entire ferritin cage is degraded. The kinetics of ferritin degradation are mass action, however the amount of iron released when a ferritin cage is degraded is an average based on ferritin levels and total iron internalised in ferritin. Incorporating mass action and ferritin saturation ratio gives the following rate law for $\textrm{FT1}~\rightarrow~\textrm{LIP}$:
$$v = [\textrm{S}] \cdot k \cdot \frac{[\textrm{FT1}]}{[\textrm{FT}]}.$$
Iron export rate was modelled using Equation \[eqn:Hill\] with ferroportin as the modifier and a Hill coefficient of 1. $K$ was assumed to be around the steady state concentration of IRP ($1\mu M$). A rate (V) of $40\textrm{pm} \cdot (10^6 cells \cdot 5\textrm{min})^{-1}$ was used from Sarkar [*et al.*]{} [@Sarkar2003] and these values were substituted into the equation and solved for $a$.
Ferroportin expression rates and degradation rates are poorly understood. Ferroportin abundance data [@Wang2012PaxDb] lead to an estimate of ferroportin concentration around $0.16 \mu M$. The hepcidin induced degradation of ferroportin is represented in the model by a rate law in the form of Equation \[eqn:Hill\] with a Hill coefficient $n_{H} = 5$ (see above) and a $K^{n_{H}}$ equal to the measured concentration of hepcidin [@Zaritsky2010Reduction] (see Table \[tab:tableOfParams\]). We then assume a maximal rate of degradation to be 1 $nM s^{-1}$, and using the steady state concentration of ferroportin, the rate constant can be estimated as 0.0002315 $s^{-1}$. The ferroportin synthesis rate was then calculated to produce the required steady-state concentration of ferroportin at the nominal hepcidin concentration.
The HFE-TfR2 binding and dissociation constants were also not available and so it was assumed that they were the same as those of TfR1-HFE. Finally, the HFE-TfR and HFE-TfR2 degradation rates are also not known; we used a value that is an order of magnitude lower than the half life for unbound TfR (i.e. we assume the complex to be more stable than the free form of TfR).
Although DMT1 may contribute towards transferrin bound iron uptake in hepatocytes this contribution has been found to be minor and DMT1 knockout has little affect on iron metabolism [@Wang2013Hepatocyte], therefore DMT1 was not included in the model. The two iron response proteins (IRP1 and IRP2) which are responsible for cellular iron regulation were modelled as a single metabolite in this study as the mechanistic differences in their regulatory roles is poorly understood. Equivalent regulation by both IRPs has been found in multiple studies [@Kim1995Translational; @Ke1998Loops; @Erlitzki2002Multiple]. Global sensitivity analysis was performed using the method proposed by Sahle [*et al.*]{} [@Sahle2008New], where all parameter values were allowed to vary within $\pm 10\%$ of their nominal value in the model and we search for the maximum and minimum value that concentration- or flux-control coefficients of interest are able to reach within that parameter space. The searches were carried out with the particle swarm optimisation algorithm [@494215]. In order to process these optimisations in a reasonable time a HTCondor [@condor-hunter] distributed computing system was used, managed through the Condor-COPASI package [@22834945].
To perform analysis of receptor response in a similar manner to the EPO system studied by Becker [*et al.*]{} [@Becker2010Covering] initial conditions were adjusted to recreate a similar virtual experiment. Haeme concentration was fixed at zero to isolate transferrin bound iron uptake. The rate constant of the labile iron pool depletion reaction was reduced to balance the reduced iron uptake (which results in iron having a similar half-life to EPO in [@Becker2010Covering]). Initial concentrations for all metabolites were set to steady-state concentrations with the exception of the labile iron pool and iron bound to all receptors which were set to zero. Extracellular transferrin bound iron was allowed to vary and set at increasing concentrations to determine receptor response. Time courses were calculated for Tf-Fe-TfR1, 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1, Tf-Fe-TfR2 and 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2 as iron binds its two receptors in a two-staged process. Two new variables were defined in COPASI which integrated the results of the time courses corresponding to the two receptors (in their different ligand states):
$$\textrm{Int\_TfR1\_binding} = \int [\textrm{Tf\-Fe\-TfR1}] \cdot dt + \int [\textrm{2(Tf\-Fe)\-TfR1}] \cdot dt ,$$
$$\textrm{Int\_TfR2\_binding} = \int [\textrm{Tf\-Fe\-TfR2}] \cdot dt + \int [\textrm{2(Tf\-Fe)\-TfR2}] \cdot dt .$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Steve Ackman, Douglas Kell, Reinhard Laubenbacher, Frank Torti and Suzy Torti for many discussions. We thank Ed Kent and the EPS IT Research Services staff for help with running the HTCondor pool. We also thank Anthony West for sharing binding data for HFE, TfR1 and TfR2. SM is grateful to the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute and the Wake Forest University Department of Cancer Biology for hosting visits.
Figure Legends {#figure-legends .unnumbered}
==============
![ [**SBGN process diagram of human liver iron metabolism model.**]{} The compartment with yellow boundary represents the hepatocyte, while the compartment with pink boundary represents plasma. Species overlayed on the compartment boundaries represent membrane-associated species. Abbreviations: Fe: iron, FPN1: ferroportin, FT: ferritin, HAMP: hepcidin, haeme: intracellular haeme, haeme\_intercell: plasma haeme, HFE: human haemochromatosis protein, HO-1: haeme oxygenase 1, IRP: iron response protein, LIP: labile iron pool, Tf-Fe\_intercell: plasma transferrin-bound iron, TfR1: transferrin receptor 1, TfR2: transferrin receptor 2. Complexes are represented in boxes with the component species. In the special case of the ferritin-iron complex symbol, the amounts of each species are not in stoichiometric amounts (since there are thousands of iron ions per ferritin). []{data-label="bigDiagram"}](Figure1.eps){width="6.38in"}
![ [**Simulated time course concentrations of hepcidin in response to changing serum transferrin-bound iron levels.**]{} The model shows similar dynamics to time course samples from patients measured by mass spectrometry and ELISA by Girelli [*et al.*]{}, 2011 [@Girelli2011Time]. Hereditary haemochromatosis simulations show reduced hepcidin levels and peak response compared to WT (Wild Type).[]{data-label="fig:IronResponse"}](Figure2.eps){width="3.271in"}
![ [**Simulated steady state concentrations of metabolites in response to increasing serum Tf-Fe.**]{} Increasing HFE-TfR2 complex as a result of HFE-TfR1 reduction induces increased hepcidin. []{data-label="fig:IronChangeHFETfR"}](Figure3.eps){width="6.38in"}
![ [**Ferroportin expression rate in the model doubles in response to changing serum iron concentrations as verified experimentally.**]{} HFE knock-down (HH) simulations and WT simulation of Fe-Tf against ferroportin (Fpn) expression. []{data-label="fig:IronChangeFPN"}](Figure4.eps){width="3.271in"}
![ [**Iron and Epo receptors show a similar response following an impulse of ligand.**]{} Ligand receptor binding for iron shows a distinctive curve which closely resembles EPO receptor binding studied by Becker [*et al.*]{} 2010 [@Becker2010Covering] (their Fig. 2B).[]{data-label="fig:EpoIron"}](Figure5.eps){width="3.271in"}
![ [**Increasing receptor turnover increases the linearity of the response for transferrin receptor 1.**]{} The range of linear response for the transferrin receptor depends on its half-life. This effect was first demonstrated in the EPO receptor by Becker [*et al.*]{} 2010 [@Becker2010Covering] who found similar behavior (their Fig. 4D).[]{data-label="fig:TfRResponse"}](Figure6.eps){width="3.271in"}
![ [**TfR2 response [*versus*]{} intercellular transferrin-bound iron.**]{} The response is approximately linear over a wide range of intercellular iron concentrations. []{data-label="fig:TfR2Response"}](Figure7.eps){width="3.27in"}
Tables {#tables .unnumbered}
======
Parameter Initial Concentration (mol/l) Source
------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------
LIP 1.3E-6 [@Epsztejn1997Fluorescence]
FPN1 1E-9
IRP 1.16E-06 [@Haile1989]
HAMP 5E-9 [@Zaritsky2010Reduction]
haeme 1E-9
2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1\_Internal 0
2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2\_Internal 0
Tf-Fe-TfR2\_Internal 0
Tf-Fe-TfR1\_Internal 0
Tf-TfR1\_Internal 0
Tf-TfR2\_Internal 0
Fe-FT 0
FT 1.66E-10 [@Cozzi2003Role]
HO-1 3.56E-11 [@Mateo2010Serum]
FT1 0
Tf-Fe\_intercell 5E-6 fixed, [@Johnson2004Diferric]
TfR 4E-7 [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]
Tf-Fe-TfR1 0
HFE 2e-07 [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]
HFE-TfR 0
HFE-TfR2 0
Tf-Fe-TfR2 0
2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1 0
2HFE-TfR 0
2HFE-TfR2 0
2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2 0
TfR2 3E-6 [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]
haeme\_intercell 1e-07 [@Sassa2004Why]
: [**Initial Conditions.**]{} Initial concentrations of all metabolites and the source for their value.
\[tab:tableOfParams\]
[|p[3cm]{}|p[5cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[4cm]{}|c|]{}
\
Name & Reaction & Rate law & Parameters & Source\
[ – *Continued from previous page*]{}\
Name & Reaction & Rate Law & Parameters & Source\
\
Fpn Export & LIP $\to$ Tf-Fe\_intercell; FPN1 & Hill Function $\to$ & a=15 mol s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, k=1E-6 mol & [@Sarkar2003]\
TfR1 expression & $\to$ TfR; IRP & Hill Function $\to$ & a=6e-12 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, k=1e-6 mol & [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]\
TfR1 degradation & TfR $\to$ & Mass action & k=8.37e-06 s$^{-1}$ & [@Johnson2004Diferric]\
Ferroportin Expression & $\to$ FPN1; IRP & Hill Function -$|$ & a=4e-9 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, $K=$1e-6 mol &\
IRP expression & $\to$ IRP; LIP & Hill Function -$|$ & a=4e-11 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, K=1e-6 mol & [@Pantopoulos1995Differential]\
IRP degradation & IRP $\to$ & Mass action & k = 1.59e-5 s$^{-1}$& [@Pantopoulos1995Differential]\
Fpn degradation Hepc& FPN1 $\to$ ; HAMP & Hill Function $\to$ & a=2.315E-5 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, K=1e-9 mol &\
HFE degradation & HFE $\to$ & Mass action & k = 6.418e-5 s$^{-2}$& [@Wang2003Haemochromatosis]\
HFE expression & $\to$ HFE & Constant flux & v = 2.3469e-11 mol (l $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$ & [@Wang2003Haemochromatosis]\
TfR2 expression & $\to$ TfR2 & Constant flux & v = 2e-11 mol (l $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]\
TfR2 degradation & TfR2 $\to$ ; Tf-Fe\_intercell & Hill Function -$|$ & a=3.2e-05 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, K=2.5e9 mol & [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]\
Hepcidin expression & $\to$ HAMP; 2HFE-TfR2 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2& Hill Function $\to$ & a=5e-12 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=5$, K=1.35e-07 mol, a=5e-12 mol s$^{-1}$, K=6e-7 mol & [@Zaritsky2010Reduction]\
Hepcidin degradation & HAMP $\to$ & Mass action & k = 9.63e-05 s$^{-1}$ & [@Rivera2005Synthetic]\
Heme oxygenation & Heme $\to$ LIP; HO-1 & Henri-Michaelis-Menten & kcat=17777.7 s$^{-1}$, Km=2e-6 mol l$^{-1}$ & [@Kinobe2006Inhibition]\
HFE TfR1 binding & HFE + TfR $\to$ HFE-TfR & Mass action & k = 1.102e+06 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
HFE TfR1 release & HFE-TfR $\to$ HFE + TfR & Mass action & k = 0.08 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR1 binding & Tf-Fe\_intercell + TfR $\to$ Tf-Fe-TfR1 & Mass action & k = 837400 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR1 release & Tf-Fe-TfR1 $\to$ Tf-Fe\_intercell + TfR & Mass action & k = 9.142e-4 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
HFE TfR2 binding & $2 * $HFE + TfR2 $\to$ 2HFE-TfR2 & Mass action & k = 3.9438e+11 l$^{2}$ (mol$^{2}$ $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$ &\
HFE TfR2 release & 2HFE-TfR2 $\to$ 2 \* HFE + TfR2 & Mass action & k = 0.0018 s$^{-1}$ &\
TfR2 binding & Tf-Fe\_intercell + TfR2 $\to$ Tf-Fe-TfR2 & Mass action & k = 222390 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR2 release & Tf-Fe-TfR2 $\to$ Tf-Fe\_intercell + TfR2 & Mass action & k = 0.0061 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR1 binding 2 & Tf-Fe-TfR1 + Tf-Fe\_intercell $\to$ 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1 & Mass action & k = 121400 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR1 release 2 & 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1 $\to$ Tf-Fe-TfR1 + Tf-Fe\_intercell & Mass action & k = 0.003535 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
HFE TfR1 binding 2 & HFE-TfR + HFE $\to$ 2HFE-TfR & Mass action & k = 1.102e+06 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@West2000Comparison]\
HFE TfR1 release 2 & 2HFE-TfR $\to$ HFE-TfR + HFE & Mass action & k = 0.08 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR2 binding 2 & Tf-Fe-TfR2 + Tf-Fe\_intercell $\to$ 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2 & Mass action & k= 69600 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR2 release 2 & 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2 $\to$ Tf-Fe-TfR2 + Tf-Fe\_intercell & Mass action & k = 0.024 s$^{-1}$ & [@West2000Comparison]\
TfR1 iron internalisation & 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR1 $\to$ 4(LIP) + TfR & Mass action & k = 0.8333 l$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ & [@Byrne2010Unique]\
TfR2 iron internalisation & 2(Tf-Fe)-TfR2 $\to$ 4(LIP)-TfR2 & Mass action & k = 0.8333 l$\cdot$s$^{-1}$ & [@Byrne2010Unique]\
outFlow & LIP $\to$ & Mass action (irreversible) & k = 4e-04 s$^{-1}$ &\
Ferritin Iron binding & LIP + FT $\to$ Fe-FT & Mass action & k = 4.71e+10 l (mol $\cdot$ s)$^{-1}$& [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
Ferritin Iron release & Fe-FT $\to$ LIP + FT & Mass action & k = 22922 s$^{-1}$ & [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
Ferritin Iron internalisation & Fe-FT $\to$ FT1 + FT & Mass action & k = 108000 s$^{-1}$ & [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
Ferritin internalised iron release & FT1 $\to$ LIP; FT1 FT & Kloss Hill & kloss = 13.112 s$^{-1}$ & [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
ferritin expression & $\to$ FT; IRP & Hill Function -$|$ & a=2.312e-13 s$^{-1}$, $n_H=1$, K=1e-06 mol & [@Cozzi2003Role]\
HO1 Degradation & HO-1 $\to$ & Mass action & k= 3.209e-05 s$^{-1}$ & [@Pimstone1971Inducible]\
HO1 Expression & $\to$ HO-1; Heme & Hill Function $\to$ & a=2.1432e-15 s$^{-1}$, K=1e-9 mol& [@Bao2010Plasma]\
Ferritin Degradation Full & FT $\to$ & Mass action & k = 1.203e-05 s$^{-1}$& [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
Heme uptake & Heme\_intercell $\to$ Heme & Henri-Michaelis-Menten & Km=1.25e-4 mol, v=1.034e-5 mol s$^{-1}$ & [@Shayeghi2005Identification]\
Heme export & Heme $\to$ Heme\_intercell & Henri-Michaelis-Menten & Km=1.78e-05 mol, v=2.18e-5 mol s$^{-1}$& [@Tamura2006Functional]\
Ferritin Degradation Full Iron Release & FT1 $\to$ LIP; FT1 FT & Mass Action Ferritin & k=1.203e-05 s$^{-1}$ & [@Salgado2010Mathematical]\
HFE-TfR degradation & 2HFE-TfR $\to$ & Mass action & k=8.37e-07 s$^{-1}$&\
HFE-TfR2 degradation & 2HFE-TfR2 $\to$ & Mass action & k=8.37e-07 s$^{-1}$&\
\[tab:reaction\_parameters\]
Metabolite Model Experimental Reference
----------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Labile Iron Pool $0.804\mu M$ $0.2-1.5 \mu M$ [@Epsztejn1997Fluorescence]
Iron Response Protein $836000$ cell$^{-1}$ $\sim700000$ cell$^{-1}$ [@Cairo1998Lack]
Ferritin $4845$ cell$^{-1}$ $3000-6000$ cell$^{-1}$ (mRNA), $2.5-54600$ cell$^{-1}$(protein) [@Cairo1998Lack], [@Summers1974]
TfR $1.74\times10^{5}$ cell$^{-1}$ $1.6-2\times10^{5}$ cell$^{-1}$ [@SalterCid1999Transferrin]
TfR2 $4.63\times\left[\textrm{TfR1}\right]$ $4.5-6.1\times\left[\textrm{TfR1}\right]$ [@Chloupkova2010Stoichiometries]
Iron per Ferritin 2272 average 2400 [@Sibille1988Interactions]
Hepcidin $5.32$nM $3.5-8.3$nM [@Swinkels2008Advances]
Reaction Model Experimental Reference
TBI import rate $2.67\mu M$ s$^{-1}$ $2.08\mu M$ s$^{-1}$ [@Chua2010Iron]
: [**Steady State Validation**]{} — Comparison between model and experimental observations. IRP, Ferritin and TfR are expressed in particles per cell assuming a cellular volume of $10^{-12}$ l. Iron per Ferritin is a ratio.
\[tab:tableOfSS\]
Metabolite Model Experiment Reference
-------------------- ----------- -------------- ----------------------------
IRP - - [@Riedel1999HFE]
LIP + + [@Riedel1999HFE]
HAMP - - [@vanDijk2008Serum]
TfR2 + + [@Robb2004Regulation]
Reaction Model Experimental Reference
TfR1/2 iron import + + [@Riedel1999HFE]
FT expression + + [@Riedel1999HFE]
TfR expression - - [@Riedel1999HFE]
FPN expression $\approx$ = [@Ludwiczek2005Regulatory]
: [**HFE Knockout Validation**]{} — The simulation of type-1 hereditary haemochromatosis closely matches experimental findings at steady state.
\[table:tableHFEKO\]
--------------------------- ------------- ------------ --------------
Minimum Maximum
TfR2 expression 0.894573 0.515971 1.41255
Fpn Export -0.825483 -0.924 -0.698754
TfR2 binding 0.569815 0.298433 0.901285
TfR2 degradation -0.563132 -0.898362 -0.293111
Fpn degradation 0.351397 0.186176 0.50289
Ferroportin Expression -0.351397 -0.502317 -0.176245
HFE expression -0.313525 -0.623067 0.346532
TfR1 expression 0.259758 0.0652 0.496352
TfR1 binding 0.259436 0.06577 0.497636
TfR1 degradation -0.258004 -0.503067 -0.0657364
IRP expresion 0.209893 0.0748546 0.300039
IRP degradation -0.209893 -0.347477 -0.0753367
HFE-TfR2 degradation -0.0341692 -0.684936 0.000229851
Hepcidin expression 0.0283652 0.0004375 0.6553120
Hepcidin degradation -0.0283652 -0.791216 -0.000576136
HFE degradation 0.0162284 -0.0259426 0.0386967
TfR2 binding 2 0.0100938 0.298433 0.901285
TfR2 release -0.0100938 -0.0194113 -0.00434313
HFE TfR2 binding -0.00668253 -0.0187053 0.0218869
HFE TfR2 release 0.0063856 -0.0205303 0.018034
TfR2 iron internalisation -0.00335169 -0.156882 0.000557494
HFE TfR1 binding -0.00143167 -0.0120993 0.0000742
HFE TfR1 release 0.00143166 0.0000760 0.0121124
HFE TfR1 binding 2 -0.00143166 -0.0121238 -0.0000739
HFE TfR1 release 2 0.00143165 0.0000738 0.0121135
HFE-TfR degradation -0.00143165 -0.0121249 -0.0000737
--------------------------- ------------- ------------ --------------
: [**Metabolic Control Analysis**]{} — Concentration control coefficients for the labile iron pool.
\[table:MCA\]
--------------------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Minimum Maximum
Hepcidin expression 1.00002 0.512257 1.487664
Hepcidin degradation -1.00002 -1.00027 -0.999001
HFE-TfR2 degradation -0.956041 -1.3943 -0.380497
HFE expression 0.9131 0.274035 1.30051
TfR2 expression 0.243052 0.0984356 0.486305
TfR2 degradation -0.153001 -0.293528 -0.0638787
TfR2 binding 0.128436 0.0558287 0.273304
TfR2 iron internalisation -0.128062 -0.272967 -0.0557919
HFE degradation -0.047263 -0.102578 -0.0122656
HFE TfR2 binding 0.0245645 0.00630724 0.0573883
HFE TfR2 release -0.023473 -0.0557905 -0.00602681
TfR2 binding 2 0.00227514 0.000811688 0.00589495
TfR2 release -0.00227514 -0.00589437 -0.000812498
HFE TfR1 binding -0.00093303 -0.00728765 -5.22895e-05
HFE TfR1 release 0.000933028 4.84169e-05 0.00697082
HFE TfR1 binding 2 -0.000933028 -0.0073373 -5.31758e-05
HFE TfR1 release 2 0.000933018 5.3417e-05 0.00731269
HFE-TfR degradation -0.000933018 -0.00733725 -5.69006e-05
TfR1 expression -0.000796332 -0.00607511 -4.36181e-05
TfR1 degradation 0.000790955 4.53395e-05 0.00623214
IRP expresion -0.000544238 -0.00281211 -4.71681e-05
IRP degradation 0.000544238 4.16666e-05 0.00351147
Fpn export -0.00045206 -0.00277642 -4.33404e-05
Fpn degradation 0.000192436 1.47897e-05 0.00153538
Ferroportin expression -0.000192436 -0.00153463 -1.41905e-05
TfR1 binding 0.000142075 3.78713e-06 0.00137383
TfR2 release 2 -6.36921e-05 -0.000176906 -2.18216e-05
--------------------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
: [**Metabolic Control Analysis**]{} — Concentration control coefficients for hepcidin.
\[table:MCAHepc\]
------------------------ ------------- ------------- ---------------
Minimum Maximum
TfR2 expression 0.910944 0.449405 1.38521
TfR2 binding 0.581149 0.285737 0.867434
TfR2 degradation -0.573438 -0.858215 -0.278218
HFE expression -0.353566 -0.669513 -0.187987
TfR1 expression 0.266964 0.0676606 0.510467
TfR1 binding 0.266601 0.0675083 0.51963
TfR1 degradation -0.265162 -0.51689 -0.0669265
IRP expresion 0.182446 0.063823 0.310888
IRP degradation -0.182446 -0.313848 -0.0656558
Fpn Export 0.151719 0.0626056 0.271594
Ferroportin Expression 0.0645849 0.0189112 0.149717
Fpn degradation -0.0645849 -0.149993 -0.0189094
HFE degradation 0.0183009 0.00812358 0.0401559
TfR2 release -0.0102946 -0.018781 -0.00414945
TfR2 binding 2 0.0102946 0.00414543 0.0187846
HFE TfR2 binding -0.0077113 -0.0191638 0.00292511
HFE TfR2 release 0.00736866 -0.00282598 0.0186586
Hepcidin expression -0.00521336 -0.1785377 -0.0000387334
Hepcidin degradation 0.00521336 5.77312e-05 0.224586
HFE-TfR2 degradation -0.00226218 -0.0183295 0.19571
HFE TfR1 binding -0.00143917 -0.0119501 -7.50839e-05
HFE TfR1 release 0.00143917 7.49065e-05 0.0119095
HFE TfR1 binding 2 -0.00143917 -0.0114124 -7.49686e-05
HFE TfR1 release 2 0.00143915 7.49046e-05 0.0116242
------------------------ ------------- ------------- ---------------
: [**Metabolic Control Analysis**]{} — Flux-control coefficients for the iron export out of the liver compartment.
\[table:MCAFlux\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Pulsars are remarkable objects that emit across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, providing a powerful probe of the interstellar medium. In this study, we investigate the relation between dispersion measure (DM) and X-ray absorption column density [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} using 68 radio pulsars detected at X-ray energies with the [*Chandra*]{} *X-ray Observatory* or [*XMM-Newton*]{}. We find a best-fit empirical linear relation of $N_\mathrm{H}\rm\;(10^{20}\,cm^{-2})=
0.30^{+0.13}_{-0.09}\;DM\;(pc\,cm^{-3})$, which corresponds to an average ionization of $10^{+4}_{-3}$%, confirming the ratio of one free electron per ten neutral hydrogen atoms commonly assumed in the literature. We also compare different [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} estimates and note that some [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values obtained from X-ray observations are higher than the total Galactic H[i]{} column density along the same line of sight, while the optical extinction generally gives the best [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} predictions.
author:
- 'C. He, C.-Y. Ng, and V. M. Kaspi'
title: 'THE CORRELATION BETWEEN DISPERSION MEASURE AND X-RAY COLUMN DENSITY FROM RADIO PULSARS'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The broadband emission of pulsars from radio frequencies to $\gamma$-rays can be used to probe the physical conditions of the interstellar medium (ISM). Specifically, their radio pulsations allow accurate measurements of the free electron column density and their X-ray extinction traces the interstellar gas along the line of sight. Radio waves travelling in the ISM are dispersed by free electrons such that signals at lower frequencies propagate at a lower speed and hence arrive on Earth later than those at higher frequencies. The time delay ($\Delta t$) between two observing frequencies ($\nu_1$, $\nu_2$) depends on the dispersion measure (DM), which is the integrated free electron number density $n_e$ from Earth to the source at distance $d$: $$\mathrm{DM} = \int_{0}^{d}{n_{e}\,\mathrm{d}l} = \frac{2\pi m_{e} c}{e^{2}} \left(
\frac{1}{\nu_1^2} - \frac{1}{\nu_2^{2}} \right)^{-1} \Delta t \ ,$$ where $m_e$ and $e$ are electron mass and charge, respectively, and $c$ is the speed of light. Most free electrons in our Galaxy are found in the hot phase of the ISM, including H[ii]{} regions ionized by UV radiation from hot O or B type stars and the shock-heated interior of supernova remnants (SNRs). These sources can contribute significant DM up to a few hundred parsecs per cubic centimeter. At X-ray energies, photons are absorbed mostly by heavy elements in the interstellar gas due to the photoelectric effect. This has a strong energy dependence and is most prominent in the soft X-ray band. As a result, it modifies the observed low-energy portion of the X-ray spectrum and has to be accounted for in spectral modeling. The amount of extinction, which is expressed in terms of the equivalent atomic hydrogen column density [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}, is sensitive to gas and molecular clouds, which traces the warm and cold phases of the ISM [see @wam00].
One natural question to ask is whether there is any correlation between DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} in our Galaxy. Such a correlation can reflect the physical connection between different phases of the ISM. Also, it can provide a useful tool to estimate one quantity from the other, help plan new observations and determine X-ray luminosity upper limits in cases of non-detection. In the literature, an average ionization fraction of 10% in the ISM, i.e. one free electron per 10 equivalent hydrogen atoms, has been commonly assumed in order to infer [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} from DM [e.g., @sw88; @kpg07; @ghm+08; @cfc+12], but the justification for this choice has been unclear. X-ray-emitting radio pulsars offer a powerful diagnostic tool for a quantitative study of the correlation. Because they are model-independent and relatively straightforward to measure from radio timing, DM values are well determined, typically to better than a fractional uncertainty of $10^{-3}$. However, what has made the determination of any DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} correlation difficult in the past is the lack of high-quality X-ray data for [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} measurements. In particular, previous generations of X-ray telescopes had poor angular resolution that precluded discerning the pulsar emission from that of the surrounding SNRs and pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe). Thanks to new X-ray missions such as the [*Chandra*]{} *X-ray Observatory* and *XMM-Newton*, precise measurements of [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} have been obtained for many pulsars in recent years, allowing a statistical study of [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values for the first time.
In this paper, we compile a list of DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values for 68 X-ray-emitting radio pulsars using the latest [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} measurements reported in the literature. We found a clear correlation between these two column densities and obtained a best-fit empirical relation of $10^{+4}_{-3}$% ionization. In Section 2, we describe our sample selection criteria. The statistical analysis and results are presented in Section 3, and we discuss the implications of our results in Section 4.
SAMPLE SELECTION
================
We started with a list of X-ray detected radio pulsars from @pcc+02, @ba02, @pkg+07, @kp08, and @kp10, then expanded the sample through careful literature searches for updated observational results and recent discoveries. The latter include three magnetars that show radio emission [@crh+06; @crh+07; @lbb+10] and over a dozen new pulsars identified in $\gamma$-rays with the *Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope* and subsequently detected in follow-up radio and X-ray observations [see @mdc11]. Finally to complete the list, we went through the [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} data archive to search for pulsar observations, and looked up relevant publications based on these data.
The pulsar DMs are adopted from the ATNF Pulsar Catalog[^1] [@mht+93]. They are all very well measured with negligible uncertainties compared to those for [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to determine [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}, because this requires a strong X-ray source and good knowledge of the intrinsic emission spectrum. The X-ray emission of pulsars is not fully understood; commonly used models include a blackbody (BB) and a neutron-star hydrogen atmosphere (NSA) for the thermal emission, and a power law (PL) for the non-thermal emission. More complicated models consisting of thermal and non-thermal components are sometimes used. To minimize any bias, we selected the [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values for our sample according to the following criteria:
1. We restricted our choices to those in the latest studies using the [*Chandra*]{}and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations, since the good angular resolution and sensitivity of these telescopes offer high-quality spectra with minimal background contamination. Any joint fits with other X-ray telescopes are not considered, in order to avoid cross-calibration uncertainties.
2. We adopted only [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values from actual X-ray spectral fits in which the [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} is allowed to vary freely, and ignored any [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} inferred from DM, optical extinction (A$_\mathrm{V}$), or total Galactic H[i]{} column density.
3. [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} from the best-fit spectral model is always preferred, unless there are physical arguments favoring another model. If different emission models give the same goodness-of-fit and the authors do not indicate a clear preference, we choose the simpler one. For example, we prefer a BB model over an NSA model, since the latter requires more assumptions, including the atmosphere composition, surface magnetic field and gravity.
4. For pulsars associated with bright PWNe, the nebular [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values are adopted if they are better constrained than those of the pulsars, because the simple PL spectra of PWNe can reduce systematic uncertainties in spectral modeling. [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} from SNRs are used in a few cases when the pulsars and PWNe are too faint for useful [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} measurements.
Our final sample contains 68 pulsars. One of them (PSR B0540$-$69) is extragalactic and only two (PSRs J1740$-$5340 and B1821$-$24) are in globular clusters; cluster pulsars are generally too faint for precise [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}measurements. The pulsar DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values are listed in Table \[table\] and plotted in Figure \[fig:dmnh\]. The reported statistical uncertainties and upper limits for [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} are at 90% confidence level, i.e. 1.6$\sigma$. We list in the Table the X-ray spectral models used to obtain [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}. The choice of spectral model is clear in all cases except PSRs J1622$-$4950 and B1757$-$24, for which both thermal and non-thermal fits are acceptable. Nonetheless, [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} from different fits only varies by a factor of 2 for J1622$-$4950 and does not change for B1757$-$24. Therefore, we conclude that systematic bias induced by spectral models is minimal.
Table \[table\] also shows the pulsar Galactic coordinates ($l$, $b$) and distances, and this information was used to calculate the vertical height ($z$) from the Galactic Plane. The coordinates are taken from the ATNF Pulsar Catalog and distance estimates are obtained from parallax measurements, H[i]{} absorption measurements of the pulsars or the associated SNRs, or DM using the NE2001 Galactic electron density model [@cl02]. If available, parallax distances are always preferred since they are the most accurate. All parallax and H[i]{} distances are adopted from @vwc+12 and references therein, and have been corrected for the Lutz-Kelker bias, except for PSR J1023+0038, which has a recent parallax measurement by @dab+12. For DM distances, we did not attempt to derive the uncertainties, but note that the fractional uncertainties could be 25% or larger [see e.g., @cng+09]. Finally, there are exceptional cases in which previous studies argue for different distances than the DM-estimated ones. They are noted in the Table. The pulsar [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} and DM are plotted against distance in Figures \[fig:nhdist\] and \[fig:dmdist\], respectively.
ANALYSIS & RESULTS
==================
Figure \[fig:dmnh\] shows a positive correlation between the pulsar DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values, with deviations ranging from a factor of a few to an order of magnitude. There are some obvious outliers, including the Vela pulsar (PSR B0833$-$45), the double pulsar (PSR J0737$-$3039), and PSR J1747$-$2809 in the Galactic Center direction. To quantify the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} correlation, we ignored pulsars with [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} upper limits and obtained a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.72. This is significant since the one-tailed probability of such a correlation arising by chance from unrelated variables is only $4\times10^{-5}$. More useful is an empirical relation between these two observables. We performed a linear fit to the data by minimizing the $\chi^2$ value. [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} measurements with fractional uncertainties larger than 80% or upper limits only (gray points in Figure \[fig:dmnh\]) are excluded in the fit. We also ignored the Vela pulsar, which is located in the Gum Nebula inside the hot and low-density Local Bubble, and PSR B0540$-$69, which is in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), because they seem unlikely to follow the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} correlation as would other Galactic sources. Only statistical uncertainties in [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} are considered in the $\chi^2$-fit since uncertainties in DM are negligible. Also, we did not attempt to model the systematic uncertainties, but we note that the ones introduced by different photoelectric absorption models and elemental abundances, or by cross-calibration between telescopes are only at a few percent level [see @wam00; @tgp+11], relatively small compared to the statistical uncertainties. Assuming [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} and DM are directly proportional, the best fit gives $$N_\mathrm{H}
\rm \;(10^{20}\,cm^{-2})=0.30^{+0.13}_{-0.09}\;DM\; (pc\,cm^{-3}) \ ,$$ corresponding to an average ionization of $10^{+4}_{-3}$%. The 90% confidence interval is quoted here, which is obtained from 10000 simulations via bootstrapping resampling [@et93]. The result is plotted in Figure \[fig:dmnh\]. We also tried fitting a more general linear relation by fitting the y-intercept as well, but found that the latter is consistent with zero at 90% confidence. If we ignore the measurement uncertainties in [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} and perform a least squares fit, we obtain $ N_\mathrm{H}
\rm\;(10^{20}\,cm^{-2})= 0.83\;DM\; (pc\,cm^{-3})$, giving a lower average ionization of 4%.
To check if the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} relation could depend on the source location in the Galaxy, we divided the sample into groups according to their vertical height from the plane and their Galactic longitudes. The results are shown in Figures \[fig:dmnh\](b) and \[fig:dmnh\](c), respectively. In the high-DM regime, sources toward the Galactic Center direction, e.g., PSRs J1747$-$2958 and J1747$-$2809, show a hint of a larger [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}-to-DM ratio. However, the systematic variation is less clear at lower DM and our limited sample precludes a detailed analysis. In Figure \[fig:nhdist\] we plotted [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}against distance. This indicates a general correlation, albeit with a large scatter. There is also a hint that for sources at a similar distance, [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} is systematically larger near the Galactic Plane (Figure \[fig:nhdist\](b)), however, the dependency on Galactic longitude is less clear (Figure \[fig:nhdist\](c)). The DM variation with distance is presented in Figure \[fig:dmdist\]. While this may seem to exhibit a good correlation at large distances, we note that sources with DM-derived distances provide no new information, only the NE2001 model prediction. In addition, there is a very large range of DMs for nearby pulsars around 300pc, from $2.4\pm
0.2$pccm$^{-3}$ for PSR J0108$-$1431 to $68\pm1.6$pccm$^{-3}$ for the Vela pulsar, spanning nearly a factor of 30. Similar to [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}, Figure \[fig:dmdist\](b) also indicates a higher DM toward the Galactic Plane.
DISCUSSION
==========
We have investigated the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} connection for 68 radio pulsars detected with [*Chandra*]{} or [*XMM-Newton*]{}. We found a good correlation between these two column densities, suggesting that free electrons in the Galaxy generally trace the interstellar gas. That said, some [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values in Figure \[fig:dmnh\] show significant deviation from the best-fit line, by a factor of a few up to an order of magnitude. This could be attributed to inhomogeneity of the ISM, possibly due to molecular clouds, supernova remnants, or H[ii]{} regions in the line of sight. Such an effect is more prominent for nearby sources, since the distribution of free electrons and interstellar gas is highly anisotropic around the Local Bubble [see @tc93; @lwv+03]. In particular, there is significant DM contribution from the Gum Nebula [@tc93], resulting in a wide range of DMs for pulsars within $\sim$300pc (e.g., the Vela pulsar and PSR J0737$-$3039; see Figure \[fig:dmdist\]). At large distances, local fluctuations are expected to average out and the scatter of [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} and DM with respect to distance likely arises from Galactic structure, such as the disk, spiral arms, and different scale heights of various ISM components [see @cox05]. We have attempted to identify any systematic trends in DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} with respect to source location. While Figures \[fig:nhdist\](b) and \[fig:dmdist\](b) hint at higher [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} and DM toward the Galactic Plane, more sources are needed for a quantitative comparison with the detailed Galactic structure. Beyond our Galaxy, we note that while PSR B0540$-$69 in the LMC was not used in the fit, its DM-to-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} ratio lies close to the best-fit line in Figure \[fig:dmnh\]. This is somewhat surprising because of the different interstellar abundances in the LMC than in our Galaxy [@rd92]. We argue that this could merely be a coincidence rather than the general case. Indeed, the LMC contributes 90% of the [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} toward PSR B0540$-$69 [@phs+10] but only two thirds of the DM [@mfl+06].
The DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} correlation can be used to estimate one quantity from the other, offering a useful tool for pulsar observations. For instance, radio pulsations have been claimed from the magnetar 4U 0142+61 with a DM of $27\pm5$pccm$^{-3}$ [@mtm10]. Given its [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} value of $9.6\pm0.2
\times10^{21}$[cm$^{-2}$]{} [@gws05], the claimed DM seems somewhat small when compared to other sources of similar [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} in Figure \[fig:dmnh\]. For X-ray observations, there are many cases requiring *a priori* knowledge of [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}, including flux estimates when planning for new observations, measuring the intrinsic spectra of faint sources, and deriving luminosity limits for non-detection. In many previous studies, [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} is inferred from the DM by assuming one free electron per ten neutral hydrogen atoms [e.g. @kpg07; @cfc+12]. Our result directly confirms that this is a reasonable approximation, but as a caveat, the scatter in [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} is typically a factor of a few up to an order of magnitude.
In addition to DM, the total Galactic H[i]{} column density from 21-cm radio surveys [e.g., @kbh+05] and A$_\mathrm{V}$ have also been used as proxies for the X-ray absorption [e.g., @ozv+13]. These [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}estimates are plotted in Figure \[fig:nhest\]. It is clear that some X-ray-inferred [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values exceed the total H[i]{} column density of the Galaxy. As shown in the Figure, the latter saturates at $\sim10^{22}$[cm$^{-2}$]{}, resulting in gross underestimates for high-DM ($\gtrsim 100$pccm$^{-3}$) or distant ($\gtrsim3$kpc) pulsars. It has been reported that at high Galactic column densities $\gtrsim 10^{21}$[cm$^{-2}$]{}, which occur at low Galactic latitudes, the X-ray absorption columns are generally larger than the H[i]{} columns by a factor of 1.5–3 [@ab99; @bm06]. This agrees with our result and indicates significant X-ray absorption due to molecular clouds rather than neutral hydrogen atoms, hence, the H[i]{} column may not be a good tracer for the X-ray absorption.
A$_\mathrm{V}$, on the other hand, is caused by grains of the same heavy elements that give rise to X-ray absorption, therefore, it highly correlates with [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} [e.g., @ps95; @go09]. Given a pulsar’s position and distance, A$_\mathrm{V}$ can be estimated from the 3D extinction maps of the Galaxy [e.g., @dcl03], and then [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} can be deduced from the empirical relation [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}([cm$^{-2}$]{})=$2.21\times 10^{21}$A$_\mathrm{V}$ (mag) [@go09]. As shown in Figure \[fig:nhest\], this method seems to give the best agreement between measured and predicted values, especially for the highest-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}pulsars. It is worth noting that in some cases DMs were used to infer the pulsar distances, which then give A$_\mathrm{V}$ and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}. This generally provides better results than directly employing the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} correlation. We believe that this is because the A$_\mathrm{V}$ map reflects the distribution of heavy elements in the Galaxy, whereas this crucial information cannot be obtained from DM.
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
======================
We have compiled a list of 68 pulsar [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} measurements reported in the literature using [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations, and compared the [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} values with the DMs and distances. Our results show a good correlation between DM and [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}, with a correlation coefficient of 0.72. We obtained an empirical linear relation $N_\mathrm{H} \rm\;(10^{20}\,cm^{-2})=0.30^{+0.13}_{-0.09}\;DM\;
(pc\,cm^{-3})$, implying an average ionization of $10^{+4}_{-3}$%. This confirms the ratio of one free electron to ten neutral hydrogen atoms commonly used in previous studies. Our finding provides a useful tool to estimate [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{}from DM. We compare to other [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} estimates based on the neutral hydrogen column density and A$_{\rm V}$, and find that the latter gives the best results, while H[i]{} and our empirical DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} relation tend to give underestimates in the high-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} regime.
The next generation of X-ray missions, including eROSITA [@pab+10] and the proposed Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer [NICER; @gao12], will significantly expand the pulsar [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} sample. In addition, the foreseen Square Kilometer Array (SKA) can provide parallax measurements of a few thousand radio pulsars [@stw+11]. Together these will allow a detailed study of the DM-[$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} relation in different parts of the Galaxy and its connection with the Galactic structure. In addition to pulsars, it should be possible to compile a database of [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} measurements for other Galactic X-ray sources, such as stars, supernova remnants, cataclysmic variables, stellar clusters, white dwarfs, and X-ray binaries, and compare with their distances to build a 3D [$N_\mathrm{H}$]{} map of our Galaxy.
We thank Oleg Kargaltsev and Slavko Bogdanov for suggesting a list of X-ray-emitting radio pulsars, and Anne Archibald, Antoine Bouchard, and Ryan Lynch for discussion. We acknowledge the anonymous referee for useful suggestions. V.M.K. holds the Lorne Trottier Chair in Astrophysics and Cosmology and a Canadian Research Chair in Observational Astrophysics. This work was supported by NSERC via a Discovery Grant, by FQRNT via the Centre de Recherche Astrophysique du Québec, by CIFAR, and a Killam Research Fellowship.
[109]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, G. E., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., [Slane]{}, P. O., [et al.]{} 2012, , 751, 53
, J. S., & [Bregman]{}, J. N. 1999, , 510, 806
, Z., [Gotthelf]{}, E. V., [Ransom]{}, S. M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 739, 39
, W. H., & [Mushotzky]{}, R. F. 2006, , 639, 929
, W., & [Aschenbach]{}, B. 2002, in Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants, ed. W. [Becker]{}, H. [Lesch]{}, & J. [Tr[ü]{}mper]{}, 64
, W., [Jessner]{}, A., [Kramer]{}, M., [Testa]{}, V., & [Howaldt]{}, C. 2005, , 633, 367
, W., [Weisskopf]{}, M. C., [Tennant]{}, A. F., [et al.]{} 2004, , 615, 908
, F., [Israel]{}, G. L., [Dall’Osso]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2009, , 498, 195
, S., [Archibald]{}, A. M., [Hessels]{}, J. W. T., [et al.]{} 2011, , 742, 97
, S., & [Grindlay]{}, J. E. 2009, , 703, 1557
, S., [van den Berg]{}, M., [Heinke]{}, C. O., [et al.]{} 2010, , 709, 241
, S., [van den Berg]{}, M., [Servillat]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 730, 81
, F., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., [Gotthelf]{}, E. V., [Halpern]{}, J. P., & [Manchester]{}, R. N. 2004, , 616, 1118
, F., [Ng]{}, C.-Y., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 703, L55
, F., [Ransom]{}, S. M., [Chatterjee]{}, S., [Johnston]{}, S., & [Demorest]{}, P. 2012, , 746, 63
, F., [Ransom]{}, S. M., [Halpern]{}, J. P., & [Reynolds]{}, J. 2007, , 666, L93
, F., [Ransom]{}, S. M., [Halpern]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2006, , 442, 892
, J. L., [McClure-Griffiths]{}, N. M., & [Cheung]{}, M. C. M. 2004, , 352, 1405
, C., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [Kargaltsev]{}, O., & [Shibanov]{}, Y. A. 2012, , 744, 81
, M. J., [Wilking]{}, B. A., [Benson]{}, P. J., [et al.]{} 1996, , 106, 111
, I., [Guillemot]{}, L., [Johnson]{}, T. J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 732, 47
, J. M., & [Lazio]{}, T. J. W. 2002, astro-ph/0207156
, D. P. 2005, , 43, 337
, A., [Caraveo]{}, P. A., [Mereghetti]{}, S., [Negroni]{}, M., & [Bignami]{}, G. F. 2005, , 623, 1051
, A. T., [Archibald]{}, A. M., [Brisken]{}, W. F., [et al.]{} 2012, , 756, L25
, R., [Cabrera-Lavers]{}, A., & [L[ó]{}pez-Corredoira]{}, M. 2003, , 409, 205
, M., [Kargaltsev]{}, O., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [et al.]{} 2012, , 746, 6
, B., & [Tibshirani]{}, R. J. 1993, [An Introduction to the Bootstrap]{} (Chapman & Hall/CRC)
, W. L., [Madore]{}, B. F., [Gibson]{}, B. K., [et al.]{} 2001, , 553, 47
, B. M., [Arons]{}, J., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [et al.]{} 2002, , 569, 878
, B. M., [van der Swaluw]{}, E., [Camilo]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2004, , 616, 383
, K. C., [Arzoumanian]{}, Z., & [Okajima]{}, T. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8443, 13
, J., [Haberl]{}, F., [Melikidze]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2008, , 686, 497
, E., [Wilms]{}, J., & [Staubert]{}, R. 2005, , 433, 1079
, M. E., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [Pivovaroff]{}, M. J., & [Gaensler]{}, B. M. 2006, , 652, 569
, E. V., [Helfand]{}, D. J., & [Newburgh]{}, L. 2007, , 654, 267
, L., [Johnson]{}, T. J., [Venter]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2012, , 744, 33
, T., & [[Ö]{}zel]{}, F. 2009, , 400, 2050
, J. P., [Gotthelf]{}, E. V., [Leighly]{}, K. M., & [Helfand]{}, D. J. 2001, , 547, 323
, W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487
, J. A., [Funk]{}, S., [Carrigan]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2007, , 476, L25
, M., [Sch[ö]{}ck]{}, F. M., [Eger]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2012, , 539, A24
, J. P., [Slane]{}, P. O., [Park]{}, S., [Roming]{}, P. W. A., & [Burrows]{}, D. N. 2003, , 591, L139
, C. Y., [Huang]{}, R. H. H., [Trepl]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2012, , 747, 74
, P. M. W., [Burton]{}, W. B., [Hartmann]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 440, 775
, O., [Durant]{}, M., [Misanovic]{}, Z., & [Pavlov]{}, G. G. 2012, Science, 337, 946
, O., [Misanovic]{}, Z., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [Wong]{}, J. A., & [Garmire]{}, G. P. 2008, , 684, 542
, O., & [Pavlov]{}, G. G. 2007, , 670, 655
, O., & [Pavlov]{}, G. G. 2008, in AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. [Bassa]{}, Z. [Wang]{}, A. [Cumming]{}, & V. M. [Kaspi]{} (Melville, NY: AIP), 171
, O., & [Pavlov]{}, G. G. 2010, in AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 1248, X-ray Astronomy 2009; Present Status, Multi-Wavelength Approach and Future Perspectives (Melville, NY: AIP), 25
, O., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., & [Garmire]{}, G. P. 2007, , 660, 1413
, O., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., & [Wong]{}, J. A. 2009, , 690, 891
, V. M., [Gotthelf]{}, E. V., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., & [Lyutikov]{}, M. 2001, , 562, L163
, R., [Welsh]{}, B. Y., [Vergely]{}, J. L., [Crifo]{}, F., & [Sfeir]{}, D. 2003, , 411, 447
, S. M., [Slane]{}, P. O., & [de Jager]{}, O. C. 2008, , 689, L121
, L., [Bailes]{}, M., [Bates]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2010, , 721, L33
, X. H., [Lu]{}, F. J., & [Li]{}, T. P. 2005, , 628, 931
, V. M., [Teplykh]{}, D. A., & [Malov]{}, O. I. 2010, Astronomy Reports, 54, 995
, R. N., [Fan]{}, G., [Lyne]{}, A. G., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., & [Crawford]{}, F. 2006, , 649, 235
, R. N., [Hobbs]{}, G. B., [Teoh]{}, A., & [Hobbs]{}, M. 2005, , 129, 1993
, M. 2012, PhD thesis, University of Insubria
, M., [De Luca]{}, A., & [Caraveo]{}, P. A. 2011, , 733, 82
, A., [Cusumano]{}, G., [Massaro]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2011, , 531, A153
, H., & [Safi-Harb]{}, S. 2010, , 724, 572
, K. E., [Zane]{}, S., [Cropper]{}, M., [Vestrand]{}, W. T., & [Ho]{}, C. 2006, , 639, 377
, Z., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., & [Garmire]{}, G. P. 2008, , 685, 1129
, I., [Rib[ó]{}]{}, M., [Herrero]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 732, L11
, C.-Y., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [Ho]{}, W. C. G., [et al.]{} 2012, , 761, 65
, C.-Y., [Roberts]{}, M. S. E., & [Romani]{}, R. W. 2005, , 627, 904
, C.-Y., [Romani]{}, R. W., [Brisken]{}, W. F., [Chatterjee]{}, S., & [Kramer]{}, M. 2007, , 654, 487
, C.-Y., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [Dib]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 729, 131
, S. A., [Zhu]{}, W. W., [Vogel]{}, J. K., [et al.]{} 2013, , 764, 1
, B., [Webb]{}, N. A., [Becker]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2012, , 544, A108
, S., [Hughes]{}, J. P., [Slane]{}, P. O., [Mori]{}, K., & [Burrows]{}, D. N. 2010, , 710, 948
, G. G., [Chang]{}, C., & [Kargaltsev]{}, O. 2011, , 730, 2
, G. G., [Kargaltsev]{}, O., & [Brisken]{}, W. F. 2008, , 675, 683
, G. G., [Kargaltsev]{}, O., [Garmire]{}, G. P., & [Wolszczan]{}, A. 2007, , 664, 1072
, B., [Arumugasamy]{}, P., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [et al.]{} 2012, , 761, 117
, B., [Pavlov]{}, G. G., [Manchester]{}, R. N., [Kargaltsev]{}, O., & [Garmire]{}, G. P. 2012, , 749, 146
, A., [Cerutti]{}, R., [Colpi]{}, M., & [Mereghetti]{}, S. 2002, , 387, 993
, A., [Rea]{}, N., [McLaughlin]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2008, , 680, 654
, P., & [Schmitt]{}, J. H. M. M. 1995, , 293, 889
, P., [Andritschke]{}, R., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7732, 23
, S. M., [Ray]{}, P. S., [Camilo]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2011, , 727, L16
, N., [McLaughlin]{}, M. A., [Gaensler]{}, B. M., [et al.]{} 2009, , 703, L41
, I. N., & [Gizis]{}, J. E. 1998, , 116, 2929
, M., [Marandon]{}, V., [Gotthelf]{}, E. V., [et al.]{} 2010, , 716, 663
, D. A., [Goss]{}, W. M., [Kalberla]{}, P. M. W., [Herbstmeier]{}, U., & [Schwarz]{}, U. J. 1993, , 274, 427
, R. W., [Ng]{}, C.-Y., [Dodson]{}, R., & [Brisken]{}, W. 2005, , 631, 480
, R. W., [Shaw]{}, M. S., [Camilo]{}, F., [Cotter]{}, G., & [Sivakoff]{}, G. R. 2010, , 724, 908
, S. C., & [Dopita]{}, M. A. 1992, , 384, 508
, F. M., [B[ü]{}sching]{}, I., [de Jager]{}, O. C., [Eger]{}, P., & [Vorster]{}, M. J. 2010, , 515, A109
, F. D., & [Wang]{}, Z.-R. 1988, , 332, 199
, R. L., [Kuntz]{}, K. D., & [Petre]{}, R. 2004, , 611, 906
, R., [Tingay]{}, S. J., [Wex]{}, N., [Kramer]{}, M., & [Stappers]{}, B. 2011, , 528, A108
, J. H., & [Cordes]{}, J. M. 1993, , 411, 674
, T., [Slane]{}, P., [Reynolds]{}, S. P., [Raymond]{}, J. C., & [Borkowski]{}, K. J. 2010, , 710, 309
, E., & [[Ö]{}gelman]{}, H. 2007, , 658, 1183
, V. 1973, , 85, 579
, M., [Guainazzi]{}, M., [Plucinsky]{}, P. P., [et al.]{} 2011, , 525, A25
, A., [Romani]{}, R. W., & [Ng]{}, C.-Y. 2008, , 680, 1417
, J. P. W., [Weisberg]{}, J. M., [Chael]{}, A. A., [Lee]{}, K. J., & [Lorimer]{}, D. R. 2012, , 755, 39
, N. A., [Olive]{}, J.-F., & [Barret]{}, D. 2004, , 417, 181
, M. C., [Tennant]{}, A. F., [Yakovlev]{}, D. G., [et al.]{} 2011, , 743, 139
, J., [Allen]{}, A., & [McCray]{}, R. 2000, , 542, 914
, V. E. 2006, , 638, 951
, V. E., & [Pavlov]{}, G. G. 2004, , 616, 452
, W. W., [Kaspi]{}, V. M., [McLaughlin]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 734, 44
[lccccllcc]{} J0030+0451 & 4.333$\pm$0.001 & 2.2$\pm$1.0 & $0.28^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$$^{\rm p}$ & 113.1 & $-57.6$ & $-236$ & NSA$\times$3 & 1\
J0108$-$1431 & $2.4\pm0.2$ & $2\pm2$ & $0.21^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$$^{\rm p}$ & 140.9 & $-76.8$ & $-205$ & BB & 2\
B0136+57 & 73.779$\pm$0.006 & $50\pm3$ & $2.6^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$$^{\rm p}$ & 129.2 & $-4.0$ & $-183$ & PL & 3\
J0205+6449 & 140.7$\pm$0.3 & 41.6$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & 3.2$^{\rm o}$ & 130.7 & +3.1 & +172 & PL+RS (SNR) & 4, 5\
J0218+4232 & 61.252$\pm$0.005 & $8\pm4$ & $2.67$$^{\rm d}$ & 139.5 & $-17.5$ & $-804$ & PL & 6\
B0355+54 & 57.1420$\pm$0.0003 & $60\pm30$ & $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$$^{\rm p}$ & 148.2 & +0.8 & +14 & PL (PWN) & 7\
J0437$-$4715 & 2.64476$\pm$0.00007 & $0.25^{+0.40}_{-0.24}$ & $0.156\pm0.001$$^{\rm p}$ & 253.4 & $-42.0$ & $-104$ & PL+NSA$\times$2 & 8\
B0531+21 (Crab) & 56.791$\pm$0.001 & 32$\pm$2 & 2.00$^{\rm o}$ & 184.6 & $-5.8$ & $-202$ & PL & 9, 10\
J0538+2817 & 39.570$\pm$0.001 & $25\pm2$ & $1.3\pm{0.2}$$^{\rm p}$ & 179.7 & $-1.7$ & $-38$ & BB & 11\
B0540$-$69 & $146.6\pm0.2$ & $67\pm5$ & 50$^{\rm o}$ & 279.7 & $-31.5$ & $-26137$ & PL (SNR) & 12, 13\
B0628$-$28 & 34.468$\pm$0.017 & $6^{+5}_{-3}$ & $0.32^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$$^{\rm p}$ & 237.0 & $-$16.8 & $-$92.3 & PL & 14\
B0656+14 & 13.977$\pm$0.013 & 4.3$\pm$0.2 & $0.28\pm0.03$$^{\rm p}$ & 201.1 & +8.3 & +40 & PL+BB$\times$2 & 15\
J0737$-$3039 & 48.920$\pm$0.005 & $<1$ & $1.1^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$$^{\rm p}$ & 245.2 & $-$4.5 & $-$86 & BB$\times$2 & 16\
B0823+26 & 19.454$\pm$0.004 & $<14$ & $0.32^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$$^{\rm p}$ & 197.0 & +31.7 & +168 & PL & 17\
B0833$-$45 (Vela) & 67.99$\pm$0.01 & $1.6^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ & $0.28\pm0.02$$^{\rm p}$ & 263.6 & $-2.8$ & $-14$ & PL (PWN) & 18\
B0950+08 & 2.958$\pm$0.003 & 3.2$\pm$1.3 & 0.261$\pm$0.005$^{\rm p}$ & 228.9 & +43.7 & +180 & PL+BB &19\
J1016$-$5857 & 394.2$\pm$0.2 & 50$\pm$30 & 8.00$^{\rm d}$ & 284.1 & $-1.9$ & $-263$ & PL & 20\
J1023+0038 & 14.325$\pm$0.010 & $<9$ & 1.37$\pm$0.04$^{\rm p}$ & 243.5 & +45.8 & +980 & PL+NSA & 21\
J1024$-$0719 & 6.48520$\pm$0.00008 & $2^{+3}_{-2}$ & $0.49^{+0.12}_{-0.08}$$^{\rm p}$ & 251.7 & +40.5 & +318 & BB & 22\
B1046$-$58 & 129.1$\pm$0.2 & 90$^{+60}_{-30}$ & $2.9^{+1.2}_{-0.7}$$^{\rm h}$ & 287.4 & +0.6 & +29 & PL & 23\
B1055$-$52 & 30.1$\pm$0.5 & $2.7\pm0.2$ & 0.72$^{\rm d}$ & 286.0 & +6.7 & +84 & PL+BB$\times$2 & 15\
J1119$-$6127 & 707.4$\pm$1.3 & $200^{+50}_{-40}$ & 8.4$\pm$0.4$^{\rm o}$ & 292.2 & $-0.5$ & $-78.7$ & PL+BB & 24, 25\
J1124$-$5916 & 330$\pm$2 & 31$\pm$6 & 5$^{+3}_{-2}$$^{\rm h}$ & 292.0 & +1.8 & +153 & PL & 26\
J1231$-$1411 & 8.090$\pm$0.001 & $<5$ & 0.44$^{\rm d}$ & 295.5 & +48.4 & +329 & NSA+PL & 27\
B1259$-$63 & 146.72$\pm$0.03 & $25^{+6}_{-5}$ & 2.3$\pm$0.4$^{\rm o}$ & 304.2 & $-$1.0 & $-$40 & PL & 28, 29\
J1357$-$6429 &128.5$\pm$0.7 & 37$^{+20}_{-13}$ & 2.50$^{\rm d}$ & 309.9 & $-$2.5 & $-$110 & PL (PWN) & 30\
J1400$-$6325 & 563$\pm$4 & $209\pm20$ & 11.27$^{\rm d}$ & 310.6 & $-$1.6 & $-$313 & PL (PWN) & 31\
J1420$-$6048 & 358.8$\pm$0.2 & $540^{+350}_{-270}$ & 5.61$^{\rm d}$ & 313.5 & +0.2 & +22 & PL (PWN) & 32\
B1451$-$68 & 8.6$\pm$0.2 & 17$^{+40}_{-17}$ & $0.43^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$$^{\rm p}$ & 313.9 & $-$8.5 & $-64$ & PL+BB & 33\
J1509$-$5850 & 140.6$\pm$0.8 & 210$^{+70}_{-20}$ & 2.62$^{\rm d}$ & 320.0 & $-$0.6 & $-$28 & PL (PWN) &34\
B1509$-$58 & 252.5$\pm$0.3 & 115$\pm5$ & 4.4$^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$$^{\rm h}$ & 320.3 & $-$1.2 & $-$89 & PL (PWN) & 35\
J1550$-$5418 & 830$\pm$50 & 410$\pm$10 & 9.55$^{\rm d}$ & 327.2 & $-$0.1 & $-$22 & PL+BB & 36\
J1614$-$2230 & 34.4865$\pm$0.0001 & 20$^{+22}_{-11}$ & 1.27$^{\rm d}$ & 352.6 & +20.2 & +438 & BB$\times$2 & 37\
J1617$-$5055 & 467$\pm$5 & 345$\pm20$ & 6.82$^{\rm d}$ & 332.5 & $-$0.3 & $-$33 & PL & 38\
J1622$-$4950 & 820$\pm$30 & 540$^{+160}_{-140}$ & 8.73$^{\rm d}$ & 333.8 & $-$0.1 & $-$16 & BB & 39\
B1706$-$44 & 75.69$\pm$0.05 & 50$\pm6$ & 2.6$^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$$^{\rm h}$ & 343.1 & $-$2.7 & $-$122 & PL (PWN) & 40\
J1718$-$3718 & 371.1$\pm$1.7 & 130$\pm30$ & 6.6$^{\rm d}$ & 349.8 & +0.2 & +25 & BB & 41\
J1718$-$3825 & 247.4$\pm$0.3 & 72$^{+50}_{-13}$ & 3.6$^{\rm d}$ & 349.0 & $-$0.4 & $-$27 & PL (PWN) & 42\
J1734$-$3333 & 578$\pm$9 & $70^{+40}_{-30}$ & 6.46$^{\rm d}$ & 354.8 & $-$0.4 & $-$49 & BB & 43\
J1740$-$5340 & 71.8$\pm$0.2 & $22\pm4$ & 2.7$\pm$0.2$^{\rm o}$ & 338.2 & $-$12.0 & $-$560 & PL & 44, 45\
J1740+1000 & 23.85$\pm$0.05 & $10\pm2$ & 1.24$^{\rm d}$ & 34.0 & +20.3 & +430 & PL+BB & 46\
J1741$-$2054 & 4.7$\pm$0.1 & 15$\pm5$ & 0.38$^{\rm d}$ & 6.4 & +4.9 & +33 & PL (PWN) & 47\
J1747$-$2809 & 1133$\pm$3 & 2300$\pm$150 & 13.31$^{\rm d}$ & 0.9 & +0.1 & +18 & PL (PWN) & 48\
J1747$-$2958 & 101.5$\pm$1.6 & 270$\pm$10 & 5$^{\rm o}$ & 359.3 & $-$0.8 & $-$73 & PL (PWN) & 49, 50\
B1757$-$24 & 289$\pm$10 & 350$^{+130}_{-110}$ & 5.22$^{\rm d}$ & 5.3 & $-$0.9 & $-$80 & PL & 51\
B1800$-$21 & 233.99$\pm$0.05 & 138$^{+60}_{-35}$& 3.88$^{\rm d}$ & 8.4 & +0.2 & +10 & PL (PWN) & 52\
J1809$-$1917 & 197.1$\pm$0.4& 71$^{+60}_{-40}$ & 3.55$^{\rm d}$ & 11.1 & +0.1 & +5 & PL & 53\
J1809$-$1943 & 178$\pm$5 & 72$\pm3$ & $3.6\pm0.5$$^{\rm h}$ & 10.7 & $-$0.2 & $-$10 & BB$\times$3 & 54\
J1819$-$1458 & 196.0$\pm$0.4 & 60$\pm30$ & 3.55$^{\rm d}$ & 16.0 & +0.1 & +5 & BB & 55\
B1821$-$24 & 120.502$\pm$0.002 & $26\pm2$ & 5.5$\pm$0.3$^{\rm o}$ & 7.8 & $-$5.6 & $-$535 & PL & 56, 57\
B1823$-$13 & 231$\pm$1 & $120^{+60}_{-80}$ & 3.93$^{\rm d}$ & 18.0 & $-$0.7 & $-$47 & PL (PWN) & 58\
J1833$-$1034 & 169.5$\pm$0.1 & $224^{+9}_{-10}$ & $4.5\pm0.5^{\rm h}$ & 21.5 & $-$0.9 & $-$70 & PL & 59\
B1853+01 & 96.74$\pm$0.12 & 120$\pm16$ & $3^{\rm o}$ & 34.6 & $-0.5$ & $-26$ & VNEI$\times$2 (SNR) & 60, 61\
J1930+1852 & 308$\pm$4 & 195$\pm$4 & $7^{+3}_{-2}$$^{\rm h}$ & 54.1 & +0.3 & +32 & PL (PWN) & 62\
B1929+10 & 3.180$\pm$0.004 & $1.7^{+2.3}_{-1.7}$ & $0.31^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$$^{\rm p}$ & 47.4 & $-3.9$ & $-21$ & PL+BB& 63\
B1937+21 & 71.0398$\pm$0.0002 & $97\pm24$ & $5^{+2}_{-1}$$^{\rm p}$ & 57.5 & $-0.3$ & $-25$ & PL & 64\
B1951+32 & 45.006$\pm$0.0190 & $30\pm2$ & $3\pm2^{\rm h}$ & 68.8 & +2.8 & +148 & PL & 65\
B1957+20 & 29.1168$\pm$0.0007 & $16\pm10$ & 2.49$^{\rm d}$ & 59.2 & $-4.7$ & $-204$ & PL & 66\
J2021+3651 & 368$\pm$1 & 67$^{+8}_{-7}$ & 12.19$^{\rm d}$ & 75.2 & +0.1 & +24 & PL & 67\
J2022+3842 & 429.1$\pm$0.5 & 160$\pm$30 & 10$^{\rm o}$ & 76.9 & +1.0 & +168 & PL & 68\
J2032+4127 & 114.8$\pm$0.1 & $48^{+13}_{-15}$ & 3.65$^{\rm d}$ & 80.2 & +1.0 & +66 & PL &69\
J2043+2740 & 21.0$\pm$0.1 & $<50$ & $1.8^{\rm d}$ & 70.6 & $-9.2$ & $-286$ & BB & 17\
J2124$-$3358 & 4.601$\pm$0.003 & 3$\pm$2 & $0.30^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$$^{\rm p}$ & 10.9 & $-45.4$ & $-214$ &PL+BB & 22\
B2224+65 & 36.079$\pm$0.009 & 25$^{+16}_{-11}$ & 1.86$^{\rm d}$ & 108.6 & +6.8 & +222 & PL & 70\
J2229+6114 & 204.97$\pm$0.02 & 30$^{+9}_{-4}$ & $3^{+5}_{-1}$$^{\rm o}$ & 106.6 & +2.9 & +154 & PL & 71, 72\
J2241$-$5236 & 11.41085$\pm$0.00003 & $<25$ & 0.51$^{\rm d}$ & 337.5 & $-$54.9 & $-417$ & PL & 69\
J2302+4442 & 13.762$\pm$0.006 & $2^{+31}_{-2}$ & 1.18$^{\rm d}$ & 103.4 & $-$14.0 & $-286$ & NSA & 73\
B2334+61 & 58.410$\pm$0.015 & 26$^{+26}_{-5}$ & 3.15$^{\rm d}$ & 114.3 & +0.2 & +13 & BB & 74
.
[^1]: <http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Finn Larsen and
- Pedro Lisbão
bibliography:
- 'ads4\_bibliography.bib'
title: Divergences and Boundary Modes in N=8 Supergravity
---
Introduction and Summary {#sec:introduction}
========================
Divergences in quantum gravity are famously severe and suggestive that long distance physics depends sensitively on the shortest lengths. Supersymmetry mitigates the divergences so effectively that for maximal ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity in four asymptotically flat dimensions it has not yet been established what divergences remain, if any [@Bern:2006kd; @Bern:2007xj; @Kallosh:2008mq; @BjerrumBohr:2009zz; @Kallosh:2009db; @Bjornsson:2010wm; @Dixon:2010gz]. On the other hand, it has long been known that in curved backgrounds, highly relevant for gravity, even the one-loop vacuum amplitude diverges [@Christensen:1978gi; @Christensen:1978md; @Christensen:1979iy; @Sezgin:1980tp; @Bastianelli:2005vk; @Bastianelli:2005uy]. The apparent incompatibility between these results created controversy already in the 1980’s [@Siegel:1980jj; @Duff:1980qv; @Siegel:1980ax; @Gibbons:1984dg; @Inami:1984vp; @Fradkin:1984ai; @Buchbinder:2008jf]. In this paper we revisit this tension from a modern perspective informed by the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re].
To exhibit the central issue in more detail it is convenient to focus on the anomalous contribution to the trace of the energy momentum tensor $$\label{eq:emtrace}
\langle T_\mu^\mu \rangle_{\rm an}= \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \left( c W^2 - a E_4\right)~,$$ where the square of the Weyl tensor $W^2={\rm Riem}^2 - 2{\rm Ric}^2 + \frac{1}{3}R^2$ and the Euler density $E_4={\rm Riem}^2 - 4{\rm Ric}^2 + R^2$ encode dependence on the background geometry[^1]. The coefficients $c,a$ depend on the matter content of the theory and they have been studied in great detail; e.g. using perturbation theory in small curvature around flat space. Their values for fields with simple couplings to the background have long been established and are summarized in table \[table:centralcharges\] (later). These well known coefficients are such that, for the field content of ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity, their sum does not vanish. This fact establishes a divergence that is present already at one loop.
However, there are equally well established perturbative nonrenormalization theorems based on the helicity supertraces over the on-shell spectrum $$\label{eq:supertrace}
\sum (-)^{2h} h^n=0~,$$ for $n<{\cal N}=8$. These sum rules imply powerful cancellations for perturbative amplitudes in asymptotically flat space and related supertrace formulae are influential in particle phenomenology because they survive spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry. For us the important point is that the helicity sum rules establish one-loop nonrenormalization in ${\cal N}=8$ AdS$_4$ supergravity (gauged ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity) [@Gibbons:1984dg; @Inami:1984vp; @Nicolai:1983me]. These cancellations even generalize to all massive levels obtained from Kaluza-Klein compactification of ${\cal N}=1$ supergravity in $11$ dimensions.
We will argue that despite appearances there is no contradiction, but rather a topological distinction encoded in the boundary conditions. The basis for the sum rules (\[eq:supertrace\]) is Lorentzian AdS$_4$ which, after Euclidean continuation, gives rise to $S^1\times S^2$ boundary conditions with the $S^1$ corresponding to Euclidean time. In this geometry the Euler characteristic $$\label{eq:gaussbonnet}
\chi =\frac{ 1}{ 32\pi^2} \int E_4 + ~{\rm bndy} ~,$$ vanishes. This is significant because the divergences uncovered by the curvature expansion are proportional to $\chi$ and so they are not captured by AdS$_4$ with $S^1\times S^2$ boundary conditions. On the other hand, we will easily reproduce them from Euclidean AdS$_4$ with $S^3$ boundary conditions since this geometry has Euler invariant $\chi=1$.
One might wonder if these divergences have any physical significance. We argue in the affirmative by computing a finite and nonvanishing one-loop correction to the cosmological constant in maximal AdS$_4$ supergravity. In this computation it is manifest that the helicity supertrace relations (\[eq:supertrace\]) are violated in spacetime with $S^3$ boundary conditions. Interestingly, the violation is rather mild so all power law corrections in fact cancel. Thus the cosmological constant acquires just logarithmic running. This feature is intriguing since it might offer a mechanism that could describe dark energy without sacrificing naturalness.
Our results are subject to an important subtlety that was noticed already in early studies of quantum fields in curved space: quantum inequivalence [@Duff:1980qv]. In our context an important example is the relation between a massless antisymmetric tensor and a scalar field. In the classical theory they are equivalent by a field redefinition but their quantum partition functions are related by a shift that is proportional to the Euler characteristic (\[eq:gaussbonnet\]) [@Bastianelli:2005vk; @Bastianelli:2005uy]. The coefficient of the logarithmic divergence we study therefore depends on the duality frame which becomes part of the data that defines the theory. We interpret this feature as a genuine physical effect: antisymmetric tensor fields support boundary modes that have no analogues in the corresponding scalar field theory.
In this paper we primarily interpret ${\cal N}=8$ AdS$_4$ supergravity as a low energy effective field theory in its own right but ultimately the UV completion involves the full string/M-theory. As an intermediate step we consider the theory as compactification of 11D supergravity on AdS$_4\times S^7$. This procedure defines a preferred duality frame for the massless fields and it happens that it is precisely the frame where all logarithmic divergences cancel [@Duff:1980qv]. In this setting boundary modes cancel divergences.
There have been many other recent studies of quantum corrections to AdS spaces in various dimensions. A basic feature of this research is that divergences remain even when supersymmetry is maximal and those divergences are related to effects that are unambiguously physical in the dual theory. Some examples:
- In AdS$_{d+1}$ with odd $(d+1)$ there are bulk divergences interpreted as finite quantum anomalies in the dual theory with even $d$. For example, in the case of $d=4$ such anomalies are responsible for the shift $N^2\to N^2-1$ that is expected and confirmed in ${\cal N}=4$ SYM with $SU(N)$ gauge groups [@Mansfield:2003gs; @Beccaria:2014xda].
- Quantum corrections to higher spin theories in AdS provide impressive evidence for higher spin holography. [@Giombi:2013fka; @Giombi:2014iua; @Giombi:2014yra]
- The Bekenstein-Hawking area law for black holes is subject to $\log A$ corrections with coefficients determined by the low energy theory. For BPS black holes these coefficients are determined by divergences in AdS$_2$ and AdS$_2\times S^2$ which are generically nonvanishing (including for ${\cal N}=8$), and their values are confirmed by the microscopic theory in cases where the latter has been established. [@Banerjee:2010qc; @Banerjee:2011jp; @Sen:2011ba; @Sen:2012cj; @Bhattacharyya:2012wz; @Sen:2012dw; @Sen:2014aja; @Keeler:2014bra; @Larsen:2014bqa]
Our study of AdS$_4$ was motivated in part by these and related developments. Computations in these contexts share the techniques we employ and offer some confidence in their applicability.
One Loop Quantum Corrections in AdS$_4$
=======================================
In this section we employ heat kernel methods to compute the one loop contributions to the anomalous trace of the energy momentum tensor in AdS$_4$ from fields with various spins. We interpret the resulting divergences in the effective action as logarithmic running of the effective cosmological constant.
Notation and Review
-------------------
One loop quantum corrections in Euclidean quantum gravity are determined by a Gaussian path integral with the schematic form, $$W=-\ln \int\mathcal{D}\phi e^{-\phi \Box \phi} = \frac{1}{2}\ln \det \Box = \frac{1}{2}\sum_i \ln \lambda_i~,$$ where the $\phi$ denotes the collection of linearized fields, $\Box$ represents their kinetic operator, and $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of $\Box$. We represent the effective action $W$ in terms of the heat kernel $D(t) = \sum_i e^{-t\lambda_i}$ as $$\label{eq:Wdef}
W = -\int_{\epsilon^2}^{\infty}\frac{dt}{2t} D(t)~,$$ where $\epsilon$ is a UV regulator with dimension of length. It is customary to express results for heat kernels in terms of the (equal point) heat kernel density $K(t)$ expanded at small $t$ $$\label{eq:Kdef}
K(t) = \frac{1}{\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}} D(t)= \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^2}\bigg( 1 + a_2 t + a_4 t^2+ ...\bigg)~.$$ Departures from the flat space limit are encoded in the two derivative correction $a_2$ proportional to the Ricci scalar and the four derivative correction $a_4$ that is a linear combination of Riemann squared, Ricci squared, and Ricci scalar squared.[^2]
We divide the one loop effective action (\[eq:Wdef\]) into divergent contributions $$\label{eq:Wdiv}
W_{\textrm{div}} = \frac{1}{32\pi^2} \left( - {1\over 2\epsilon^4} - a_2 {1\over\epsilon^2} + a_4 \ln \epsilon^2\right) \textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}~,$$ and a remainder that is finite. From either piece we can form the trace of the energy momentum tensor $$T^{\mu}_{\mu} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\delta W}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}~.$$ The logarithmic divergence of the effective action (\[eq:Wdiv\]) gives an anomalous contribution that is conventionally presented as $$\label{eq:acdef}
\langle T_\mu^\mu \rangle_{\rm an}= \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} a_4 = \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \left( c W^2 - a E_4\right)~.$$ In the nonconformal theories we consider there may be additional contributions to the trace of the energy momentum tensor.
The values of $c$ and $a$ have been computed perturbatively by many researchers using different methods and schemes [@Christensen:1978md; @Eguchi:1980jx; @Birrell:1982; @Vassilevich:2003xt]. The values that are now standard (up to caveats discussed later in this section) are summarized in table \[table:centralcharges\] below.
**Field** $c$ $a$ $c-a$
---------------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
Real Scalar $\frac{1}{120}$ $\frac{1}{360}$ $\frac{1}{180}$
Weyl Fermion $\frac{1}{40}$ $\frac{11}{720}$ $\frac{7}{720}$
Vector $\frac{1}{10}$ $\frac{31}{180}$ -$\frac{13}{180}$
Antisymmetric Tensor $\frac{1}{120}$ $-\frac{179}{360}$ $\frac{91}{180}$
Gravitino $-\frac{411}{360}$ $-\frac{589}{720}$ $-\frac{233}{720}$
Graviton $\frac{783}{180}$ $\frac{571}{180}$ $\frac{53}{45}$
: Central charges $c$ and $a$ for minimally coupled massless fields. Each entry is a physical field with two degrees of freedom except the scalar, which has just one degree of freedom.[]{data-label="table:centralcharges"}
Computations in AdS$_4$
-----------------------
We now revisit these computations in the context of AdS$_4$. This geometry is conformally flat so the Weyl tensor vanishes and therefore the central charge $c$ plays no role. Our focus on $a$ is complementary to techniques that impose Einstein’s equations in vacuum and identify just the Riemann-squared terms which have coefficient $c-a$.
The natural representations for fields in AdS$_4$ are the symmetric, transverse, and traceless (STT) tensors with spin $s$. The heat kernels for these fields were comprehensively analyzed by Camporesi and Higuchi [@Camporesi:1992wn; @Camporesi:1994ga; @Higuchi:1986wu] (and recently developed further [@Giombi:2014yra]) both using explicit mode functions and also using group theory. We present their results for the AdS$_4$ heat kernel of a massive spin $s$ field with conformal dimension $\Delta$ as $$\label{eq:KAmaster}
K^{(s,\nu)}(t) = \frac{1}{\ell_A^4}\int_0^\infty d\lambda ~\mu_s(\lambda) ~e^{-\frac{t}{\ell_A^2} (\lambda^2+\nu^2)}~,$$ where $\nu^2 = (\Delta - \frac{3}{2})^2$. The conformal dimension $\Delta$ is equivalent to the mass of the field and in the context of AdS$_4$ it is $\Delta$ that provides the simplest representation of this parameter. Crucially, the Plancherel measure $\mu_s(\lambda)$ for the integration over the continuous eigenvalues $\lambda$ is different for bosons[^3] $$\mu_ s(\lambda) = (s+{1\over 2}) {\lambda^2 +(s +{1\over2})^2 \over 4\pi^2} \lambda \tanh(\pi \lambda)~,$$ and for fermions $$\mu_ s(\lambda) = (s+{1\over 2}) {\lambda^2 +(s +{1\over2})^2 \over 4\pi^2} \lambda \coth(\pi \lambda)~.$$ The distinction between bosons and fermions is inconsequential in the UV region where $\lambda\to\infty$ since then both $\tanh(\pi \lambda)\to 1$ and $\coth(\pi \lambda)\to 1$. It is instructive to evaluate the heat kernel (\[eq:KAmaster\]) such that this common feature is manifest. For bosons we write $\tanh(\pi \lambda) = 1- \frac{2}{e^{2\pi\lambda}+1}$ and then find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boseheatkernel}
K^{(s,\nu)}_{\rm boson}(t) &= \frac{s+{1\over 2}}{4 \pi^2\ell^4_A}e^{-{\frac{t\nu^2}{\ell_A^2}}} \left[ \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{t\lambda^2}{\ell_A^2}}(\lambda^2 +(s+\frac{1}{2})^2)\lambda d\lambda
- 2 \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{t\lambda^2}{\ell_A^2}} \frac{\lambda^2 +(s+\frac{1}{2})^2}{e^{2\pi \lambda}+1}\lambda d\lambda\right] \nonumber \\
& = {s+\frac{1}{2}\over 8\pi^2\ell^4_A} e^{-\frac{t\nu^2}{\ell^2_A}}\left( {\ell^4_A\over t^2} + {\ell^2_A\over t}(s+{1\over 2})^2\right)
- {s+\frac{1}{2}\over 8\pi^2\ell^4_A}\left( {7\over 480} + {(s+{1\over 2})^2\over 12}\right) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{s+{1\over 2}}{8\pi^2\ell^4_A}\left[ {\ell_A^4\over t^2} + {\ell_A^2\over t}\left((s+{1\over 2})^2 - \nu^2\right)\right] +
\frac{s+\frac{1}{2}}{16\pi^2\ell^4_A}\bigg[ \nu^4 - (s+\frac{1}{2})^2(2\nu^2+\frac{1}{6})-\frac{7}{240}\bigg]~.\end{aligned}$$ The first integral contains the UV terms that are common to bosons and fermions and is elementary for all $t$. The second integral is special to bosons. It is finite for small $t$ so we evaluate it at $t=0$, omitting higher powers in $t$. It is evident from this structure that only the first integral contributes to the terms that are divergent in the UV limit $t\to 0$.
We next compare with the fermion heat kernel where we write $\coth(\pi \lambda) = 1 + \frac{2}{e^{2\pi\lambda}-1}$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fermiheatkernel}
K^{(s,\nu)}_{\rm fermion}(t) &= \frac{s+{1\over 2}}{4 \pi^2\ell^4_A}e^{-{\frac{t\nu^2}{\ell_A^2}}} \left[ \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{t\lambda^2}{\ell_A^2}}(\lambda^2 +(s+\frac{1}{2})^2)\lambda d\lambda
+ 2 \int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{t\lambda^2}{\ell_A^2}} \frac{\lambda^2 +(s+\frac{1}{2})^2}{e^{2\pi \lambda}-1}\lambda d\lambda\right] \nonumber \\
& = \frac{s+{1\over 2}}{8\pi^2\ell^4_A}\left[ {\ell_A^4\over t^2} + {\ell_A^2\over t}\left((s+{1\over 2})^2 - \nu^2\right)\right] +
\frac{s+\frac{1}{2}}{16\pi^2\ell^4_A}\bigg[ \nu^4 - (s+\frac{1}{2})^2(2\nu^2-\frac{1}{3})+\frac{1}{30}\bigg]~.\end{aligned}$$ Since the first integral is the same in the boson and fermion heat kernels (\[eq:boseheatkernel\], \[eq:fermiheatkernel\]) these expressions have the same divergences in the UV limit $t\to 0$. It is for the same reason that they have the same dependence on conformal dimension appearing through $\nu^2 = (\Delta - \frac{3}{2})^2$. However, the two cases are of course different due to the second integral and this is reflected in the terms that are constant and independent of $\nu$.
We are particularly interested in massless particles since those are the ones that appear in standard ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity. In AdS$_4$ masslessness is not well characterized by the absence of a mass term in the Lagrangian but rather by the reducibility of the field representation. Representations at spin $s$ generally have dimension $2s+1$ but some special ones are reducible and allow decoupling of a ghost representation that has spin $s_{\rm ghost}=s-1$ and so dimension $2s_{\rm ghost}+1=2s-1$. This leaves two physical degrees of freedom for massless particles with spin, as expected. Group theory methods show that this reduction is possible precisely when the conformal dimension is $\Delta = s+1$ (and so $\nu = \Delta-{3\over 2} = s -\frac{1}{2}$) and also specify that the spin $s-1$ ghosts have $\Delta_{\rm ghost}=s+2$ [@Metsaev:1994ys]. These results do not strictly apply for the lowest spins $s={1\over 2}, 0$ but we can apply them formally with the understanding that the ghost subtraction in fact enhances a real scalar to a complex representation.[^4] These rules give $$\label{eq:Kbosemassless}
K^{(s, {\rm massless})}_{\rm boson}(t) = K^{(s, s+1)}_{\rm boson}(t) - K^{(s-1, s+2)}_{\rm boson}(t) = \frac{1}{16\pi^2\ell^4_A}\bigg(\frac{2\ell_A^4}{t^2} + \frac{8s^2 \ell_A^2}{t} -5s^4 + s^2 - \frac{2}{15}\bigg)~,$$ for a massless boson with spin $s$, and $$\label{eq:Kfermimassless}
K^{(s, {\rm massless})}_{\rm fermion} = (-)\left[ K^{(s, s+1)}_{\rm fermion}(t) - K^{(s-1, s+2)}_{\rm fermion}(t) \right]= \frac{1}{16\pi^2\ell^4_A}\bigg( -\frac{2\ell_A^4}{t^2} - \frac{8s^2 \ell_A^2}{t}+ 5s^4 - \frac{5}{2}s^2 - \frac{13}{240}\bigg)~,$$ for a massless fermion with spin $s$. We inserted a sign for the fermion by hand in order to take statistics into account.
The $t=0$ poles in the massless heat kernels are the same for bosons and fermions (up to the sign that was inserted for fermions) as we expected since that is the case for each of the underlying massive representations. On the other hand, some of the terms that are finite as $t\to 0$ differ, also as expected. This feature is the origin of the apparent lack of pattern in the heat kernel coefficients that is evident when we consider the finite parts of $K_{\textrm{massless}}$ for the first few spins in table \[table:Kmassless\].
**Spin** $ 16\pi^2 \ell^4_A K^{\rm finite}_{\textrm{massless}}$ $a$
--------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
$0$ $-\frac{2}{15}$ $\frac{1}{180}$
$\frac{1}{2}$ $-\frac{11}{30}$ $\frac{11}{720}$
$1$ $-\frac{62}{15}$ $\frac{31}{180}$
$\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{589}{30}$ $-\frac{589}{720}$
$2$ $-\frac{1142}{15}$ $\frac{571}{180}$
: The values of $K_{\textrm{massless}}$ computed in AdS$_4$ and the corresponding $a$ anomalies. All entries including the scalar $s=0$ refers to two degrees of freedom.[]{data-label="table:Kmassless"}
Our results for the finite parts of the heat kernel $K(t)$ in AdS$_4$ are identical to the $a_4$ coefficients introduced in (\[eq:Kdef\]) up to a factor $(4\pi)^2$. It can be further recast in terms of the $a$-anomaly introduced in (\[eq:acdef\]) by noting that the Gauss-Bonnet density is $E_4 = 24/\ell^4_A$. We have included the $a$-anomaly computed this way in table \[table:Kmassless\]. These values agree perfectly with the results from the local expansion in curvature summarized in table \[table:centralcharges\].
There is a caveat to this agreement. As we have stressed, our computation (which in fact closely follows Camporesi and Higuchi [@Camporesi:1993mz]) determines the $a$-anomaly unambiguously for all spin. In contrast, many researchers compute both $c$ and $a$ for low spin but results for $s={3\over 2}, 2$ (and above) are not widely quoted and there is no obvious consensus on their values. This situation is tied with the background dependence of the linearized equations of motion for such fields. The most secure data points are for $c-a$ which is defined in Ricci flat backgrounds and $a$ which, as we have stressed, is unambiguous in maximally symmetric spacetimes. For $s={3\over 2}, 2$ the values of $a, c$ given in table \[table:centralcharges\] were obtained by combining the results for $a$ given in table \[table:Kmassless\] with the standard values of $c-a$.
Extended SUSY
-------------
The $t$-poles in the heat kernels (\[eq:Kbosemassless\]) and (\[eq:Kfermimassless\]) correspond to power law divergences in the effective action. The boson and fermion contributions to these divergenes cancel when $$\label{eq:ssumrule}
\sum (-)^{2s} s^n = 0~,$$ for $n=0,2$. The massless spectrum only comprises maximal helicity where $|h|=s$ so this condition is equivalent to the helicity sum rule (\[eq:supertrace\]) for $n=0,2$. This is satisfied for ${\cal N}\geq 3$ supergravity and we will focus on these theories.
**Spin** **Conformal Dimension** $\Delta$ $SO(8)$ **Multiplicity**
--------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------
$2$ $3$ $1$
$\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{5}{2}$ $8$
$1$ $2$ $28$
$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $56$
$ 0$ $1$ $35$
$0$ $2$ $35$
: The conformal dimensions and multiplicities of the massless multiplet in $\mathcal{N}=8$ supergravity.[]{data-label="table:conformaldimensions"}
For maximal $\mathcal{N}=8$ SUGRA the standard spectrum given in table \[table:conformaldimensions\] satisfies the sum rule (\[eq:ssumrule\]) even for $n=4, 6$ yet the sum of the boson and fermion heat kernels do not vanish $$\label{eq:kn8}
K_{{\cal N}=8}^{\textrm{total}} = \langle T_\mu^{\mu}\rangle_{\textrm{ren}} = \frac{1}{16\pi^2\ell_A^4}(-60)~.$$ This is possible because the bosonic and fermionic heat kernels (\[eq:Kbosemassless\]-\[eq:Kfermimassless\]) are given different polynomials in the spin $s$.
We can represent the heat kernel result (\[eq:kn8\]) for ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity as an $a$ anomaly for the entire multiplet, $$\label{eq:N=8div}
a_{{\cal N}=8} = \frac{5}{2}~.$$ Considering also the values of $c$ from table \[table:centralcharges\] we find that the central charge $c=0$ for the full ${\cal N}=8$ multiplet. We collect these results in table \[table:centralcharges8\].
The quantum effective action can be computed from the heat kernel (or, equivalently, from the trace of the energy momentum tensor) by the integral (\[eq:Wdef\]). We perform the integration with the dimensionless conformal weights $\Delta$ kept fixed. This is justified by the boundary perspective where the dual theory is conformal in the leading approximation and also from the bulk point of view where all fields are in the massless representations that do not even exist for other values of the conformal weights. Since we focus on theories with no power law corrections the integrand is a constant and, with the measure indicated in (\[eq:Wdef\]), the integral gives a logarithmically divergent term in the effective action.
Multiple research groups have reported that in fact the trace anomaly does vanish for ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity in AdS$_4$ [@Gibbons:1984dg; @Inami:1984vp] and so there are no divergences. Those results refer to different boundary conditions where the spectrum is discrete and the helicity sum rule (\[eq:supertrace\]) applies for all $n<{\cal N}$. We will return to this in more detail in the next section.
$c$ $a$ $c-a$
------------------------------------ ----- --------------- ----------------
Massless $\mathcal{N}=8$ multiplet $0$ $\frac{5}{2}$ $-\frac{5}{2}$
: Central charges $c$ and $a$ for ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity.[]{data-label="table:centralcharges8"}
Interpretation of Quantum Corrections
-------------------------------------
The anomalous contribution to the trace of the energy momentum tensor is independent of position because spacetime is homogeneous. A classical cosmological constant in the action similarly gives a constant contribution but the origin of the anomalous contribution is a divergence $W_{\rm div} = {1\over 2} D_0\ln \epsilon^2/\ell^2_0$ in the effective action that manifests itself in the renormalized action as a term that evolves logarithmically $$W_{\rm ren} = - {1\over 2}D_0\ln {x^2_{\rm phys}\over\ell^2_0}~.$$ The renormalization scale $\ell_0$ enters as an IR cutoff on the integral over the heat kernel. It is arbitrary but of order of the AdS-scale. The physical length scale $x_{\rm phys}$ depends on the process as usual and may be anywhere in the range from much smaller than the AdS scale (for UV processes) to much larger than the AdS scale (for the IR properties).
We interpret the scale dependent quantum effective action as a contribution $\delta\Lambda$ to the cosmological constant determined by $$W_{\rm ren} = - {{\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}}\delta\Lambda \over 8\pi G}~.$$ It is convenient to express the running in terms of the effective AdS scale $\ell_{\rm eff} = \sqrt{- 3/\Lambda}$: $$\label{eq:lrunning}
{1\over\ell^2_{\rm eff}} = {1\over\ell^2_A} \left[ 1 - {4\pi G\over 3\ell^2_A} (K_0\ell^4_A)\ln {x^2_{\rm phys}\over\ell^2_0}\right] ~.$$ The combination $(K_0\ell^4_A)$ is a pure number that we have computed above for some specific fields. The most important part of this expression is the absence of power law corrections that would enter through the UV cutoff $\epsilon$. This would signal dependence on unknown UV physics. Instead we have nontrivial logarithmic quantum corrections that are computable within the low energy theory. [^5]
A good way to construct AdS supergravity is to gauge supergravity in flat space. This procedure identifies the gauge coupling constant as [@Freedman:1976aw; @deWit:1981yv] $$e^2 = {4\pi G\over\ell^2_A}~.$$ This coupling constant is small $e^2\ll 1$ when the AdS radius is much larger than Planck scale as we have implicitly presumed. Resumming the (possibly large) logarithms we can recast (\[eq:lrunning\]) as $$e^2 = {e^2_0\over 1 + {1\over 3}e^2_0 (K_0\ell^4_A)\ln {x^2_{\rm phys}\over\ell^2_0}} ~.$$ Comparing with standard formulae we can write an effective $\beta$-function for these theories $$\beta = - {b\over 16\pi^2} e^3~.$$ where $$b = - {1\over 3} (16\pi^2K_0\ell^4_A)~.$$ The $\beta$-function determines the running of a dimensionless version of the cosmological constant through the usual renormalization group equations. The numerical coefficient $b=8a$ is $b=20$ for ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity, $b=8(1 + n_V/4)$ for ${\cal N}=4$ supergravity with $n_V$ matter multiplets, and similarly for other examples.
Our computations are all made in bulk and there is no reference to a boundary theory. This is a rather old fashioned point of view but it is worthwhile for interpreting the set up as a toy model for the physical cosmological constant. For this we imagine the signs such that the cosmological constant is positive and the running such that it becomes small at large distances. The dimensionless coupling $e^2$ would be tuned to take a tiny value, of order $10^{-120}$. The absence of power law corrections would then ensure naturalness in the sense that the logarithmic running is so mild that quantum corrections would preserve the enormous hierarchy. This mechanism does not explain the smallness of the observed cosmological constant but it offers a viable scenario for its naturalness.
Quantum Inequivalence and Boundary Modes.
=========================================
In this section we discuss the interplay between the trace of the energy momentum tensor and quantum inequivalence between duality frames. We interpret quantum inequivalence as a physical effect due to boundary modes. We also show that the divergences and the boundary modes are both related to the topology of global AdS$_4$.
Quantum Inequivalence.
----------------------
A classical antisymmetric tensor in four dimensions can be mapped into a scalar field via the duality transformation $$\label{eq:Bphiduality}
H_{\mu\nu\sigma} = 3\nabla_{[\mu}B_{\nu\sigma]} = \epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\lambda}\nabla^\lambda \phi~.$$ These fields are therefore classically equivalent. However, one loop corrections in curved space do not respect this equivalence. For example, the trace anomaly coefficients for these two fields differ as displayed in table \[table:centralchargesAs\]. This leads to the conclusion that these fields are quantum inequivalent [@Duff:1980qv].
$c$ $a$ $c-a$
---------------------- ----------------- -------------------- ------------------
Antisymmetric Tensor $\frac{1}{120}$ $-\frac{179}{360}$ $\frac{91}{180}$
Real Scalar $\frac{1}{120}$ $\frac{1}{360}$ $\frac{1}{180}$
${\rm As} - \phi$ $0$ -$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$
: Central charges $c$ and $a$ for the $2$-form, the real scalar, and their evanescent difference.[]{data-label="table:centralchargesAs"}
However, in some sense the dual fields do not differ by terribly much. They have identical physical spectra as captured by propagating on-shell degrees of freedom: the “evanescent” field defined by their difference has no propagating degrees of freedom. Although the $a$-anomaly coefficients do indeed differ, the $c$-anomaly coefficients do not; and the $a$-anomaly is the coefficient of the Euler density which is topological. Many researchers therefore argue that these fields are equivalent, at least for all practical purposes [@Grisaru:1984vk; @Fradkin:1984ai; @Buchbinder:2008jf].
Our discussion of divergences in ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity (and related theories) is intertwined with quantum inequivalence. First of all, the divergence (\[eq:N=8div\]) is entirely an $a$-anomaly, the $c$-anomaly of ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity vanishes. We nevertheless interpret this divergence physically in terms of the logarithmic evolution of the cosmological constant. This assigns physical significance to the $a$-anomaly even though it has a topological aspect.
Next, the value of the $a$-anomaly, and therefore its physical significance, depends on the duality frame. Concretely, one might choose to dualize any number of antisymmetric tensors into scalars, or vice versa, affecting the trace of the energy momentum tensor in the process. Therefore such dualizations are not symmetries.
AdS$_4$ SUGRA from 11D.
-----------------------
The default spectrum of ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity summarized in table \[table:conformaldimensions\] comprises $70$ scalars and no antisymmetric tensors. Comparing tables \[table:centralcharges8\] and \[table:centralchargesAs\] we find that a duality frame where exactly five scalars are represented instead as antisymmetric tensors exhibits no trace anomaly.
It turns out that this precise number is a natural expectation when approaching supergravity in AdS$_4$ as compactification of 11D supergravity on $S^7$. The 11D 3-form with components $a_{IJK}$ is reduced into various lower forms in 4D including 3-forms and 2-forms, $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\mu\nu\sigma}(x,y) &=b_{\mu\nu\sigma}(x) Y(y)~, \\ \nonumber
a_{\mu \nu p}(x,y) &=b_{\mu \nu}(x) Y_p^{(CE)}(y) + \tilde{b}_{\mu \nu}(x) Y_p^{(E)}(y)~.\end{aligned}$$ The AdS$_4$ coordinates are denoted by $x$ and greek indices, while their $S^7$ counterparts are $y$ coordinates and latin indices. The functions $Y(y)$, $Y_p^{(CE)}(y), Y_p^{(E)}(y)$ are spherical harmonics on $S^7$ that are respectively a scalar, a coexact 1-form, and an exact 1-form.
The $2$-tensor $\tilde{b}_{\mu \nu}(x)$ is the coefficient of $Y^{(E)}(y) = dY(y)$ which is effectively a scalar on $S^7$ so there is one of these modes, while $b_{\mu \nu}(x)$ is the coefficient of $Y^{(CE)}(y) = {}^*dY(y)$ which is effectively a transverse vector on $S^7$ with six modes. Thus there is a total of $1+6=7$ $2$-tensors in the effective 4D theory as one would also expect from toroidal compactification of 11D supergravity to 4D. Classically these seven antisymmetric tensors can be dualized to seven scalars but in view of quantum inequivalence this must be done with care.
The $3$-form tensor $b_{\mu\nu\sigma}(x)$ is the coefficient of the ordinary spherical harmonic so there is just one of these fields in four dimensions. A massless $3$-form has no propagating degrees of freedom in four dimensions since the classical equations of motion force it to be constant. At the quantum level gauge fixing of the $3$-form gives two $2$-form ghosts with fermi statistics, three $1$-form ghosts with bose statistics, and four scalar ghosts with fermion statistics. This counting gives $ 4 - 2\cdot 6 + 3\cdot 4 - 4\cdot 1=0$ net components and so no propagating degrees of freedom, as expected. However, as we repeatedly stress, $2$-forms must be handled with care at the quantum level and that applies also to the two ghosts that accompany the $3$-form tensor. At the quantum level one $3$-form tensor contributes with $(-2)$ $2$-forms that cannot be naively dualized to scalars.
In summary, the duality frame that arises naturally through the AdS$_4$ compactification of 11D supergravity on $S^7$ gives a net of five antisymmetric 2-tensors: $$1 + 6 - 2= 5~.$$ In this duality frame the trace of the energy momentum tensor vanishes and there are no divergences [@Duff:1980qv].
This result does not invalidate our claim that there are divergences in ${\cal N}=8$ supergravity. On the contrary, it implicitly confirms the notion that different duality frames are quantum inequivalent since otherwise the distinction between $2$-forms and scalars would be meaningless and there would be no utility in counting $2$-forms arising from Kaluza-Klein reduction of 11D supergravity. From the low energy effective field theory point of view it is legitimate to consider AdS$_4$ supergravity with a different number of $2$-forms, including none at all, although it must be understood that such theories might not arise in string theory [@Green:2007zzb] and they could be vulnerable to some subtle quantum inconsistency.
In this paper we focus on massless fields in 4D but the computations can be generalized to the full KK tower of massive fields. All these contributions are again proportional to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant and, level by level, they are nonvanishing. One may sum over all KK towers and recast the remaining divergences in 11D where they become power law divergences. They generally appear at the four derivative order but in the duality frame favored by 11D supergravity they only appear at six derivative order. However, eleven is odd and in odd dimensions all these divergences are nonuniversal and scheme dependent so it is not clear that they are physical. The divergence that is definitely physical is again a logarithm which is due to zero-modes of the two form gauge symmetry. These zero modes were understood from the 11D perspective [@Bhattacharyya:2012ye] and the resulting logarithmic correction agrees with the one expected from the solution of the dual ABJM theory via localization [@Marino:2009jd; @Fuji:2011km; @Marino:2011eh]. We hope to report on these elaborations elsewhere.
Boundary Modes in AdS$_4$
-------------------------
The evanescent part of the $2$-form — the quantum contribution of an antisymmetric tensor that is above and beyond that of its dual scalar field — is naturally interpreted as a boundary mode, at least in the context of AdS$_4$. A boundary mode is formally a pure gauge field configuration but it is physical because the putative gauge parameter is non normalizable and so the field configuration cannot be gauged away by any element of the symmetry group. This mechanism is unimportant in classical field theory but it matters in the quantum theory, as expected for a feature related to quantum inequivalence.
The boundary modes reside in the kernel of the classical duality transformation (\[eq:Bphiduality\]) between an antisymmetric tensor and a scalar. Their $3$-form field strength vanishes identically in bulk, since they are formally pure gauge, and so they are not assigned a scalar dual $$H^{\textrm{(bndy~mode)}}_{\mu\nu\sigma} = 0 = \epsilon_{\mu\nu\sigma\lambda}\nabla^\lambda \phi~,$$ since a constant scalar $\phi$ is not normalizable in noncompact spacetimes. This is the source of quantum inequivalence from our point of view.
[*A priori*]{} any field with gauge symmetry might possess one or more boundary modes. For example, in global AdS$_2$ all fields with a gauge symmetry have them [@Larsen:2014bqa; @Camporesi:1994ga; @Sen:2011ba]. On the other hand, in AdS$_{d+1}$ with higher $d$ it was found by explicit construction in global AdS$_{d+1}$ that boundary modes exist only for $\frac{d+1}{2}$-forms [@Camporesi:0000; @Bhattacharyya:2012ye]. In AdS$_4$ those are precisely the $2$-forms that we are interested in.
To make the discussion explicit we write the background AdS$_4$ metric $$\label{eq:globads}
ds^2_4 = \ell^2_A\left(d\rho^2 + \sinh^2\rho d\Omega^2_3\right)~.$$ We take the AdS$_4$ radius $\ell_A=1$ in the remainder of this section to avoid cluttered formulae. The normalized boundary modes in this background are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundarybmodes}
B_{\rho i} &= \sqrt{\frac{k+1}{2}}\frac{1}{\sinh\rho}\tanh^{k+1}(\rho/2)\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega_3)~, \\ \nonumber
B_{i j } & = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2(k+1)}}\tanh^{k+1}(\rho/2) [\tilde{\nabla}_ i \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_j(\Omega_3) - \tilde{\nabla}_ j \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega_3)]~.\end{aligned}$$ for $k=1,2,...$. The covariant derivative $\tilde{\nabla}$ refers to components along $S^3$ and latin indices represent these angular components. The $1$-form field $\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega_3)$ is a vector spherical harmonic with eigenvalue of the Hodge de Rham operator $=(k+1)^2$. The quantum numbers $k,\sigma$ are analogous to the numbers $lm$ used for scalar harmonics on $S^2$ but for vector harmonics $k=0$ is excluded.
The antisymmetric $2$-form with components (\[eq:boundarybmodes\]) can be represented as pure gauge $B=dA$ where the $1$-form potential $A$ has components $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundarypotential}
A_\rho &=0~, \\ \nonumber
A_i &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(k+1)}}\tanh^{k+1}(\rho/2)\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)~.\end{aligned}$$ This $1$-form does not have finite norm $$\begin{aligned}
\int \sqrt{g}|A|^2 dV &= \int \sinh^{3}\rho( A^*_{\rho}A_{\rho} g^{\rho \rho} + A^*_{ j}A_{l}g^{jl}) d\rho d\Omega \cr
& \propto \int_0^\infty \sinh \rho \tanh^{2k+2}(\rho/2) d\rho = \infty~.\end{aligned}$$ The inverse metric $g^{jl}$ contributes with a factor of $\sinh^{-2}(\rho)$ that dampens the radial integral at large $\rho$, but insufficiently to render it finite. However, the tensor $B=dA$ is normalizable for all $k=1,2,\ldots$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundarynorm}
\int \sqrt{g}|B|^2 dV &= \int \sinh^{3}\rho (2 B^*_{\rho i}B_{\rho j} g^{\rho \rho} g^{ij} + B^*_{i j}B_{lk}g^{ik}g^{jl}) d\rho d\Omega \cr
& \propto \int_0^\infty \sinh^{-1}(\rho) \tanh^{2k+2}(\rho/2) d\rho < \infty~.\end{aligned}$$ The index structure here gives enough factors of the inverse metric $g^{jl}$, contributing each with $\sinh^{-2}(\rho)$, such that their product with the field components is sufficient to overcome the volume factor. The normalization in (\[eq:boundarybmodes\]) was chosen so that the integral (\[eq:boundarynorm\]) is unity. The $2$-tensor has support in bulk but we interpret it as a boundary mode because it is locally pure gauge.
Once we have identified a $1$-form $A$ that gives rise to a $2$-form boundary mode $B=dA$ we should note that gauge equivalent $1$-forms $A'=A+d\Lambda$ give rise to the same boundary mode. The boundary modes thus belong to the two-form cohomology. In order to not overcount them we must impose a gauge condition, taken in (\[eq:boundarypotential\]) as $A_\rho=0$.
In summary: while the $2$-form modes (\[eq:boundarybmodes\]) are formally pure gauge they are physical because the would-be gauge function is non normalizable. Therefore, they contribute to the quantum path integral. Moreover, we have argued that unlike all other modes of the massless $2$-form field, the boundary modes are not captured by the scalar dual. We focus on the massless case for clarity but the quantum inequivalence between a massive $2$-form and its (classically) dual massive vector is similarly due to boundary modes for the $2$-form.
Counting Boundary Modes
-----------------------
We can find the contribution of the boundary modes to the heat kernel and related quantities by explicitly counting modes, following [@Camporesi:0000; @Bhattacharyya:2012ye]. The wave function of each mode is normalized to unity so the total number of modes is $$\label{eq:numbermodes}
n_{\textrm{bndy~modes}} = \sum_{\textrm{all~modes}} \int d^4x \sqrt{g} |B|^2~.$$ The sum in equation (\[eq:numbermodes\]) is over the family of modes presented in (\[eq:boundarybmodes\]) that is parametrized by the quantum numbers $k,\sigma$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:simplifyB}
\int d^4x \sqrt{g} \sum |B|^2 &= \int d^4x \sqrt{g} \sum (2 B^*_{\rho i}B_{\rho j} g^{\rho \rho} g^{ij} + B^*_{i j}B_{lk}g^{ik}g^{jl})~, \\ \nonumber
&= \int d^4x \sqrt{g} \sum_{k,\sigma} 2 \frac{ k+1}{ 2} \frac{\tanh^{2k+2}(\rho/2) }{ \sinh^4\rho} |\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)|^2~, \\ \nonumber
&+\int d^4x \sqrt{g} \sum_{k,\sigma} \frac{1}{ 2(k+1)} \frac{\tanh^{2k+2}(\rho/2) }{ \sinh^4\rho} |\tilde{\nabla}_ i \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_j(\Omega_3) - \tilde{\nabla}_ j \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega_3)|^2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ We can simplify this sum using integration by parts on the angular dependence of the second term, $$\begin{aligned}
\int |\tilde{\nabla}_ i \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_j - \tilde{\nabla}_ j \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i|^2 d\Omega_3 &= -2 \int \Theta^{j(k,\sigma)*}\tilde{\nabla}^ i (\tilde{\nabla}_ i \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_j - \tilde{\nabla}_ j \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i) d\Omega_3\\ \nonumber
&= 2(k+1)^2 \int \Theta^{j(k,\sigma)*} \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_jd\Omega_3~.\end{aligned}$$ In the last step we identified the operator acting on $\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_j$ as minus the Hodge deRham operator acting on vectors. We insert this result into (\[eq:simplifyB\]), combining both contributions into one. One could evaluate the sum over modes at any point but, given that AdS$_4$ is homogeneous, it is sufficient to consider the origin $\rho=0$ where only the $k=1$ spherical harmonic contributes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rhotozero}
\sum_{\textrm{all~modes}} |B|^2 &= \lim_{\rho \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=1}\sum_{\sigma} 2(k+1) |\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)|^2 \frac{\tanh^{2k+2}(\rho/2) }{ \sinh^4\rho} ~,\\ \nonumber
& = \frac{1}{ 4} \sum_{\sigma}|\Theta^{(1,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)|^2 ~. \end{aligned}$$ The sum over $|\Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)|^2$ for fixed $k$ is proportional to the degeneracy of the $S^3$ vector spherical harmonics, $$\label{eq:sumovers3}
\sum_{\sigma} \Theta^{(k,\sigma)*i}(\Omega) \Theta^{(k,\sigma)}_i(\Omega)\bigg|_{k=1} = \frac{6}{\textrm{Vol}_{S^3}}= \frac{3}{\pi^2}~,$$ since there are $2k(k+2)=6$ vector spherical harmonics on $S^3$ with $k=1$. Collecting formulae, the number of boundary modes (\[eq:numbermodes\]) becomes $$n_{\textrm{bndy~modes}} = \sum_{\textrm{all~modes}} \int d^4x \sqrt{g} |B|^2 =
\frac{3}{4\pi^2} \int d^4x \sqrt{g} = 1~.$$ We used the standard regulated volume ${\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}}={4\pi^2\over 3}$ since then the result looks nice and intuitive. However, in the current context of a noncompact and maximally symmetric space we should really focus on the density of modes. Indeed, the boundary modes have vanishing eigenvalue of the kinetic operator so they formally contribute by the “number” $D_0^{(\textrm{bndy})} = n_{\textrm{bndy~modes}}$ to the constant part $D_0$ of the heat kernel $D(t)$ and this corresponds to the heat kernel density $$\begin{aligned}
K_0^{(\textrm{bndy})} &= \frac{D_0^{(\textrm{bndy})}}{\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}} = \frac{3}{4\pi^2},\end{aligned}$$ independently of the value assigned to ${\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}}$. Comparing with the definition of $a_4$ in (\[eq:Kdef\]) and the introduction of the $c,a$ anomaly coefficients in (\[eq:acdef\]) we find $$\label{eq:abndy}
a^{(\textrm{bndy})}=-\frac{1}{2}~.$$ since the Euler density $E_4 =24$ in AdS$_4$ with unit radius $\ell_A=1$.
The value (\[eq:abndy\]) of the boundary anomaly agrees precisely with the $a$ anomaly of the evanescent difference between a massless antisymmetric tensor and a scalar reported in table \[table:centralchargesAs\]. This quantitative agreement shows that the quantum inequivalence between an antisymmetric tensor and a dual scalar field is due to boundary modes. This in turn establishes a physical distinction between the inequivalent fields.
The Gauss-Bonnet Theorem in AdS$_4$
-----------------------------------
We have emphasized the divergences that remain in AdS$_4$ even for maximal SUSY and their interrelation with quantum inequivalence, because these aspects are the most interesting to us and they have not been developed in recent literature. Another approach to one-loop effects that is closer aligned with conventional wisdom invokes reflecting boundary conditions on all modes [@Avis:1977yn; @Breitenlohner:1982jf; @Gibbons:1984dg; @Inami:1984vp]. This leads to a discrete sum over modes, the helicity sum rule (\[eq:supertrace\]) applies in full, and there are no divergences at one loop (and well beyond). The relation between these results involves global aspects of AdS$_4$, as captured by the Euler invariant. It is therefore instructive to evaluate the Euler invariant in detail.
The curvature tensor in a maximally symmetric spacetime is constant so the Gauss-Bonnet integral over the Euler density is proportional to the volume $$\label{eq:bulke4}
\int E_4 = \int {\rm Tr} ~{\cal R}\wedge^{*} {\cal R} = 24\int e^{\hat 0}e^{\hat 1}e^{\hat 2}e^{\hat 3} = 24\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4}~.$$ For global AdS$_4$ with metric (\[eq:globads\]) we regulate the volume by a surface at some constant value radial $\rho_0$ and find $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4} = 2\pi^2 \int_0^{\rho_0} d\rho \sinh^3\rho = 2\pi^2 \left( {1\over 3}\cosh\rho_0 (\sinh^2\rho_0 -2) + {2\over 3}\right)~.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that we take $\ell_A =1$ at this point of the paper. The boundary term added when considering the Gauss-Bonnet theorem with a boundary is [@Eguchi:1980jx] $$- 2\int \epsilon_{abcd}\theta^a_{~b}{\cal R}^c_{~d} + {4\over 3}\int\epsilon_{abcd}\theta^a_{~b}\theta^c_{~e}\theta^e_{~d}
= - 24\cdot {1\over 3} \cosh\rho_0 (\sinh^2\rho_0 -2)2\pi^2~,$$ where the second fundamental form $\theta^a_{~b}$ is essentially the connection $1$-form and has nonvanishing components $$\theta_{{\hat\rho}{\hat i}}= \omega_{{\hat\rho}{\hat i}} = - {\cosh\rho\over\sinh\rho} e^{\hat i}~.$$ The sum of the bulk and boundary terms then gives $$\begin{aligned}
\chi
%&={1\over 32\pi^2} \left[ \int {\cal R}\wedge^* {\cal R} - \int (2\theta{\cal R} - {4\over 3}\theta\theta\theta)\right] \\ \nonumber
&= {1\over 32\pi^2}\cdot 24\cdot {2\over 3}\cdot 2\pi^2 = 1~,\end{aligned}$$ after including the correct overall numerical factor already quoted in (\[eq:gaussbonnet\]). The cancellation of the terms that diverge at large $\rho_0$ is guaranteed by topological invariance and the role of the boundary terms is to make this happen. The finite term that remains is essentially the regularized volume of AdS$_4$, except for the constant factor $E_4=24$.
The important point is that AdS$_4$ with $S^1\times S^2$ boundary works out qualitatively differently. The metric is thermal AdS$_4$ $$ds^2_4 = \cosh^2\rho d\tau^2 + d\rho^2 + \sinh^2\rho d\Omega^2_2~.$$ Taking the circumference of $S^1$ to be $\beta$, the bulk term (\[eq:bulke4\]) with a regulator in the new radial coordinate $\rho$ gives $$24\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4} = 24\int_0^{\rho_0} \cosh\rho\sinh^2\rho d\rho\cdot\beta\cdot 4\pi
= 32\pi\beta\sinh^3\rho_0~,$$ and the boundary term is $$-4\int\theta_{{\hat\rho}{\hat i}} R_{{\hat j}{\hat k}}\epsilon^{{\hat\rho}{\hat i}{\hat j}{\hat k}} +
{4\over 3}\int\epsilon_{abcd}\theta^a_{~b}\theta^c_{~e}\theta^e_{~d} = -8 \sinh^3\rho_0 \cdot 4\pi\beta~.$$ The sum vanishes, $$\chi = 0~.$$
The difference in topology is significant because the divergence and the corresponding physical logarithm depends on topology. We primarily study global AdS$_4$ with $S^3$ boundary conditions because for $\chi=1$ there is a divergence. In thermal AdS$_4$ the boundary is $S^1\times S^2$ and the $S^1$ guarantees a discrete spectrum. This gives technical simplifications but it also excludes the divergence altogether since then $\chi=0$.
Quantum inequivalence between antisymmetric tensors and scalar fields also depends on the Euler number $\chi$ so similar comments apply. In AdS$_4$ with $S^3$ boundary conditions there is quantum inequivalence which we interpret as due to boundary modes. In AdS$_4$ with $S^1\times S^2$ boundary there is quantum equivalence and no boundary modes. Thus it appears that there is a precise sense in which the number of boundary modes is $n^{\rm bndy}=\chi$ despite the subtleties due to noncompactness of AdS$_4$.
We are grateful to Marcos Marino and Ashoke Sen for discussions and early collaboration on this project. We also thank Zvi Bern, Massimo Bianchi, Bernard deWit, Mike Duff, Henriette Elvang, Simone Giombi, Neil Lambert, Jim Liu, Eric Perlmutter, and Kelly Stelle for discussions and encouragement.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.
[^1]: We assume for simplicity a renormalization scheme where other possible terms are absent.
[^2]: The volume diverges, since AdS$_4$ is noncompact. We mostly consider local quantities in a homogeneous space so any regulator will apply. The standard renormalized value $\textrm{Vol}_{\textrm{AdS}_4} = {4\pi^2\ell^4_A\over 3}$ will appear later from global considerations with explicit boundary terms.
[^3]: We simplify notation by absorbing a numerical factor in the Plancherel measure.
[^4]: For spin $s={1\over 2}$ the rule formally subtracts ghosts that have spin $s_{\rm ghost}=-{1\over 2}$ but that is inconsequential since this representation has dimension $2s_{\rm ghost}+1=0$. For spin $s=0$ it formally subtracts a ghost with spin $s_{\rm ghost}=-1$ and dimension $2s_{\rm ghost}+1=-1$ which effectively adds one degree of freedom, turning one boson into two, with conformal dimensions $\Delta=1,2$.
[^5]: Logarithmic running of the cosmological constant was discussed also in [@Taylor:1989ua; @Bytsenko:1994at].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Paulo Hubert$^1$
- 'Alexandra Chung$^1$ and Linilson R. Padovese$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'bibliografia.bib'
date: '$^1$ Department of Mechanical Engineering, Escola Politecnica - University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP - Brazil\'
title: 'A Bayesian binary algorithm for RMS-based acoustic signal segmentation'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The problem of signal segmentation arises in different contexts [@Makowsky2014; @Ukil2006; @Schwartzman2011; @Kuntamalla2014; @Theodorou2014]. The problem is broadly defined as follows: given a discretely sampled signal $y \in \Re^N$, divide it in contiguous sections that are internally homogeneous with respect to some characteristic. The segmentation is thus based on the premise that the signal structure changes one or many times during the entire sampled period, and one is looking for the times where the changes occur, i.e., the *changepoints*.
In this work we are interested in segmenting acoustic signals, more specifically underwater acoustic signals acquired off the Brazilian coast. Since 2010, the Acoustics and Environment Laboratory (LACMAM) at University of São Paulo has been designing equipment for underwater acoustic monitoring [@CaldasMorgan2015]; and from the past few years, we have acquired and stored over 2 years of acoustic recordings taken from different locations, amounting to more than 15 Tb of data.
The main challenge in exploring these data lies on the abundance of interesting events, and at the same time on the sparsity of such events. The sparsity of events makes the direct inspection of long duration signals a very demanding task, while the variety of potentially interesting events discourages the design and application of detection algorithms aimed at specific events, for they would potentially miss many unexpected (and for this exact reason, interesting) events.
We are currently developing an unsupervised learning approach, based on the tripod *segmentation, characterization and categorization*, to deal with this situation. The idea is to first divide the long duration signal into sections which are likely to contain different sets of events; then, we characterize each section by using a sparse representation approach, and finally we cluster the segments together or categorize then in a sequential manner.
This paper deals with the first task of the tripod: the segmentation of the signal. Our approach is based on the hypothesis that the occurrence of an event induces an immediate change on the total sound pressure level, and that this change can be detected on the variance of the signal’s amplitude. What we seek then is a variance changepoint detection algorithm.
A few algorithms to detect changes in signal’s variance are available; in the next section we give a quick review on both the signal segmentation and changepoint analysis literatures. After that, section \[sec:seqseg\] defines the algorithm to be used for the segmentation; section \[sec:res\] presents our results in the segmentation of both simulated and real acoustic signals, and section \[sec:conc\] concludes the paper.
Changepoint analysis and signal segmentation {#sec:cpsigseg}
---------------------------------------------
Even though the problems of changepoint analysis and signal segmentation are very closely related, the literatures adopting each nomenclature are somewhat independent.
As for the signal segmentation literature, both probabilistic and non-probabilistic methods can be found, see [@Theodorou2014] for an interesting review. These algorithms have a few features in common:
1. The use of a more or less detailed parametric model to describe the signal;
2. The definition of frames, or windows, to characterize local behavior;
3. A peak detection or thresholding procedure applied to the collection of frames to obtain segments’ boundaries.
These methods are well suited for the analysis of short to medium term signals (up to a few thousand data points), because the estimation step for the parametric models, be it a discrete Fourier or wavelet transform, and / or a filtering procedure, is usually computationally intensive. Also, the use of a detailed parametric model is adequate only when the additional structure imposed by the model over the original signal is well justified, i.e., when the phenomena causing the change in the signal’s characteristics is reasonably well known.
The changepoint literature, in the other hand, is more prolific and has more of a statistical flavor to it; see [@Shaban1980] for a review on changepoint research up to the decade of 1970.
In the changepoint literature, the problem is modelled over a one-dimensional signal (a real or complex vector) obtained from the noisy measurements of some system. The properties of the system change over time, altering the signal in a measurable way. There are two main cases of this problem: 1) the goal is to detect a change and act immediately; this is usually called *realtime* segmentation; and 2) the goal is to analyze a long pre-recorded signal and find all the changepoints in it, along with estimatives of the system’s state inside each block; this is usually called *retrospective* segmentation. The recent literature proposes a few solutions for the problem. [@Jackson2005], for instance, provides a general method based on dynamic programming that is able to find the global optimum of a fitness function, $V(P) = \sum g(B_m)$, where the sum is taken over $m$ blocks, and $g$ is the fitness function of a single block (usually a likelihood based on a probabilistic model), in $O(N^2)$ time. In the same spirit, [@Killick2012] improves the work of Jackson by proposing a *Pruned Exact Linear Time* (PELT) algorithm that, under mild conditions, is able to optimize the global fitness function with complexity $\mathcal{O}(n)$. Killick’s method is general, and can be applied to any fitness function that fulfills a mild condition on the relation between the fitness of an entire segment and the fitness of the same segment divided by one changepoint (for details, see the original paper [@Killick2012]).
Many other papers are available on the subject, both under the names of segmentation and changepoint analysis. We intend to write a second paper offering a compared review of the two approaches for the problem, but for now our main goal is to present a new, Bayesian binary algorithm, that is closer in spirit to the methods found in the changepoint literature. Our algorithm approaches the problem of segmentation as one of sequential hypothesis testing. We adopt a binary strategy, first finding the best changepoint for the entire signal, and, if this changepoint is accepted, applying the procedure recursively to each segment obtained. In the next section, we define our model and the Bayesian binary algorithm.
A Bayesian algorithm for variance changepoint detection {#sec:seqseg}
=======================================================
We start by assuming that the (discretely sampled) signal at time $t$, $y_t \in \Re$, has $0$ mean amplitude for all $t$, and finite power $\sigma_t^2$. We adopt a Gaussian probabilistic model for the signal, $y_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_t^2)$. The choice of the Gaussian model can be justified by the maximum entropy principle [@Jaynes1982; @Jaynes1987], which states that the most conservative probabilistic model to be adopted in any situation is the one which maximizes Shannon’s entropy $H(p) = -E\left(log \: p\right)$ (where $p$ is the model’s density, and the expectation is taken with respect to $p$) conditionally on what we already know about the data (in this case, $0$ mean amplitude and finite variance). This maximization of entropy guarantees that we are not allowing any hidden assumptions into our model, and this kind of reasoning can keep the algorithm more robust to deviations from the model’s assumptions, as we will see later on.
We will assume that $\sigma_t^2$ is a piecewise constant function on $t$, and we are interested in estimating the localization of discontinuities or jumps in this function.
Binary algorithms
-----------------
One of the simplest ways to tackle the changepoint location task is by using a binary algorithm. Given the entire signal, the first part of the algorithm looks for the single changepoint that is most likely or best in some sense. After obtaining this changepoint, the traditional binary approach will apply the same procedure recursively to the newly obtained segments. The stopping condition is usually based on a model selection criteria.
Our algorithm differs from the traditional binary strategy in that it will apply a statistical hypothesis testing procedure at each step to decide if a given changepoint is valid (i.e., if there is enough evidence in the data that there is indeed a change at this point). If the changepoint is considered valid, the algorithm continues to estimate new changepoints in the two segments obtained from the last iteration. If not, the execution is halted.
The binary segmentation algorithm is then based on a single changepoint model defined as follows:
$$\label{eq:model}
y_t \sim
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_0^2)&\quad\text{if } t \le \bar{t}\\
\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_1^2)&\quad\text{if } t > \bar{t}\\
\end{cases}$$
The likelihood function associated with this model is thus $$\label{eq:verot}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\bar{t}, \sigma_0^2, \sigma_1^2 | y)& = (2\pi\sigma_0^2)^{-\frac{\bar{t}}{2}}(2\pi\sigma_1^2)^{-\frac{N-\bar{t}}{2}} \times \\
& exp\left[-\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{\bar{t}}y_t^2}{2\sigma_0^2}-\frac{\sum_{t=\bar{t}+1}^Ny_t^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\right]
\end{aligned}$$
The first part of the algorithm involves picking the best value for $\bar{t}$; in so doing, the values of $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ are not important, i.e., they are *nuisance* parameters. To eliminate this parameters and obtain the marginal posterior of $\bar{t}$, we choose priors for each parameter and integrate them out.
For variance parameters like $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$, it is well-known in the Bayesian inference literature that to obtain an uninformative prior one should not adopt the usual uniform distribution for $\sigma$, but rather an uniform for $log(\sigma)$, the so-called Jeffreys’ prior [@Jaynes1968; @Jeffreys1946] $\pi(\sigma_0) = 1/\sigma_0$ for $\sigma_0$. These priors, besides being uninformative and invariant to different parameterizations of the model (over variances or precisions, for instance), allow analytical integration of equation \[eq:model\], yielding the marginal posterior $$\label{eq:postt}
\begin{aligned}
P(\bar{t} | y) \propto & \pi(\bar{t})\cdot\left(\sum_{t=1}^{\bar{t}}y_t^2\right)^{-\frac{\bar{t}}{2}} \left(\sum_{t=\bar{t}+1}^Ny_t^2\right)^{-\frac{(N-\bar{t})}{2}} \times \\
& \Gamma\left(\frac{\bar{t}}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{N-\bar{t}}{2}\right)
\end{aligned}$$
With this posterior, the algorithm now must estimate the best unique changepoint for the current segment. This is a standard statistical estimation procedure, and as is well-known, different cost functions to evaluate the estimation error yield different estimators. If the cost function is quadratic, the best changepoint is the posterior mean; if the cost function is the absolute value, the best changepoint is the median, if the cost function is a $0-1$ function, the best changepoint is the posterior mode.
In this algorithm, neither the median nor the mean estimator would be ideal, specially because the assumption of a single changepoint is most likely false. Consider, for example, figure \[fig:post\_t\] below, that shows the single changepoint posterior calculated on a signal with two changepoints.
![Posterior for a single changepoint using data with two changepoints[]{data-label="fig:post_t"}](Figure1.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Both the mean and median of this distribution are located near the center, which is not close to neither changepoint. The posterior mode, however, is robust to the number of changepoints being greater than $1$, and this will be the estimator of choice.
This choice defines the first part of the algorithm: obtain the marginal posterior, and its mode. The discrete optimization involved in the determination of the posterior mode can be carried out by direct inspection, which can be parallelized.
In the next step of the algorithm, the goal is to determine the validity of the changepoint based on the evidence that the data gives about this changepoint being a true one.
Full Bayesian evidence measure
------------------------------
To be a valid changepoint, in the present context, means that the signal variances of the two segments are different. So this step requires an equality of variances test.
From the full model’s likelihood \[eq:verot\], conditioning on $\bar{t}$ and multiplying by the joint prior on $(\sigma_0, \sigma_1)$ yields the posterior
$$\label{eq:postfull}
P(\sigma_0, \sigma_1 | y, \bar{t}) \propto \pi(\sigma_0, \sigma_1)\cdot \mathcal{L}(\bar{t}, \sigma_0^2, \sigma_1^2 | y)$$
This time, however, it is obviously not desirable to marginalize out $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$, since now these parameters are no longer nuisant. They are, in fact, the very parameters that must be tested for equality: $H_0: \sigma_0 = \sigma_1$ is the hypothesis of interest.
It is important to note that the full model \[eq:postfull\] is defined over a $2$-dimensional parametric space, and that $H_0$ describes a lower ($1$-)dimensional manifold on this original space. Hypothesis that define lower dimensional manifolds on the parametric space are called *sharp* or *precise* hypothesis in the Bayesian literature [@Dickey1970].
These hypothesis are challenging to test in the usual Bayesian hypothesis testing frameworks, because the posterior measure over $H_0$ is by definition $0$. However, in [@Stern1999], an evidence measure for sharp hypothesis is presented; this measure is shown to be fully Bayesian (in the sense that it arrives directly from a particular cost function [@Madruga2001]), and to possess many desirable properties. The literature presents already many situations where this measure was succesfully applied [@Hubert2009; @Diniz2012; @Chakrabarty2017; @Hubert2017] to sharp hypothesis settings in different problems.
Following the original authors, we call this measure the *e-value*, $ev(H_0)$ being the evidence value in favor of $H_0$.
The full definition and analysis of the e-value is beyond the scope of this paper; the interested reader is directed to the previously cited references, in special [@Stern1999]. However, to keep this work reasonably self-contained, we now define the e-value in broad terms.
Given a full posterior model $P(\theta | x)$ with $\theta \in \Theta$, and given a sharp hypothesis $H_0: \theta \in \Theta_0$ with $dim(\Theta_0) < dim(\Theta)$, obtain the maximum value of the full-posterior restricted to $\Theta_0$
$$\begin{aligned}
& \theta^* = arg max_{\theta \in \Theta_0} P(\theta | x) \\
& p^* = P(\theta^* | x)
\end{aligned}$$
Now define the tangent space or surprise set as
$$\label{eq:surprise}
T(p^*) = \left\{ \theta \in \Theta : P(\theta | x) > p^* \right\}$$
The tangent space is the set of all parameter values with higher posterior density than the maximum posterior under $H_0$. If this set has high posterior measure, it means that $H_0$ does not traverse regions of high posterior density, and the evidence in favor of $H_0$ must be low. In fact, define
$$\label{eq:ev}
ev(H_0) = 1-\int_{T(p^*)} P(\theta | x) d\theta$$
to be the evidence in favor of $H_0$. The evidence will take the value $0$ if the measure of the surprise set is $1$ (i.e., if the maximum posterior value under $H_0$ is almost surely the minimum unrestricted posterior value), and conversingly the evidence in favor of $H_0$ will be $1$ if the measure of the surprise set is $0$ (i.e., the maximum posterior under $H_0$ is almost surely the unrestricted maximum).
As the definition above shows, the calculation of the e-value involves two steps: an optimization step and an integration step. The optimization is constrained to $\theta \in \Theta_0$, and will depend on the choice of priors; sufficiently simple priors will lead to analytical solutions to this step.
The integration step can be carried out by Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, as is usual in Bayesian inference procedures.
This finishes the definition of the binary algorithm. One full step of the algorithm will consist of two substeps: first, to estimate the segmentation point $\bar{t}$; second, to compare the variance of the segments, calculating a measure of evidence for the hypothesis $H_0:\sigma_0 = \sigma_1$. A diagram illustrating the algorithm’s flow can be seen in Figure \[fig:diag\].
![One step of the sequential segmentation algorithm.[]{data-label="fig:diag"}](Figure2.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Priors and the power of the e-value
-----------------------------------
To calculate the e-value in the segmentation model \[eq:postfull\], all that is left to do is to pick a joint prior $\pi(\sigma_0,\sigma_1)$, and from then on follow the procedure delineated above.
One obvious choice for the priors is to adopt the product of Jeffreys’ priors $(s_1s_2)^{-1}$; by doing so, the model is treating both these parameters as completely unknown in advance, i.e., the algorithm will act as if it knows nothing about the segments’ variances and the relation between them.
This choice gives the optimal value
$$\label{eq:optsig}
\sigma_* = \frac{\sum_{t=1}^Ny_t^2}{N + 2}$$
for the signal’s variance under $H_0$ (no changepoint). To calculate the evidence in favor of $H_0$, we estimate the integral of the posterior over the surprise set by the adaptive MCMC method of [@Haario2001].
To verify the behaviour of the e-value with this choice of priors, we simulate Gaussian signals with various sample sizes, divided into two segments, with the variance of the first segment set to $1$, and that of the second segment varying in $[0.5, 1.5]$. Figure \[fig:evsim\] shows the evidence in favor of $H_0$ for several values of $\sigma_1$ and several sample sizes.
![Evidence value for $H_0$[]{data-label="fig:evsim"}](Figure3.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
It is very important to take notice that the e-value is *not* a significance measure, i.e., it does not result from a *control type-I error* procedure. This implies that the sampling distribution of the e-value is not uniform; however, a transformation exists that changes the e-value into a significance measure [@Stern2008]. Using this transformation, it is possible to fix the type-I error at $0.05$ and evaluate the power of the test. The result for different sample sizes and values of $\sigma_1$ is on figure \[fig:evpower\]
![Power of the test based on the e-value[]{data-label="fig:evpower"}](Figure4.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Using informative priors
------------------------
The test based on the (transformed) e-value is quite powerful, as the simulations indicate. The power, as expected, gets higher for greater sample sizes; this means that the test will detect smaller deviations from $\sigma_0 = \sigma_1$ as the sample size grows, while at the same time keeping the type-I error probability fixed.
This is an important issue, specially in the segmentation algorithm where the test will be sequentially applied to the comparison of segments with different sample sizes. If we choose to keep $\alpha$ (probability of type-I error) fixed, the power of the test will change as the sample size changes. However, in a signal detection setup, usually one desires to balance both type-I and type-II error probabilities regardless of the size of the incoming signal.
The relation between significance levels, test power and sample size is a deep and often discussed question in hypothesis testing [@Pericchi2016; @PereiraPrint]. Recent literature proposes to change the significance level as the sample size changes, to keep some relation $u(\alpha,\beta)$ between the probabilities of both error types at a constant value. This can be done by using adaptive significance levels (given by a function of the sample size $n$, see [@Pericchi2016]) or by imposing an ordering on the parameter space based on Bayes factors [@PereiraPrint].
Usually, the procedure starts by asking the researcher to pick a sensibility, and the type-I error probability for the test given a value for $n$. After that, the statistician calculates the respective power of the test, and obtains a rule to define the new significance value for a new value of $n$, in order to keep constant the relation $u(\alpha, \beta)$.
For the segmentation task, however, and in our particular application (segmentation of large samples), the algorithm will have to work with segments of very different sizes (from $~10000$ to more than $9$ million), and the adaptive significance level would also vary wildly. The consequence is that, for the larger segments, the algorithm would require very small significance values; and in a MCMC setting, higher precision for the probability estimates means longer chains, and longer chains mean higher execution times.
So instead of using an adaptive significance value, we propose instead to use a strongly informative prior, and use the hyperparameters to calibrate the power of the procedure.
This idea was first introduced in a previous paper [@Hubert2018]. The paper analyzes the binary algorithm for signal segmentation, but uses a different parameterization $\theta = (\sigma_0, \delta)$ where $\delta = \sigma_1 /\sigma_0$. Independent priors for these two parameters are proposed, one that is uninformative on the value of $\sigma_0$, and strongly informative over $\delta$. The advantage of working with $(\sigma_0, \delta)$ instead of $(\sigma_0, \sigma_1)$ is that $\delta$ is a pure number, i.e., it does not depend on scale. It can be interpreted as the quotient between the power of any two contiguous segments.
There are however some difficulties in working with $\delta = \sigma_1 / \sigma_0$, one of them being that $\delta$ must be nonnegative. For this new, current version of the algorithm, we parameterize the problem using $\delta = log(\sigma_1 / \sigma_0)$, and propose a Laplace prior with the form
$$\label{eq:laplace}
p(\delta) = \frac{1}{2\beta}e^{-\frac{|x|}{\beta}}$$
The above Laplace distribution has a peak on $x = 0$, and the peak is sharper as the value of $\beta > 0$ decreases. The Laplace distribution is a maximum entropy prior, i.e., it is the probability distribution with higher entropy subject to the constraint $E(|x|) = \beta$.
The segmentation algorithm works as above, except that now the e-value calculation uses the Laplace prior for $\delta$. This prior, when $\beta$ is close enough to $0$, changes significantly the power of the test, and thus allows tuning of the algorithm’s behavior.
Figure \[fig:evpower\_beta\] shows the same estimation of power as in figure \[fig:evpower\], but this time using the Laplace prior. The values of $\beta$ where taken as $0.005, 0.0005, 0.00005$ for $N=1000, 10000, 10000$ respectively.
![Power of the test based on the e-value with strongly informative priors[]{data-label="fig:evpower_beta"}](Figure5.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Being able to control the power of the test will prove useful when segmenting underwater acoustic signals; in this setting, long segments with true stationary power are not to be expected, even when the segment is capturing a single event. That is the case because both the background noise and the event’s physical cause might be changing, due to many factors (including the weather, the movement of event’s causes relative to the hydrophone, among others). With a high sampling rate (the data we use in this paper was sampled at $24KHz$) the e-value would give strong evidence against $H_0:\sigma_0 = \sigma_1$ even inside a segment containing a uniform event, and this would lead to oversegmentation. To control the power of the test using an informative prior will allow the algorithm’s sensibility to be tuned to the goals of the analysis: if one is interested in capturing larger sections, that might suffer an internal power change that is small compared to the difference between the segment overall power and the background noise power, one only needs to adjust the hyperparameter accordingly.
The resolution parameter
------------------------
The most demanding step in our binary algorithm is the optimization procedure that looks for the most likely changepoint at each step. This is done by a brute force procedure, that can be parallelized but nevertheless is costly, specially with long signals.
One way to increase the speed of our algorithm is to limit the search for the optimal changepoint: instead of calculating the objective function for all $i \in \{1, ..., N\}$, we can instead calculate the objective only for $i = lj, j \in \{1,...,N/l\}$.
If the (discrete) posterior for $\bar{t}$, the changepoint parameter, is not very sharp around its maximum, and if the minimum expected segment length is also not too small, $l$ above can be set to a high value, increasing the speed of the algorithm while still being able to identify the most probable changepoints at each step.
However, and since the optimization step will be applied many times, to segments of different lengths, it is not advisable to pick a fixed integer value for $j$; imagine, for instance, that we fix $j = 1000$. In a signal of size $N = 1,000,000$, this value won’t stop the algorithm from finding the optimal value (or some good approximation to it); however, for a signal of size $N = 10,000$, it is quite possible that using $j=1000$ will cause the algorithm to miss the optimal point. For this reason, we adopt an adaptive resolution strategy: we pick a starting value for the resolution (say $j = 1000$), but as the algorithm starts obtaining new segments, it will keep the ratio $j/N$ fixed at each step.
The PELT algorithm
------------------
As a basis of comparison to the Bayesian binary algorithm results, we use the PELT algorithm of [@Killick2012]; the PELT (*Pruned Exact Linear Time*) algorithm solves the dynamical optimization problem exactly, yielding the global optimum of the model. It does that with $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ complexity in the worst case, but it can be shown to have $\mathcal{O}(n)$ complexity under mild conditions.
The algorithm is defined in terms of an additive cost function
$$\label{eq:cost}
C(\{t_i\}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m+1}\left[\mathcal{C}(y_{t_{i-1}+1:t_i}\right] + \beta f(m)$$
where in the case of detection of variance changepoints
$$\label{eq:pcost}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}(y_{t_{i-1}+1:t_i}) = & -\frac{|t_j-t_{j-1}|}{2} log \left(\sum_{i=t_{j-1}}^{t_j} y_i^2\right) + \\
& log\left[\Gamma\left(\frac{|t_j-t_{j-1}|}{2}\right)\right]
\end{aligned}$$
and $f(m)$ is the penalty or regularization function for the number of segments.
The penalty function is essential, since the direct optimization of the cost function will lead to overfitting (which, in this case, will mean oversegmentation). In our tests below, we adopt the MBIC penalty function [@Zhang2007], which is the penalty function used by default by the R package *changepoint* that implements the PELT algorithm [@Killick2014].
For further comparison of our algorithm with other alternatives, we also run the binary segmentation algorithm of [@Scott1974], which is also implemented by the R package *changepoint*.
Results {#sec:res}
=======
Simulated data
--------------
To analyze the performance of the Bayesian binary algorithm, we start by simulating Gaussian signals with constant mean and variance. We then simulate the changepoint process by using a geometric distribution to model the times between changepoints, and multiply the signal between changepoints for a given factor in order to obtain different variances.
It is clear that the effectiveness of a changepoint detection algorithm depends directly on both the size of the segments, and the magnitude of the jump in the process parameters. To observe the behavior of all algorithms with varying segment sizes, we will keep the expected number of changepoints fixed at $50$ changepoints regardless of the signal’s size. When the signal’s size $n$ changes, the expected length of the segments will change accordingly (linearly with $n$).
To simulate the magnitude of change in power between segments, we force the segments to alternate variances between $1.0$ and $2.0$.
The simulation of the changepoint process was repeated ten times for each value of $N$, and we report the average results for each of these values.
The results appear in table \[tbl:sim\]. The table reports the true number of changepoints in the simulated signal, the estimated total number of changepoints for each algorithm, and the F1 score. The F1 score is calculated as
$$F1 = \frac{precision*recall}{precision + recall}$$
where $precision$ is the number of true positives divided by the total number of changepoints identified, and $recall$ is the number of true positives divided by the total number of true changepoints. To accept an estimated changepoint as a true one, it must be between $N/100$ points of a true changepoint.
The value of $\alpha$ for the Jeffreys prior, and the values of both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for the Laplace prior were selected using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC); both the PELT and the BinSeg algorithms utilized the Modified BIC of Zhang [@Zhang2007].
N Algorithm Time (s) True k Estimated k F1 score
----------- ----------- ----------- -------- ------------- ----------
10,000 binseg 0.407200 34.3 2.4 0.085693
10,000 jeffreys 0.210437 34.3 4.0 0.172064
10,000 laplace 0.245093 34.3 5.9 0.236544
10,000 pelt 0.037800 34.3 5.1 0.218018
50,000 binseg 2.151700 46.1 15.9 0.489096
50,000 jeffreys 1.628161 46.1 28.6 0.701796
50,000 laplace 1.563547 46.1 34.1 0.761310
50,000 pelt 0.177500 46.1 30.7 0.793996
100,000 binseg 4.269800 45.9 29.5 0.772511
100,000 jeffreys 2.624351 45.9 37.3 0.840989
100,000 laplace 2.394387 45.9 41.7 0.872812
100,000 pelt 0.333200 45.9 38.2 0.907438
500,000 binseg 20.954300 50.8 42.6 0.870825
500,000 jeffreys 4.558587 50.8 50.2 0.888668
500,000 laplace 4.088778 50.8 49.9 0.828553
500,000 pelt 1.997400 50.8 49.1 0.981732
1,000,000 binseg 20.661000 51.8 40.0 0.372078
1,000,000 jeffreys 6.243566 51.8 53.7 0.924682
1,000,000 laplace 5.911876 51.8 56.5 0.921549
1,000,000 pelt 3.909400 51.8 50.0 0.982603
The PELT algorithm was the quickest and also the most accurate algorithm on average for all signal sizes, except for $N=10,000$ where the Bayesian binary algorithm with the Laplace prior showed a higher F1 score. The binary algorithm of Scott [@Scott1974] was always the slowest and less precise; also, since it is implemented recursively, for longer signals there was an operational system error related to the stack size that stopped the algorithm from running in many simulations.
The Bayesian binary segmentation can be seen to be competitive with PELT in both execution time and accuracy. The use of an informative (Laplace) prior improved the accuracy in almost all scenarios.
In the next section, we apply the Bayesian binary algorithm and PELT to real underwater acoustic signals; the binary algorithm won’t be tested because it is unpractical for signals of the size we will be using.
Underwater acoustic signals
---------------------------
Now we apply the four algorithms to the segmentation of real underwater acoustic signals. These signals were obtained by the LACMAM’s team on 2017, in the region of Alcatrazes, an archipelago $35$ km off the Brazilian coast, in the city of São Sebastião, SP. More information about the data and the experiment can be found in [@SanchezGendriz2017].
One of the main goals in acquiring these samples is the study of acoustical signatures of boats. Alcatrazes is a marine ecological reserve, the second largest in Brazil, and as such fishing is prohibited in the archipelago’s area. As passive acoustic monitoring is cheap, efficient algorithms for boat detection using hydrophone data are a valuable resource to the reserve’s fiscalization authorities.
The laboratory has, by January, 2019, collected almost two years of acoustic signals from the reserve’s region. In these signals, many events can be found: the passage of boats, but also fish and whales’ vocalizations, and other events with both biological and anthropogenic sources. These events, however, are scarce, making the direct inspection and annotation of the signal a demanding task.
The segmentation algorithm will be used to aid in this inspection, by first separating sections of the signal that are likely to contain any significant event.
To test the segmentation algorithms, we have chosen two $15$ minutes long samples where visual inspection of the spectrogram shows many short duration events. After examination of the spectrograms, the samples were listened to and the start and finish times of all events were annotated. A total number of $32$ changepoints were detected, all of them caused by the passage of boats. What we expect is that the segmentation algorithm will be able to correctly identify the boundaries of these events.
One disclaimer is due at this point. The inspection of the samples was aimed at the separation of samples of the acoustic signal generated by the passage of boats. The researcher responsible for the annotation, thus, was not looking to annotate changes in the signal power. For that reason, it is not expected that any algorithm will get high measures of precision or recall.
The sampling rate of these files is $24$ kHz, resulting in signals with size $21,600,000$. To reduce this signal size, it is possible to arbitrarily break the $15$ minutes signal into smaller pieces, or to downsample the signal. The arbitrary separation of smaller pieces seem the least desirable approach, since it introduces the problem of deciding where to separate the pieces.
For the following tests, however, no downsampling was adopted, and the reported results refer to the segmentation of the full $21,600,000$ points signal.
For the Bayesian binary algorithm with the Laplace prior, the selection of the $\beta$ value is done based on an elbow plot of the BIC criterion, i.e., we select the least $\beta$ for which the plot $BIC \times \beta$ shows a pronounced decrease. For the PELT algorithm, the MBIC criterion is applied. In the results in table \[tbl:real\], the execution time for the Bayesian binary algorithm with Laplace prior includes all the runs necessary to obtain the best $\beta$. In order to assess the effect of using strongly informative priors in our algorithm, we also included the results for the Bayesian binary algorithm using the Jeffreys’ (non-informative) prior.
Sample Method Time (s) Beta True k Estimated k Precision Recall F1
-------- ---------- ---------- -------- -------- ------------- ----------- -------- --------
A jeffreys 1239.59 - 12 42074 0.03% 100% 0.0003
B jeffreys 1329.73 - 20 45277 0.04% 100% 0.0004
A laplace 27.41 3.3e-5 12 28 17.9% 41.7% 0.1250
B laplace 30.89 1.6e-5 20 21 30.0% 30.0% 0.1500
A pelt 205.41 - 12 39170 0.03% 100% 0.0003
B pelt 205.38 - 20 38274 0.05% 100% 0.0005
As seen in table \[tbl:real\], the Bayesian binary algorithm showed superior results to PELT in the segmentation of real samples. The first thing to notice is that PELT resulted in an excessive number of changepoints; that is the case because PELT works with the exact optimization of a cost function that is based on a (Gaussian) likelihood, and even with the regularization induced with the MBIC criterion, a higher number of changepoints gives a better fit. The same happens with the Bayesian binary algorithm using non-informative priors, i.e., with uncontrolled power of the test based on the e-value.
With the Bayesian binary algorithm, on the other hand, the value of $\beta$ helps to control the power of the test based on the e-value, avoiding oversegmentation.
In figures \[fig:spec1\] and \[fig:spec2\], the changepoints estimated by the Bayesian binary algorithm are plotted over the spectrogram of the samples. It is noticeable that the boundaries of the most prominent events are correctly captured by the algorithm, while at the same time sections with no important events (as can be seen by direct inspection of the spectrogram) are kept unsegmented.
{width="90.00000%"}
{width="90.00000%"}
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
The segmentation of acoustic signals is an important task, specially in the retrospective analysis of long duration signals.
Among the many possible criteria for the segmentation, the RMS-based segmentation is particularly interesting when one is mainly interested in separating sections with background noise only, from sections composed of background noise plus some (possibly) interesting event.
In this paper, we present a Bayesian binary algorithm for RMS-based acoustic signal segmentation. We show that this algorithm is precise, and robust to violations on the basic assumptions: normality of background noise, and a stepfunction for the RMS in the different segments. We claim that this robustness is mainly due to two characteristics of our algorithm: first, the use of a marginal posterior for the selection of candidate changepoints; and second, the use of maximum entropy models (both the Gaussian for the background noise, and the Laplace for the log-ratio of variances are maximum entropy models) with strongly informative priors.
By comparing our algorithm with other alternatives from the literature, we showed that it is competitive with the current state-of-the-art changepoint algorithm (PELT), and sensibly superior to previous binary algorithms in simulated data. When analyzing real data, we showed that our algorithm can have superior results even when compared to PELT, if we use the strongly informative (Laplace) prior on the log-ratio of variances between segments.
The hyperparameter of the Laplace prior can be efficiently selected using model selection criteria such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).
Further work will analyze other possibilities for the model selection problem in this setting. We are also working on a hybrid version of our algorithm and the PELT algorithm, by using a version of our marginal posterior as the cost function to be optimized with PELT.
Our algorithm is written in *cython*, is open sourced an can be downloaded at <http://github.com/paulohubert/bayeseg>, along with some sample acoustic data and some illustrative *IPython* notebooks. The signals used in this paper are available upon request.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We used the mark weighted correlation functions (MCFs), $W(s)$, to study the large scale structure of the Universe. We studied five types of MCFs with the weighting scheme $\rho^\alpha$, where $\rho$ is the local density, and $\alpha$ is taken as $-1,\ -0.5,\ 0,\ 0.5$, and 1. We found that different MCFs have very different amplitudes and scale-dependence. Some of the MCFs exhibit distinctive peaks and valleys that do not exist in the standard correlation functions. Their locations are robust against the redshifts and the background geometry, however it is unlikely that they can be used as “standard rulers” to probe the cosmic expansion history. Nonetheless we find that these features may be used to probe parameters related with the structure formation history, such as the values of $\sigma_8$ and the galaxy bias. Finally, after conducting a comprehensive analysis using the full shapes of the $W(s)$s and $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s, we found that, combining different types of MCFs can significantly improve the cosmological parameter constraints. Compared with using only the standard correlation function, the combinations of MCFs with $\alpha=0,\ 0.5,\ 1$ and $\alpha=0,\ -1,\ -0.5,\ 0.5,\ 1$ can improve the constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$ by $\approx30\%$ and 50%, respectively. We find highly significant evidence that MCFs can improve cosmological parameter constraints.'
author:
- Yizhao Yang
- Haitao Miao
- Qinglin Ma
- Miaoxin Liu
- 'Cristiano G. Sabiu'
- 'Jaime Forero-Romero'
- Yuanzhu Huang
- Limin Lai
- Qiyue Qian
- Yi Zheng
- 'Xiao-Dong Li'
bibliography:
- 'cites.bib'
title: Using the Mark Weighted Correlation Functions to Improve the Constraints on Cosmological Parameters
---
,
Introduction {#intro}
============
The discovery of cosmic acceleration [@riess1998observational; @perlmutter1999measurements] implies either the existence of a “dark energy” component in our Universe or the breakdown of general relativity on cosmological scales. The theoretical explanation and observational probes of cosmic acceleration have attracted tremendous attention, and are still far from being well understood or accurately measured [@weinberg1989cosmological; @miao2011dark; @YOO_2012; @weinberg2013observational].
On scales of a few hundred Megaparsecs (Mpc) the spatial distribution of galaxies forms a distinct, very complicated filamentary motif known as the ‘cosmic web’ [@1986Bardeen; @1986deLapparent; @Huchra_2012; @Tegmark_2004; @Guzzo_2014]. The distribution and clustering properties of galaxies in the cosmic web encodes a huge amount of information on the expansion and structure growth history of the Universe. In the next decade, several large scale surveys, including DESI[^1], EUCLID[^2], LSST[^3], WFIRST[^4], and CSST [@Gong_2019], will begin operations and map out an unprecedented large volume of the Universe with extraordinary precision. It is of essential importance to develop powerful tools that can comprehensively and reliably infer the cosmological parameters from large-scale structure (LSS).
The most widely-adopted LSS analysis methods is still the 2-point correlation function (2pCF) or power spectrum measurements, which are sensitive to the geometric and structure growth history of the Universe [@kaiser1987clustering; @ballinger1996measuring; @Eisenstein_1998; @Blake_2003; @Seo_2003]. These methods have achieved tremendous success when applied to a series of galaxy redshift surveys such as the 2-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; [@2df:Colless:2003wz]), the 6-degree Field Galaxy Survey (6dFGS; [@beutler20116df]), the WiggleZ survey [@blake2011wigglez; @blake2011wigglezb], and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; [@york2000sloan; @Eisenstein:2005su; @Percival:2007yw; @anderson2012clustering; @sanchez2012clustering; @sanchez2013clustering; @anderson2014clustering; @samushia2014clustering; @ross2015clustering; @beutler2016clustering; @sanchez2016clustering; @alam2017clustering; @chuang2017clustering]. The main limitation of this method is that they are only sensitive to the gaussian part of the density field, while both the structure formation process or some primordial conditions can introduce non-gaussian features in the LSS.
![PDFs (probability distribution functions) of the $\log$ density and the smoothing scale $h_W$, in case of using $n_{NB}$=30 and 300, measured from the BigMD $z=0.102$ halo sample. A masscut is applied to the sample to maintain a number density of $10^{-3}(h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})^{-3}$. Very roughly we find $h_{W}\varpropto n_{NB}^{0.4}$. []{data-label="fig_hists"}](hists.eps){width="8cm"}
{width="18cm"}
Ongoing research seeks to go beyond the 2-point statistics includes the methods such as 3-point statistics [@Sabiu_2016; @Slepian_2017], 4-point statistics [@Sabiu_2019], cosmic voids [@ryden1995measuring; @lavaux2012precision], deep learning [@Ravanbakhsh17; @Mathuriya18], and so on. While many of them have proved useful, here we investigate another statistical tool, namely the [*mark weighted correlation function*]{} [MCF; @Beisbart2000; @Beisbart2002; @Gottl2002; @Sheth:2004vb; @Sheth:2005aj; @Skibba2006; @White_2009; @White_2016; @Satpathy:2019nvo; @2020arXiv200111024M; @PMS2020] which is simpler and computationally easier compared than the statistics mentioned above.
By weighting each galaxy using a “mark” that depends on its local density, the MCFs provide density-dependent clustering information from the sample which is useful for data mining. The weights can be set to be proportional to the positive or negative power of the density, to allow the statistics to place more emphasis on dense or undense regions, where the clustered structures and the redshift space distortions (RSDs) are physically very different. It is expectable that in this manner we can obtain more information from the data compared with using the traditional 2pcf, which equally treat all galaxy pairs regardless of the difference in their physical properties and environments.
This paper is arranged as follows. Section \[data\] outlines the parameters of the datasets we use. Section \[method\] represents the methods used for the principle and operation of marked correlation functions. Section \[basic\] explains the clustering statistics of different number density. Section \[discussion\] discusses more details by various parameters to test whether the standard ruler persists. In section \[conclusion\] we present our general conclusions.
Data
====
The analysis in this work relies on the large N-body simulation: BigMultiDark[^5] (BigMD), and also a series of fast simulations generated using COLA (COmoving Lagrangian Acceleration).
The Multiverse simulations are a set of cosmological N-body simulations designed to study how variations in cosmological parameters affect the clustering and evolution of cosmic structures. Among them, the BigMD simulation is produced using $3\,840^3$ particles in a volume of $(2.5h^{-1}\rm Gpc)^3$, assuming a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.307115$, $\Omega_b = 0.048206$, $\sigma_8 = 0.8288$, $n_s = 0.9611$, and $H_0 = 67.77\ {\rm km}\ s^{-1} {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ [@BD]. The initial conditions, based on primordial Gaussian fluctuations, are generated via the Zel’dovich approximation at $z_{\rm init} = 100$. Its large volume and huge number of particles make this an ideal simulation for the purposes of this work.
For purpose of estimating measurement covariance matrices, we also use 150 simulations with $600^3$ particles and a boxsize $(512 h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$, in the BigMD cosmology, generated using the COLA [@Tassev13] algorithm. Second order Lagrangian perturbation Theory (2LPT) is a computationally efficient and accurate method for describing the gravitational dynamics on large scales. COLA combines 2LPT, for time integration for large scale dynamical evolution, with a full-blown N-body Particle-Mesh (PM) algorithm to calculate the small scale dynamics. Compared with the other fast simulation algorithms in the market, COLA performs better in simulating the structures on non-linear scales [@Chuang14].
Finally, to check the dependence on cosmologies, we run five sets of COLA simulations using $\Lambda$CDM models of $(\Omega_m, 10^9 A_s, \sigma_8)$ = (0.2, 2.1, 0.5557), (0.31, 2, 0.7965), (0.31, 2.1, 0.8161), (0.31, 2.29, 0.8523) and (0.46, 2.1, 1.0576) [^6], respectively. The other parameters are taken as $\Omega_b = 0.048206$, $n_s = 0.9611$ and $H_0 = 67.77\ {\rm km}\ s^{-1} {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, the same to their used values in the BigMD simulation. Each simulation was run using $1024^3$ particles in a $(1024 h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$ box. We identify gravitationally bound structures in each of the BigMD and COLA DM simulations using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ROCKSTAR</span> halo finder [@ROCKSTAR]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ROCKSTAR</span> is a halo finder based on adaptive hierarchical refinement of friends-of-friends groups in six phase-space dimensions and one time dimension, allowing for robust tracking of substructure. Both halos and subhalos are included in the analysis. To ensure the comparability, we maintain a halo number density $\bar n=$0.001 $(h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^{-3}$ in all simulations.
Methodology {#method}
===========
The MCF is a simple extension of the standard configuration space 2pCF by assigning a mark to each object. Following [@White:2016yhs], we use the local density as the mark, and weight each halo by $${\rm weight}=\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}^\alpha,$$ which is a simpler expression than that proposed in [@White:2016yhs]. Here $\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}$ is the density estimated using its $n_{\rm NB}$ nearest neighbours, $$\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}({\bf r}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n_{\rm NB}} W_k({\bf r-r_i},h_W),$$ where $\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}(\bf r)$ is the number density at position $r$, and $W_k$ is the smoothing kernel, for which we choose the 3rd order B-spline functions having non-zero value within a sphere of radius $2h_W$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc [@Gingold1977; @Lucy1977]. We adopt an adjustable radius of the smoothing kernel to ensure that the kernel always includes $n_{\rm NB}$ nearest neighbour halos within $2h_W$.
The value of $n_{\rm NB}$ determines the smoothing scale that we applied to the sample. Figure \[fig\_hists\] shows the PDF (probability distribution function) of the $\log$ density and $h_W$ in the constructed fields when using $n_{\rm NB}$=30 and 300, respectively. Since the values of $h_W$ depend on the local density, they are not a constant number under a given $n_{\rm NB}$. Here we find the central and 1$\sigma$ width of $h_W$ is $8.3\pm 3.7$, $20.1\pm 4.7$ $h^{-1}$Mpc if using $n_{\rm NB}$=30, 300, respectively. Very roughly, the central value scales as $\varpropto (n_{\rm NB})^{0.4}$. A larger $n_{\rm NB}$ decreases both the mean and the variance of $\log_{10}\rho$.
In the MCF, the objects in the high and low dense regions are assigned different weights. Figure \[fig\_scatter\] shows the weights of some halos distributed in a $200\times200\times20 (h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$ slice, selected from the $z=0.102$ BigMD snapshot. While $\alpha=1$ assign significantly larger weights to the objects in dense environment, the $\alpha=-1$ strategy does the opposite. From the dense to un-dense regions, the clustering patterns and redshift space distortions vary dramatically, so we expect very different results for MCFs when using the two weighting strategies.
Apart from the weight that is assigned to each halo, the computational procedure to measure the MCF is exactly the same as that to measurement the standard 2pCFs. We use the most commonly adopted Landy-Szalay estimator $$\label{eq:Wsmu}
W(s,\mu) = \frac{WW-2WR+RR}{RR},$$ where $WW$ is the weighted number of galaxy-galaxy pairs, $WR$ denote the galaxy-random pairs, and $RR$ denote the number of random-random pairs. They are separated by a distance defined by $s\pm \Delta s$ and $\mu\pm \Delta \mu$, where $s$ is the distance between the pair and $\mu=\cos(\theta)$, with $\theta$ being the angle between the line joining the pair and the line of sight (LOS) direction [^7]. For the random samples, we always use 10x more particles than the data samples, and fix the weights of all particles to be 1.
Compared to the tradition CF which is defined as $\xi(\bf r)=\left<\delta({\bf x}) \delta({\bf x+r})\right>$, the MCF takes the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:W_delta_rho}
W({\bf r}) &=&
\left<\delta({\bf x}) \rho_{n_{NB}}({\bf x})^{\alpha} \delta({\bf x+r}) \rho_{n_{NB}}({\bf x+r})^{\alpha}\right> .
$$ Notice the difference between $\delta$ and $\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}$. The latter one is the smoothed density field, while the former is the contrast of the [*point-like*]{} density $\rho$. effectively, $\rho$ is the special case of $\rho_{n_{\rm NB}}$ with $n_{\rm NB}$=1.
A glance at the weighted CF {#basic}
===========================
In what follows we present the MCFs measured from the BigMD halos, distributed in the redshift range of $0<z<1.45$. To guarantee the comparability of objects at different redshifts, and also to maintain a uniform smoothing scale, from each sample we select a number of most massive halos to build up a subsample having a constant number density $\bar n=10^{-3} (h^{-1} \rm Mpc)^{-3}$ for all samples.
$W(s)$ Measurements {#sec:ws}
-------------------
Figure \[fig\_xi\_s\] shows the MCFs as functions of clustering scale, i.e. the monopole $W(s)$ [^8]. They are computed by ignoring the $\mu$-dependence in Equation \[eq:Wsmu\] when counting the weighted number of pairs. We shows the results using $\alpha=-1,\ -0.5,\ 0,\ 0.5$, and $1$, at the redshifts of 0, 0.51, 1.0, and 1.45, respectively. In all plots, we use $n_{NB}=30$.
{width="16cm"}
{width="16cm"}
A significant dependence on the weighting scheme is detected when comparing the MCFs using different $\alpha$. A larger $\alpha$ assigns more weights to the dense, clustered region, thus results in stronger correlation (higher magnitude). The clustering patterns in dense and undense regions are different from each other, so the shape of MCFs is also sensitive to $\alpha$. As shown in the Figure, when using $\alpha=-1,\ -0.5,\ 0,\ 0.5$ and $1$, $s^2 W(z=0)$ peaks at $s\approx2,\ 4,\ 17,\ 14$ and $18$ $h^{-1}\ $Mpc, with amplitudes of 16, 23, 80, 180, 400 $(h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^2$, respectively. The $\alpha=1$ result has a peak magnitude 5 times stronger than the $\alpha=0$ case, while the latter is again 5 times stronger if compared with the $\alpha=-1$ case; if comparing the clustering amplitude on the BAO scale, then the $\alpha=1$ case is 2/4/15/100 times stronger than $\alpha=0.5/0/-0.5/-1$ cases, respectively. The statistical error also increases with the decreasing of $\alpha$. For the $\alpha=-1$, $z=0$ case, the BAO peak is not very detectable, possibly due to the large noise therein.
By enforcing $\bar n=10^{-3}$ at all redshifts both the clustering amplitude and the shape remain similar at all redshifts. Compared with low redshift result we find the BAO peak at higher redshift is more prominent, because there the smearing effect from the peculiar velocity and the non-linear structure formation is less significant.
The shape of the MCF is changing persistently when we tune the value of $\alpha$. Several distinctive features, including a sharp peak (around 5-10 $h^{-1}$ Mpc) in the $\alpha=1,\ -0.5,\ -1$ results, are a valley (around $15 h^{-1}$ Mpc) in the $\alpha=-0.5,\ -1$ results, are detected. We will discuss their origins, implications and usabilities in the latter sections.
Finally, a quick check presented in Figure \[fig\_bigmd\_vs\_cola\] shows that for most cases COLA achieves $\lesssim10\%$ accuracy in predicting the MCFs within the clustering range considered here [@Ma_2020]. Relative large discrepancy is detected at the $s\lesssim20$ $h^{-1}$Mpc regime in the $\alpha=0.5$ and 1 cases. This consistency may be resolved by measures such as increasing the time steps or enhancing the resolution of the simulations, but we will not study it in details.
{width="16cm"} {width="16cm"} {width="16cm"}
$W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ Measurements {#sec:wmu}
--------------------------------
The RSDs in high and low density regions are quite different. So we expect different anisotropic clustering features in the different MCFs. In what follows, we study $\mu$-dependence of the MCFs. By integrating $W(s,\mu)$ along the $s$ direction, we define $$W_{\Delta s}(\mu)\equiv \int_{s_{\rm min}}^{s_{\rm max}} W(s,\mu) ds,$$ as well as its normalized version $$\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)\equiv \frac{W_{\Delta s}(\mu)}{\int_{0}^{\mu_{\rm max}}W_{\Delta s}(\mu)\ d\mu}.$$ These two quantities describe the difference in the clustering strength in different directions [*w.r.t*]{} the LOS. They have been used to quantify the RSDs and the AP distortions in the tomographic Alcock-Pacyznski (AP) method [@LI14; @LI15; @LI16; @LI18; @LI19; @Park:2019mvn; @Zhang2019]. Figure \[fig\_ximu\] shows the measured $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ at redshifts of $z=$ 0, 0.51, 1 1.45, using $\alpha$=-1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1 and an integral range $s\in$ (6,40), (2,10), (10,30) $h^{-1}$ Mpc, respectively. In all curves, we see a sharp peak near $1-\mu=0.1$, which is produced by the small-scale, non-linear finger-of-god (FOG) effect [@Jackson_1972]; Also, we see a slope in the range of $1-\mu\gtrsim0.1$, as a consequence of the Kaiser effect [@kaiser1987clustering]. The amplitude of $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ is enhanced if we tune down $s_{\rm min}$ and include more small-scale clustering into the integration. In doing this, we also enhance the leftmost peak since FOG is stronger on smaller clustering scales.
Similar to what we found with $W(s)$, the $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ has a larger amplitude and smaller statistical noise when using a larger value of $\alpha$. On the other hand, we do not detect any “violent” changes in the shape of $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ when tuning the value of $\alpha$. However, this does not necessarily mean that the information encoded in these different $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ are all the same. We will revisit this issue in the later.
Distinctive Features in $W(s)$ {#sec:distinctive_features}
------------------------------
In the $W(s)$ curves there are several distinctive peaks and valleys which do not exist in the standard 2pCFs. In what follows, we briefly discuss their possible origins.
![ In the $\alpha$=1 MCF, we find a sharp peak around $s=5\ h^{-1}$ Mpc. Comparison between the measurements on different directions implies that this peak has something to do with the FOG effect (left panel). Its location and position is insensitive to the redshift (right panel). []{data-label="fig_rho1"}](rho1_fog.eps){width="8cm"}
![ The $\alpha$=-1 MCF has an unusual “S”-like shape. It bears a valley-like feature on scales of $\sim$15 ${h^{-1}}$ Mpc, arising from the difference between the point-like field $\rho$ and the smoothed field $\rho_{30}$. Its shape and the strength of remains robust against redshift.[]{data-label="fig_rho-1"}](rho-1.eps){width="8cm"}
### Sharp peak {#section_sharp_peak}
In many plots of $s^{2}W(s)$ there exist a sharp peak located around $5-10\ h^{-1}$ Mpc (see Figure \[fig\_xi\_s\]). This means that on that scale there exist a large number of clustering pairs. In all plots we use the weight $\rho_{30}$, whose smoothing scale is $\approx 8$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc. That smoothing produces a correlation on that scale, so it is not surprising to see a peak on the corresponding scale. However, comparing with a random sample smoothed in the same way shows that the the amplitude of the peak also heavily depends on the intrinsic clustering property of the sample. A comparison between the measurements on different directions implies that this sharp clustering peak has something to do with the FOG effect, which produces $\sim5-10\ h^{-1}$ Mpc “spikes” like structure along the LOS As shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig\_rho1\], the peak along the LOS direction is far more prominent than what found in the transverse direction. The other panel of the Figure shows that the heights and locations of the peak is rather insensitive to the redshift.
### Distinctive Valley
Besides the peak we also detect a valley located at $s\approx15\ h^{-1}$ Mpc in the $\alpha=-1,\ -0.5$ cases. In particular, the $\alpha=-1$ case possesses both the peak and the valley, so has an unusual “S”-like shape.
Figure \[fig\_rho-1\] shows the valleys in the $\alpha=-1$ MCFs. Equation \[eq:W\_delta\_rho\] means that the features in the MCF should be highly related with the difference between the local density $\rho$ and its smoothed counterpart $\rho_{30}$. In the redshift range of $\sim$0-1.5, the location and the strength of this valley-like feature remains rather robust. Contrary to the situation of the peak, we find that the valley looks rather similar in both the LOS and transverse directions, leading us to believe that it has little or nothing to do with RSD effects.
Implications for Cosmological Analysis {#discussion}
======================================
In this section we discuss the implications of the MCFs to the cosmological analysis. In the first part, we report our attempt to utilise the peak and the valley as standard rulers. In the second part, we adopt a more comprehensive approach by using the full shape of the MCFs.
Usability of the distinctive features as standard rulers {#subsec:features}
---------------------------------------------------------
The distinctive peaks and valleys as discovered in the $\alpha \neq 0$ MCFs are not found in the standard 2pCF. A remarkable feature is that, the locations of these peaks and valleys are rather robust against the redshift. This inspires us to consider using them as “standard rulers” to probe the expansion history.
In galaxy surveys, the angular positions and redshifts of each galaxy is converted to 3D positions using the redshift-distance relation $r(z)$ adopted in an assumed cosmology. So wrongly adopted cosmology parameters lead to the following distortions of length in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the LOS, $$\label{eq:alpha}
\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_{\parallel}(z) = \frac{H_{\rm true}(z)}{H_{\rm wrong}(z)}, \\
&\alpha_{\perp}(z) = \frac{D_{A,\rm wrong}(z)}{D_{A,\rm true}(z)},
\end{aligned}$$ where “true” and “wrong” denote the values of quantities in the true and incorrectly assumed cosmologies, respectively. This leads to two effects in the wrong cosmology,
- The changes in the size of structures, known as the “volume effect”. This changes the BAO peak location, shifts the clustering patterns [@Li2017], and changes the sizes of structures in the density field [@Park2010].
- Changes in the shape of structures, known as the Alcock-Paczynsk (AP) distortion [@AP1979; @ballinger1996measuring]. For an incomplete list of the methods based on this effect and their applications to the data, see [@Ryden1995; @Matsubara1996; @Outram2004; @Marinoni2010; @Blake2011; @Lavaux2012; @Alam2017; @Qingqing2016; @LI14; @LI16; @Ramanah2019].
In what follows, we mainly test the feasibility of using the distinctive features to probe the “volume effect”. To mimick the effect, we take Equation \[eq:alpha\] to convert the sample into backgrounds of two wrong cosmologies, $$(\Omega_m,\ w)_{\rm wrong} = (0.1,\ -1), \ \ (0.3071,\ -1.5).$$ Notice that, in doing this we just “re-observe” the simulation using the $r(z)$s of the new cosmologies, without running new simulations. That is exactly what one is doing when conducting the BAO or AP analysis on the observational data.
The comparability of samples requires them having the same smoothing scale. Thus, when using a wrong background, we change the lower halo mass cut to maintain a constant number density $\bar n=1\times10^{-3} (h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^{-3}$. In the following subsections, we test the feasibility of using the $\alpha=-1$ and $\alpha=1$ MCFs, respectively.
### The background
![Comparing the $\alpha=-1$ MCFs in backgrounds of the fiducial cosmology and an extremely wrong cosmology. Regardless of the dramatic difference in the background geometry, there is little difference in the locations of the peaks or the valleys. So it is unlikely to use these features to probe the geometry of the Universe. []{data-label="fig_peak_wrong_cosmos"}](peak_diffNB_xis.eps){width="9cm"}
![ Comparing the $\alpha=1$ MCFs in different backgrounds. The conclusion is similar to what we found in Figure \[fig\_peak\_wrong\_cosmos\]. []{data-label="fig_peak_wrong_cosmos_rho1"}](diffmu_alpha_1.eps){width="9cm"}
When adopting an incorrect expansion history for the background, we expect a scale-shift in the shape of the CF. Because of the nonuniform scaling at different redshifts, we expect a redshift-evolution of the CFs, determined by $\left(\alpha_{\perp}(z)^2\alpha_{\parallel}(z)\right)^{1/3}$ (see [@Li2017]).
However, regardless of the strong volume effect in the two extremely incorrect cosmologies considered here, we do not detect any significant change in the scale of the MCFs. Figure \[fig\_peak\_wrong\_cosmos\] shows that, in the wrong cosmological backgrounds, the locations of the peaks or valleys remain the same to their fiducial values. The conclusion is unchanged when we try using $n_{\rm NB}=10$, 30 and 300.
Considering the valleys of the $n_{\rm NB}$=30 measurements as an example. While in the fiducial cosmology the valley locates at $s=15-16$ $h^{-1}\rm Mpc$, in the $\Omega_m=0.1$ wrong cosmology it still shows up at $s\approx16$ $h^{-1}\rm Mpc$. For comparison, in this cosmology the comoving length is artificially rescaled by a rate of $\gtrsim$20% at $z\gtrsim0.6$, so we expect the valley appears near 18-19 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. While being insensitive to the background, the location of the peaks or valleys are rather sensitive to the choice of the smoothing scale. When changing $n_{\rm NB}$ from 30 to 10/300, the location of the valley is shifted to 26/13 $h^{-1}\rm Mpc$, respectively.
In the $\alpha=1$ MCFs, again, we find that the locations of the peaks are, rather insensitive to the background change (see Figure \[fig\_peak\_wrong\_cosmos\_rho1\]). Moreover, it appears robust against changes in redshift in the wrong cosmology we chose. This means that it is impossible to make use of their redshift evolution as a signal to identity the wrong cosmologies [^9].
Here we point out that, actually, this FOG related pattern has been detected in other statistics. [@Fang2019] reported a detection of a peak around $\sim3h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ in the $\beta$-skeleton statistics. In Appendix A, we report that the peak in that statistics can not be used to conduct cosmological analysis, either.
### Dependence on bias and $\sigma_8$ {#sec_five_cola_sim}
While being rather insensitive to the background, these features do have some dependence on the bias and $\sigma_8$. Figure \[fig\_diffsim\_xis\] shows the MCFs measured in five sets of COLA simulations, with the $\Lambda$CDM parameters of $(\Omega_m, 10^9 A_s, \sigma_8)$ = (0.2, 2.1, 0.5557), (0.31, 2, 0.7965), (0.31, 2.1, 0.8161), (0.31, 2.29, 0.8523) and (0.46, 2.1, 1.0576), respectively. Clearly, when adopting a smaller $\sigma_8$, the locations of the peaks shift towards small scales.
Basically, a smaller $\sigma_8$ leads to a smaller peak scale, except that the $\sigma_8=0.8/0.82/0.85$ curves in the $\alpha=1$, $n_{\rm NB}=300$ case do not precisely obey this order. Possibly, becase $n_{\rm NB}=300$ corresponds to a smoothing scale much larger than 8$h^{-1}$Mpc, here $\sigma_8$ can not precisely describe what is happening. Although the basic trend is still correct, some complexities arise if we carefully investigate the details.
Meanwhile, we also find they have some dependence on the halo bias. Figure \[fig\_diffbias\] shows the MCFs of three subsamples of BigMD $z=0$ halos, distributed in different mass range (we keep $\bar n=10^{-3}\ (h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^{-3}$ in all subsamples). The valleys are more affected compared with the peaks.
In summary, our analysis shows that these peaks and valleys can not be used as “standard rulers” to probe the geometry of the Universe. But when changing the parameters related with the structure formation, we do observe shifts in the peaks or valleys. So these features maybe useful for the probing of those parameters related with the structure formation, e.g. the values of $\sigma_8$ and the halo/galaxy bias.
Apart from $\hat W(s)$s, the $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s are also sensitive to $\sigma_8$. We investigate this sensitivity further in Appendix B.
![ MCFs of five COLA simulations, with different values of $\sigma_8$. The peak is shifted towards to larger scales when using a larger $\sigma_8$. []{data-label="fig_diffsim_xis"}](peak_diffsim_xis.eps){width="9cm"}
![ MCFs of samples with different halo bias. The valleys are more affected compared with the peaks. []{data-label="fig_diffbias"}](peak_diffbias.eps){width="9cm"}
Using the full shape of the MCFs
--------------------------------
In what follows, we take a more comprehensive approach and use the full shape of the marked CF to predict the cosmological parameters. Figure \[fig\_cov\] shows the [*correlation coefficients* ]{} of $\hat W(s)$ and $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ [^10]. They are estimated using the 150 COLA simulations. Among all MCFs, the $\alpha=-1$ case has weakest correlation with the others. The negative correlations are the consequence of the normalization.
We choose the $\Omega_m=0.3071,\ w=-1$ cosmology as the [*fiducial geometrical background*]{}, and define a statistical function to distinguish the other backgrounds from it, $$\chi^2 = ({\bf p_{\rm fiducial}-p_{\rm target}}) \cdot {\bf Cov}^{-1} \cdot ({\bf p_{\rm fiducial}-p_{\rm target}}),$$ where $\bf p$ denotes $\hat W(s)$ or $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$. Considering that the number of mocks is not too many compared with the binning number of the $W$s, we use the formula suggested by @Hartlap:2006kj to correct the bias in the estimated covariance matrix.
The MCFs of the halo catalogues embedded in the backgrounds of the incorrect cosmologies are obtained using the following coordinate transforms (see [@LI18] for details), $$\label{eq_smu_trans1}
s_{\rm target} = s_{\rm fiducial}
\sqrt{\alpha_{\parallel}^2\mu_{\rm fiducial}^2 + \alpha_{\bot}^2(1-\mu_{\rm \bot}^2)},$$ $$\label{eq_smu_trans2}
\mu_{\rm target} = \mu_{\rm fiducial} \frac{\alpha_\parallel}
{\sqrt{\alpha_{\parallel}^2\mu_{\rm fiducial}^2 + \alpha_{\bot}^2(1-\mu_{\rm \bot}^2)}}.$$ This is much more efficient compared with converting the samples into the different backgrounds and re-measuring the MCFs. A caveat is that equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\] do not capture [*the change in the values of the weights*]{}. That definitely happens, since the Alcock-Paczynski effect non-uniformly distorts the geometry, so the set of $n_{\rm NB}$ nearest neighbors can differ from one cosmology to next. In Appendix C we check this caveat and show that if we neglect this issue it introduces only minor effect, and thus equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\] are deemed precise enough for this proof-of-concept study.
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
Equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\] only consider the [*background*]{} information of the cosmologies. A more comprehensive analysis should involve the information of the structure growth, but that would require many more numerical simulations.
Constraints from $\hat W(s)$
----------------------------
The conditional constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$ (fixing one of them as the fiducial and constrain the other one) using the full shape of $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ are presented in the lower panel of Figure \[fig\_chisq\_1d\]. In the plots, we use the clustering range of $s\in(5,50)\ h^{-1}\rm Mpc$, divided into 15 bins. Including the results on larger scales does not further enhance the power of constraints. We find the the $\alpha=0$ results leads to the tightest constraints among all cases considered. Also, combining different MCFs can improve the constraint. Taking the $w=-0.4$ cosmology as an example. Compared with the fiducial cosmology, it is disfavored by $\chi^2=7.3/5.8/5.5/1.4$ when using the $\alpha=0/0.5/-0.5/1$ MCF, so the $\alpha=0.5/-0.5/1$ result is 20%/24%/81% worse than the $\alpha=0$ result, respectively. Combining the $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=1$ MCFs, we get a 17% improvement compared with only using the $\alpha=0$ MCF. If we combine the $\alpha=0/0.5/1$ MCFs together, the $\chi^2$ is then enlarged to 15, a $\approx$100% improvement compared with only using the $\alpha=0$ MCF.
The $\chi^2$ of the $\alpha=0,\ 0.5,\ 1$ combination is very close to the summation of the $\chi^2$s using the three MCFs separately. This means that, the cosmological information carried by the three MCFs is not strongly overlapping from each other. This is essentially important for the MCF statistics, meaning that we can significantly improve the cosmological constraints by combining different MCFs.
Constraints from $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$
-----------------------------------------
![Conditional constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$, derived using $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ and $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$. Estimation is based on the $\bar n=10^{-3}\ (h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$ halo samples of the 150 COLA samples having a boxsize of $(512 h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$. Among all MCFs, the $\alpha=0$ MCF has the largest statistical power. We can largely improve the statistical power by combining different MCFs. []{data-label="fig_chisq_1d"}](chisq_ws_norm.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![Conditional constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$, derived using $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ and $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$. Estimation is based on the $\bar n=10^{-3}\ (h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$ halo samples of the 150 COLA samples having a boxsize of $(512 h^{-1}\rm Mpc)^3$. Among all MCFs, the $\alpha=0$ MCF has the largest statistical power. We can largely improve the statistical power by combining different MCFs. []{data-label="fig_chisq_1d"}](chisq_wmu_norm.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
The conditional constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$ using the full shape of $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ are presented in the lower panel of Figure \[fig\_chisq\_1d\], where the integration range of $s$ is taken as $(6,40)\ h^{-1}\rm Mpc$, and we use the shape of $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ in the range of $\mu\in(0,0.97)$, divided into 12 bins. Remarkably, the constraints derived using the $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s are much more powerful than those derived using the $\hat W(s)$s.
Similarly, we find $\alpha=0$ achieves the best performance, and the results can be improved by combining different MCFs. In Table \[tab1\], we list the $\chi^2$s of the $w=-0.4$ cosmology using different $\alpha$s or their combinations. Compared with using $\alpha=0$ MCF, using $\alpha=0,0.5,1$ and $\alpha=0,-1,-0.5,0.5,1$ can improve the $\chi^2$ by 116% and 285%, respectively.
Figure \[fig\_chisq\_contour\] shows the constraints in the 2-d $\Omega_m$-$w$ parameter space. The directions of degeneracy using different $\alpha$s are identical to each other, so combining the different MCFs does not help in breaking the degeneracy. But by doing this we do manage to shrink the contour size. Very roughly, compared with the $\alpha=0$ MCF, the $\alpha=0,0.5,1$ and $\alpha=0,-1,-0.5,0.5,1$ combinations can improve the constraints on the parameters by $\approx30\%$ and 50%, respectively.
$\alpha$ 0 -1 -0.5 0.5 1 0,-1 0,-0.5 0,0.5 0,1 0,0.5,1 0,-1,-0.5,0.5,1
-------------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------- ------- ------ --------- -----------------
$\chi^2$ 21.4 8.1 19.8 14.9 6.9 29.2 45.0 40.0 30.8 46.2 82.3
$\frac{\chi^2}{\chi^2_{\alpha=0}}-1$ 0% -62% -7% -31% -68% 36% 111% 87% 44% 116% 285%
![\[fig\_chisq\_contour\] 68.3% CL constraints on $\Omega_m$ and $w$, derived using $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$. Different MCFs have the same direction of degeneracy. Compared with only using one kind of MCF, the two combinations can significantly reduce the constrained area. ](contour2.eps){width="8cm"}
Conclusion
==========
We performed a detailed analysis on the MCFs for which the objects are weighted by $\rho^\alpha$. In this analysis, we considered five different MCFs, i.e. $\alpha=-1,\ -0.5,\ 0,\ 0.5$ and 1, and characterize their scale and angular dependence by using $W(s)$ and $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$. When studying the scale dependence of the MCFs, i.e. the $W(s)$s, we find the different MCFs have very different amplitudes and scale-dependence. Especially, we found distinctive peaks and valleys in some $\alpha\neq 0$ MCFs, on scales around $\approx5$ and $15$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc, depending on the smoothing scale that we adopted to estimate the density. Their origin and properties are studied in detail. One particular point of interest is that the locations of these features are rather invariant with redshift. In studying the possibilities of using the MCFs in cosmological analysis, we find the locations of the peaks or valleys are rather insensitive to the background geometry. Thus, it is unlikely that they can be utilized as “standard rulers” to probe the geometry. However, their locations are affected by the value of $\sigma_8$ and the galaxy bias, so they could be useful for the determination of these parameters.
Finally, we studied the power of the different MCFs in distinguishing the different cosmologies, by using the full shape of the $\hat W(s)$s and the $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s. We find they have similar direction of degeneracy in constrained $\Omega_m$ and $w$, while the $\alpha=0$ MCF, corresponding to the standard CF, has the strongest power in distinguishing the background of the different cosmologies. Also, the constraint can be further improved by combining the different MCFs together. In particular, compared with the $\alpha=0$ $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$, the $\alpha=0,\ 0.5,\ 1$ and $\alpha=0,\ -1,\ -0.5,\ 0.5,\ 1$ combinations achieve $\approx30\%$ and 50% improvement in reducing the constrained area, respectively.
The reason why MCF can improve the constrain is easy to understand. The dense and under-dense regions have very different clustering patterns and RSDs features. The many MCFs provide different weighting schemes of the clustering information according to their local density. By using them together, we can separate the regions with different patterns and extracting more clustering information.
While previous works regarding the MCF mainly focus on modified gravity theories[@2018Aguayo; @2018Armijo], our work suggests that they could be useful for probing any parameter that is related with the expansion and structure growth history. By using the MCFs, we can enlarge the obtained information by 3-4 more times. MCF are also computationally efficient compared with the high order statistics, like the 3pCF. [@PMS2020] used perturbation theory to study the marked power spectrum using perturbation theory, and found that the mark introduces a significant coupling between small-scale non-Gaussianities and large scale clustering. This explains why using this statistics we can get additional information, and provides further support to the findings of this work.
We find that the statistical quantity $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ is more powerful than the $\hat W(s)$ in constraining the cosmological parameters. It may be possible to use $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s instead of just $\hat \xi_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ in the tomographic AP method to improve the performance. However we leave this issue for future works. While in our analysis the $\alpha=0$ MCF has the strongest power in distinguishing the background of the different cosmologies, the authors of [@2020arXiv200111024M] found that, a marked power spectrum can better constrain cosmological parameters than the power spectrum itself. This difference may be due to two reasons. 1) By using tens of thousands of simulations, [@2020arXiv200111024M] built an emulator to capture both the expansion history and structure formation of the Universe. In contrast, we just “re-observe” one simulation using different backgrounds to study effect of the expansion history. Very possibly, the sensitivity of the MCFs to the structure formation is more important than its dependence to the expansion history, but we do not have it quantified in this simple treatment. We need to conduct a more comprehensive study in future analysis. 2) While [@2020arXiv200111024M] used the power spectrum as the statistical discriminator, we used $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$, the dependence of clustering strength on the direction. The two statistical quantities are physically quite different, and it is reasonable that the results derived using them are also different.
There are still many issues regarding MCF that are important but that we chose not to address in the present work. Although we have shown that MCFs encode a lot of information, we did not detail specific methods to extract them. In particular, we did not check whether the MCFs is useful for improve the measuring of the BAO peaks. In studying the different weighting schemes we only explore the restricted range of $-1\leq\alpha\leq1$. Finally, we only considered the halo number density as the weight, while there are possibilities to use features computed directly on the connectivity graph of the halo distribution. Those graph features are related to topological characteristics of the cosmic web [@Suarez-Perez:2020], features that are in turn naturally correlated to $\sigma_8$ and the halo-galaxy bias.
Appendix A. Usability of Peaks in the $\beta$-skeleton statistics {#appa .unnumbered}
=================================================================
The $\beta$-skeleton is a novel statistical tool proposed in [@Fang2019] to study the cosmic web. In this statistic, the “spikes” produced by the FOG leads to a peak in the histogram of connections near $2.5{h^{-1}\rm Mpc}$, which is rather robust to the redshift. The origin and the properties of this peak is very close to to the peak we found in the $\alpha=1,\ 0.5,\ -1$ $W(s)$s.
![ Histograms of lengths and directions of connections in the $\beta=3$ cosmic web. Similar to the $W(s)$, there are peaks produced by the FOG on the small scales, which are robust against the redshift, but unlikely to be used in cosmological studies. The full shape of the histograms show some cosmological dependence. []{data-label="fig_beta_hists"}](beta_hists.eps){width="9cm"}
We find that, the peak in the $\beta$-skeleton statistics also cannot be used to probe the cosmic expansion history. Figure \[fig\_beta\_hists\] shows the distribution of the lengths and directions of the connections in the $\beta=3$ web, measured in three different backgrounds. It is clear that the locations of the peaks are rather insensitive to the background geometry.
The full shape of the histograms of the lengths and directions show some cosmological dependence. We will not go deep and discuss its usability in details.
In other work we have found that the entropy and complexity of the $\beta$-skeleton graph actually correlates with $\sigma_8$ [@Torres-Guarin:2020], suggesting that the graph is more sensitive to the global tracer topology than to the more geometrical influence of $\Omega_m$ and $w$.
Appendix B. $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ in the five COLA simulations {#appb .unnumbered}
============================================================
In section \[sec\_five\_cola\_sim\] we only discussed the $W(s)$ measured in simulations with different $\sigma_8$. Here we present the results of $\hat W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s.
![ The $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$s measured in the five sets of COLA simulations with different values of $\sigma_8$. The leftmost part of the curve is dominated by the FOG effect. There the amplitude is significantly enhanced if using a large $\sigma_8$. []{data-label="fig_ximu_diffcosmo"}](ximu_diffcosmo.eps){width="8cm"}
As shown in Figure \[fig\_ximu\], the $1-\mu\lesssim0.1$ part, where the FOG should dominate, has a strong dependence on the value of $\sigma_8$. A larger $\sigma_8$ results in a stronger FOG effect, and thus a sharper peak.
The $1-\mu\gtrsim0.1$ part, dominated by the Kaiser effect, seems to have a similar shape with different $\sigma_8$.
Appendix C. Accuracy of the Approximately Estimated MCFs {#appendix-c.-accuracy-of-the-approximately-estimated-mcfs .unnumbered}
========================================================
![ $W(s)$ and $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ of the BigMD $z=0.5$ halos, measured in the backgrounds of the fiducial cosmology and a wrong one. Using equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\], we can estimate the wrong cosmology results in a fast speed while still maintaining an enough accuracy. []{data-label="fig_wrong_cosmos"}](wrong_cosmos.eps){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig\_wrong\_cosmos\] shows $W(s)$, $W_{\Delta s}(\mu)$ in the fiducial cosmology $(\Omega_m,w)=(0.3071,-1)$, and in the background of a wrong cosmology $(\Omega_m,w)=(0.5,-1)$. The results in the wrong background are computed in two ways, the precise measurement obtained by constructing the sample in the wrong background and then re-measuring the MCFs, and also the approximate results inferred using equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\], Inspected by eye, we find the approximate results are very close to their precise correspondance.
Since equations \[eq\_smu\_trans1\] and \[eq\_smu\_trans2\] do not capture the change of the weights in the different backgrounds, it is important to check its influence. Here we showed that it is minor compared with the cosmological effect.
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Kwan-Chuen Chan and Xin Wang for helpful discussions. XDL acknowledges the supported from NSFC grant (No. 11803094), the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (No. 202002030360). CGS acknowledges financial support from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF; \#2020R1I1A1A01073494). J.E. F-R acknowledges support from COLCIENCIAS Contract No. 287-2016, Project 1204-712-50459. We acknowledge the use of the [*Kunlun*]{} cluster, a supercomputer owned by the School of Physics and Astronomy, Sun Yat-Sen University.
The CosmoSim database used in this paper is a service by the Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP). The MultiDark database was developed in cooperation with the Spanish MultiDark Consolider Project CSD2009-00064.
[^1]: https://desi.lbl.gov/
[^2]: http://sci.esa.int/euclid/
[^3]: https://www.lsst.org/
[^4]: https://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[^5]: webpage: https://www.cosmosim.org
[^6]: Notice that these three parameters are actually not independent; $\sigma_8$ is usually considered as a derived parameter crucially dependent on $\Omega_m$ and $A_s$.
[^7]: Here we use $s$ instead of $r$ because the statistics is usually performed using the redshift space positions, due to the RSDs they are related with each other via $s = r+v/(aH)$.
[^8]: Here we do not study the higher order multipoles, since the $\mu$-dependence is studied in the next Section using another statistical quantity.
[^9]: Not only the locations of the peaks/valleys are insensitive to the background change, we find their heights also being rather insensitive to the background. The reason is that, by maintaining a same number density in all backgrounds, we are selecting objects with different bias; the change in the bias counteracts the effect of the background alteration on the clustering strength.
[^10]: The covariance matrix of different $\alpha$s have very different magnitude, so we plot the correlation coefficients.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We calculate the linear conductance of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG)-based junction between a normal semiconductor section and a hybrid semiconductor-superconductor section, under perpendicular magnetic field. We consider two important terms often neglected in the literature, the magneto-orbital and transverse Rashba spin-orbit. The strong orbital effect due to the magnetic field yields topological phase transitions to nontrivial phases hosting Majorana modes in the hybrid section. The presence of a potential barrier at the junction interface reveals the Majorana phases as quantized plateaus of high conductance, for low values of the chemical potential. In wide junctions (or large chemical potentials) the phase transitions occur at low magnetic fields but the magneto-conductance becomes anomalous and lacks clearly quantized plateaus.'
author:
- Llorenç Serra
- Kaveh Delfanazari
bibliography:
- 'NSpap.bib'
title: 'Magneto-conductance of topological junctions based on two-dimensional electron gases reveals Majorana phases'
---
Introduction
============
Majorana modes in nanostructures have been attracting strong interest since the experiments in semiconductor nanowires gave initial evidence on their real existence,[@Mourik; @Das; @Deng; @Finck; @Churchill] in agreement with earlier theoretical studies (see Refs. for reviews). Additional experimental evidence has been also obtained more recently.[@Al16; @Den16; @Nic17; @HaoZ; @HaoZ2; @deM18; @Gri19; @Bom19] In semiconductor nanowires, Majorana states at the end points of the wire can be engineered by combining three essential ingredients; spin-orbit interaction, magnetic field and superconductivity. While the spin-orbit coupling is intrinsic to the semiconductor, the other two ingredients are not; superconductivity can be induced by proximity with a nearby bulk superconductor and the magnetic field has to be tuned externally. Although quantum wires are, ultimately, idealizations of 1D systems, it soon became of interest to theorists the relevance of multi bands in quasi-1D (q1D) nanowires with transverse degrees of freedom; either 2D-q1D strips with a lateral width,[@Pot11; @Lut11; @Lim12b; @Rai13; @San14; @Sed15] or 3D-q1D nanowires with a given shape of the transverse cross section.[@Groth14; @Nij16; @Man17; @Stanescu19]
The 2D-q1D geometry is of special interest, as it relates to semiconductor 2D electron gases (2DEG’s) of widespread application in semiconductor nanodevices. The induced supercondutivity in 2DEG’s and planar Josephson junctions has been demonstrated in Refs. . In this planar geometry, a perpendicular magnetic field has a paramount influence on the motion of quasiparticles in the plane; the scenario of the well studied quantum Hall effect. In our context of hybrid semiconductor-superconductor systems, the relevance of the magneto-orbital effect for the characterization of topological phases has been studied in different geometries; cylinders,[@Lim13; @Dmy18] faceted wires[@Nij16; @Man17] and 2D strips or ribbons [@Osc15; @Now18; @Now18b]. In 2D strips it is generally assumed that a perpendicular field is detrimental for the Majorana modes and a parallel field is more often considered where the magnetic effect is restricted to a Zeeman coupling with the quasiparticle spin. In Ref. it was shown that when tilting the field from the horizontal orientation towards the vertical orientation there are critical angles beyond which observing the Majorana mode is no longer possible for weak SO coupling. Remarkably, however, it was predicted that with stronger couplings (relative to the transverse confinement energy) there are parameter ranges where end Majorana modes may be present even in fully perpendicular fields. For a theoretical study, a disadvantage of the perpendicular field in 2D-q1D geometry is that the determination of the topological transitions is not known analytically but only numerically; approximate analytical limits require a few-band truncation.[@Now18] On the other hand, as mentioned above, the perpendicular field geometry is more convenient experimentally, since in this case the field has a maximal influence and thus lower fields are more effective for parameter tuning.
In this work we analyze the topological phase diagrams of 2D-q1D strips in presence of vertical field. We show that the magneto-orbital effect leads to nontrivial Majorana phases for relatively low values of the field, depending on the chemical potential and intensity of the SO coupling. We then consider transport in 2D-q1D junctions between a normal semiconductor and a hybrid semiconductor-superconductor, with the purpose of identifying signatures of the nontrivial Majorana phases of the hybrid strip in the linear conductance of the junction. We find that for low values of the chemical potential the junction conductance clearly reveals the topological phases as quantized conductance plateaus, robust against the presence of an interface potential barrier. On the contrary, the linear conductance of the trivial phases is severely quenched by an interface barrier. This clear difference in conductance between trivial and topological phases is restricted to relatively low chemical potentials, while it degrades for higher values. We then consider wider junctions, where the SO becomes stronger relative to the transverse confinement energy, showing that the topological regions shrink toward zero field; i.e., the sequence of multiple transitions trivial-topological-trivial…takes place at lower fields than in narrow junctions. On the whole, our results clarify the theoretical scenario for topological transitions of hybrid 2DEG strips in vertical magnetic fields, specifically showing how the junction magneto-conductance reveals such topological phases.
Model
=====
We use the model of a hybrid semiconducting-superconducting 2D-q1D wire (as reviewed, e.g., in Ref. ). Quasiparticle motion in the $xy$ plane is described with continuum coordinates $(x,y)$, with $y$ restricted to $-L_y/2<y<L_y/2$, i.e., a strip of width $L_y$. Spin and electron-hole (isospin) degrees of freedom are treated as discrete quantum variables with $\sigma_{xyz}$ and $\tau_{xyz}$ Pauli matrices, respectively. The Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} &=& \left( \frac{p_{x}^{2}+p_y^2}{2m} -\mu \right)\tau_z
+\frac{\alpha}{\hbar}\, \left(\, p_x \sigma_{y} - p_y \sigma_{x}\, \right)\tau_z
\nonumber\\
&+&
\Delta_B\, \sigma_z + \Delta_0\, \tau_{x}\nonumber\\
&+& \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m l^4_z}y^2 \tau_z
-\frac{\hbar}{m l^2_z}y\,p_x
- \frac{\alpha}{l^2_z}y \sigma_y
\; ,
\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$, $\Delta_B$ and $\Delta_0$ are the SO, Zeeman and pairing parameters, respectively. The Zeeman energy $\Delta_B$ is related to the field $B$ by $\Delta_B=g^*\mu_B B/2$, where $g^*$ is the gyromagnetic factor. The last three terms of Eq. (\[eq1\]), depending on the magnetic length $l_z^{-2}=eB/\hbar c$, are the orbital field terms. The chemical potential is represented by parameter $\mu$.
We obtain below solutions of Schrödinger’s stationary equation for a given energy $E$, $$\left( \mathcal{H} - E \right) \Psi(xy\eta_\sigma\eta_\tau)= 0\;,$$ where $\eta_{\sigma,\tau}=1,2$ are the discrete spin and isospin variables, respectively. We use the complex band structure approach, where the $x$ dependence of the the wave function is expanded in a set of wave numbers $k$, including real (propagating) and complex (evanescent) modes. The $y$ dependence is described in a 1D grid of uniformly distributed points and a general wave function is represented as $$\Psi(xy\eta_\sigma\eta_\tau)=
\sum_k{
C_k\, e^{ikx}\, \Phi_k{(y,\eta_\sigma\eta_\tau)}
},
\label{eq3}$$ where the $\Phi_k$’s are determined from the solution of the 1D $k$-dependent eigenvalue problem (see below) and the $C_k$’s are the set of complex amplitudes representing a given state.[@Osc19]
The $\Phi_k$’s in Eq. (\[eq3\]) are the transverse states of an infinite homogenous strip. They characterize the strip band structure $\varepsilon(k)$, for real values of $k$, from the eigenvalue equation $$h_k \Phi_k(y\eta_\sigma\eta_\tau)=\varepsilon_k\Phi_k(y\eta_\sigma\eta_\tau)\; ,
\label{eq4n}$$ where the 1D Hamiltonian $h_k$ is obtained by the replacement $p_x\to\hbar k$ in the general Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ of Eq. (\[eq1\]). The strip topological transitions are characterized by the $k=0$ gap closings,[@Lutchyn; @Ore10] i.e., by the condition $\varepsilon_0=0$. Specifically, we will analyze below the $B$-$\mu$ phase diagram of the topological strip determining the $\varepsilon_0=0$ curves in the diagram. Besides, it is also of interest to determine the regions where the global gap, i.e., the eigenvalue $\varepsilon_k$ for some $k$ not necessarily zero, vanishes.[@Kli12] This global gap vanishing condition $\varepsilon_k=0$ defines sizeable portions of the $B$-$\mu$ plane, the gapless regions, in addition to the mentioned $\varepsilon_0=0$ curves of zero measure in the plane. In the gapless regions there are propagating states at zero energy and, therefore, any localized zero mode like the Majorana mode will decay into those extended states.
In practice, we have determined the eigenvalues and eigenstates of Eq. (\[eq4n\]) numerically, discretizing the $y$ coordinate in a uniform grid and using sparse matrix diagonalization techniques.[@arpack] This method is very efficient computationally and allows well converged results with the use of large enough grids ($\gtrapprox 100$ points). In the junction case the Hamiltonian parameters are no longer constant since we assume a vanishing pairing $\Delta_0=0$ for $x<0$; corresponding to the normal semiconductor. The scattering problem is then solved as in Ref., determining the transmission and reflection probabilities corresponding to a given incident mode. Adding the contributions from all possible incident modes we determine the linear conductance $G$ as[@Blo85] $$G= \frac{e^2}{h}\left(\,N-R+R_A\right)\; ,
\label{eq4}$$ where $N$ is the number of incident electron modes, $R$ is the normal reflection probability and $R_A$ is the Andreev reflection probability. Equation (\[eq4\]) contains the well-known result that while normal reflections decrease the conductance, Andreev reflection processes, whereby incident electron quasiparticles are reflected as holes, enhance the conductance.
Results
=======
Phase diagrams
--------------
Figure \[Fig1\] shows the $B$-$\mu$ phase diagrams of a hybrid strip of $L_y=150$ nm for different values of the SO coupling $\alpha$. Since the value of $\alpha$ is sample dependent and it can be actually tuned with electric fields we have chosen some representative values within the typical range of InAs 2DEG’s with the purpose of investigating the tendency for increasing or decreasing $\alpha$.[@Tak17] The topological regions with one Majorana mode are indicated by the cyan lines in Fig. \[Fig1\]. Considering, for instance, an evolution of parameters with constant $\mu$ and increasing $B$ from the trivial $B=0$ phase, there is a phase transition to a one-Majorana phase whenever a cyan line is first crossed. That is, the cyan lines are enclosing one-Majorana phases in a background of trivial phase. A similar topology of the $B$-$\mu$ plane was already obtained in Ref. but neglecting the terms in $\alpha p_y$ and all the orbital $l_z$ terms. We find that the shape of the transition borders is strongly affected by these terms, that actually dominate for large enough fields. Remarkably, we also find a [*Majorana island*]{} surrounded by trivial phase in Fig. \[Fig1\]b.
There is a clear correspondence in Fig. \[Fig1\] between one-Majorana regions and regions with an odd number $N$ of electron propagating modes in the normal strip (the strip with $\Delta_0=0$ and the same rest of parameters). The latter are shown by the colorscale background in Fig. \[Fig1\], only minor deviations at very small fields can be observed between both types of regions. This relation is not obvious a priori and it was already pointed out in Ref. as a correspondence between the topological number $|Q|$ of the hybrid system and the number of propagating modes $N$ of the normal one. We find that such correspondence is thus preserved by the magneto-orbital terms.
The boundary for the activation of propagating modes in the hybrid system is indicated by the blue lines in Fig. \[Fig1\]; the gapless phase corresponding to the upper right corner of each panel. In this gapless phase the Majorana mode looses its protection as it decays into propagating modes with the same zero energy. As mentioned above, the gapless phase is a sizeable region where propagating modes exist for a specific finite (nonvanishing) $k$ and it should be distinguished from the cyan lines in Fig. \[Fig1\] representing gap closing only for $k=0$.
The magneto-conductance plateaus
--------------------------------
We turn now to calculating the magneto-conductance $G(B)$ when a normal lead is attached to a hybrid semi infinite strip, forming a 2D-q1D junction (see sketch in Fig. \[Fig2\]d). We will focus on the the small bias (linear) regime obtaining the conductance from Eq. (\[eq4\]) and including a potential barrier $V_0$ of length $L_x$ near the junction edge in order to tune the effective coupling between the N and hS parts. We choose a fixed value of $\mu$ and then sweep $B$ in order to probe the different system phases displayed in Fig. \[Fig1\]. The results of Fig. \[Fig2\] show some representative cases; panel a) corresponds to $\mu=1.5\; {\rm meV}$ in Fig. \[Fig1\]a, panel b) to $\mu=0.5\; {\rm meV}$ in Fig. \[Fig1\]b and panel c) to $\mu=4.5\;{\rm meV}$ in Fig. \[Fig1\]b. The different conductance traces in each panel correspond to increasing barrier heights $V_0$ at the interface; higher $V_0$ corresponding to the lower value of the conductance. The vertical grey bars in Fig. \[Fig2\] are the topological region boundaries from Fig. \[Fig1\].
\[Fig2\]
It is remarkable that the interface barrier $V_0$ strongly quenches the conductance of the trivial regions in Figs. \[Fig2\]a and \[Fig2\]b, while it leaves almost unaffected the conductance of the topological phases. This behavior can be explained by the strong sensitivity of the Andreev reflection to the barrier in the trivial phases. On the other hand, the presence of a Majorana mode in the topological phases leads to more robust quantized conductance plateaus. The topological robustness against an interface barrier provides an interesting experimental way to discern the presence of a Majorana mode. This appealing scenario, however, is valid only for relatively low chemical potentials. As shown in Fig. \[Fig2\]c, with larger chemical potentials the barrier sensitivity is no longer resolving well the trivial and topological phases; rather, it yields a different behavior at low and high fields, irrespectively of the topological phase in each case. At low fields the conductance is always quenched while at high fields it always remains quantized. Besides, with larger $\mu$ there are propagating modes induced by the magnetic field beyond a certain value, indicated by the dashed line in Fig. \[Fig2\]c. This opening of transmision channels causes a counterintuitive effect; a conductance decrease due to the decrease of Andreev reflection $R_A$.
\[Fig3\]
Dependence on $L_y$
-------------------
We consider next the influence of varying $L_y$ on the above results. In wider junctions the effective energy scale set by the transverse confinement is reduced and, therefore, a fixed $\mu$ and $\alpha$ values will evolve from weak to strong regime by simply increasing $L_y$. The phase diagram for $L_y=225$ nm is shown in Fig. \[Fig3\]. We notice that, within the explored window, the tendency with increasing $L_y$ is to shrink a sequence of topological regions towards lower fields, from two regions with $B<1.5\; {\rm T}$ in Fig. \[Fig1\]c to three regions in Fig. \[Fig3\]a. The gapless part, shown by the blue line, is enlarged with respect to Fig \[Fig1\], thus leaving the protected Majorana phases only for rather small fields. Therefore, there is a severe compromise when increasing $L_y$ between the sequence of low field topological transitions and the gap closing for propagating modes.
Figures \[Fig3\]b and c show the conductance traces for two selected values of the chemical potential of Fig. \[Fig3\]a. In these cases, the effect of the interface barrier is not clearly identifying the Majorana phases. This is similar to the result in Fig. \[Fig2\]c, indicating that with larger $L_y$’s the identification of robust Majorana plateaus as in Fig. \[Fig2\]ab is not possible by simply increasing $V_0$. This can be understood noting that the larger $L_y$ implies a lower confinement energy and, thus, the requirement of low values of chemical potential already obtained in Fig. \[Fig2\] becomes even more restrictive for Fig. \[Fig3\]. We want to stress, however, that even in cases when the interface barrier is not yielding perfectly quantized plateaus in the topological regions, the conductance still manifests a non monotonous $B$ dependence, usually with minima before the onset of a topological region, in Fig. \[Fig3\]bc. This [*anomalous*]{} magneto-conductance at low fields, as compared to a smooth decrease due to the magnetic depopulation of propagating bands, still originates in the topological transitions of the hybrid system.
With a smaller width, $L_y=112\; {\rm nm}$ in Fig. \[Fig4\], the magneto-conductance scenario of topological quantized plateaus and quenched trivial regions is reinforced. In this case, the hybrid part is always gapped and the Majorana regions are more separated, for the inspected window of parameters in Fig. \[Fig4\]a. Even the relatively larger chemical potential $\mu=3\;{\rm meV}$ is showing a quenched conductance around $B\approx 2\; {\rm T}$ in Fig.\[Fig4\]b followed by a sharp increase when entering the topological phase around $B\approx 2.6\; {\rm T}$.
\[Fig4\]
Conclusions
===========
We have calculated the phase diagrams of hybrid semiconductor-superconductor 2DEG strips in vertical magnetic field. The $\mu$-$B$ plane contains Majorana regions that depend on the values of SO coupling ($\alpha$) and transverse width ($L_y$). For increasing $L_y$’s or increasing $\alpha$’s the topological regions are squeezed towards lower fields. We have then investigated the magneto-conductance of the junction between a normal and a hybrid strip, in presence of a potential barrier at the interface. For low values of the chemical potential we find a magneto-conductance scenario of robust quantized topological plateaus and quenched trivial regions, with respect to an interface potential barrier. More in general, for higher chemical potentials or transverse widths, we find that the sequence of topological regions with increasing field causes a nonmonotonous magneto-conductance, with anomalous steps and minima usually before the onset of topological regions, in presence of an interface barrier.
Our results suggest a direct validation of the topological phases in 2D junctions by means of magneto-conductance measurements. The strong orbital magnetic effect in perpendicular field can be used advantageously to engineer topological transitions at relatively low fields in hybrid semiconductor-superconductor 2DEG strips. We calculated a lowest critical field of $B_c\approx 0.2\,{\rm T}$ with the parameters of Fig. \[Fig3\], but even lower $B_c$’s would be achieved with smaller pairings $\Delta_0<0.3\; {\rm meV}$ and wider junctions $L_y>225\,{\rm nm}$.
We acknowledge support from MINECO (Spain), grant MAT2017-82639, and from EPSRC (UK).
\[Fig5\]
Phase diagrams without orbital effects
======================================
Since the magneto-orbital terms are often neglected in the literature, it is worth confronting our above results for the full Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[eq1\]), with the case of total absence of orbital contributions; that is, neglecting the last three terms depending on the magnetic length $l_z$ in Eq. (\[eq1\]). Another frequent simplifying assumption in the literature is neglecting the transverse Rashba SO term $\propto\alpha p_y\sigma_x$ in Eq. (\[eq1\]). This transverse SO term is the source in multiband wires for the coupling between Majorana modes of different bands, leading to an effective repulsion between different Majorana regions of the phase diagram.
Figure \[Fig5\] confirms that in absence of orbital effects the Majorana phases, highlighted by the cyan lines, appear at larger fields. Comparing Fig. \[Fig5\]a to the corresponding Fig. \[Fig1\]c with the same $\alpha$ and $L_y$, we notice the high relevance of the orbital effect on the phase diagram. While the absolute lowest critical field in Fig. \[Fig1\]c is $B_c\approx 0.2\; {\rm T}$ achieved for $\mu\approx 2$ and $4.5\; {\rm meV}$, in Fig. \[Fig5\]a it is $B_c\approx 1\; {\rm T}$ for $\mu\approx 0.2\; {\rm meV}$. Thus, orbital field effects can not be neglected in a quantitative study of the critical fields of hybrid strips. It is also worth stressing that the whole window of parameters represented in Fig. \[Fig5\]a corresponds to a gapped spectrum (excluding, of course, the $k=0$ gap-closing lines of the phase transition boundaries); while in Fig. \[Fig1\]c there is a sizeable gapless region highlighted by a blue line. The orbital terms thus favour the gap closing of the spectrum in larger regions, lowering the parameter ranges where Majorana protection is ensured. We have also checked that similar modifications are obtained neglecting orbital terms in the other two panels of Fig. \[Fig1\] for the larger values of $\alpha$.
Neglecting the Rashba transverse term $\alpha p_y\sigma_x$, in addition to the orbital terms, leads to the phase diagram of Fig. \[Fig5\]b. In this case, the Majorana region boundaries are analytical[@Lutchyn; @Ore10] $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!
\Delta_B &=& \sqrt{\Delta_0^2+\left(\mu-\frac{\hbar^2\pi^2 n^2}{2mL_y^2}\right)^2}\; , \;\;
n=1,2,\dots\; ,\end{aligned}$$ the condition for the absolute lowest critical field being $\Delta_B=\Delta_0$ for values of the chemical potential equal to the successive transverse eigen energies $\mu=\hbar^2\pi^2n^2/(2 m L_y^2)$ with $n=1,2,\dots$. Since we assumed $\Delta_0=0.3\;{\rm meV}$, this corresponds in Fig. \[Fig5\]b to $B_c\approx 0.7\; {\rm T}$ for $\mu\approx (0.5, 2, 4.5, \dots)\; {\rm meV}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Previous studies have found that calculations which consider long-range magnetic dipolar interactions truncated at a finite cut-off distance $R_c$ predict spurious (unphysical) long-range ordered phases for Ising and Heisenberg systems on the pyrochlore lattice. In this paper we show that, similar to these two cases, calculations that use truncated dipolar interactions to model the Gd$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ garnet antiferromagnet also predict unphysical phases with incommensurate ordering wave vector ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ that is very sensitive to the dipolar cut-off distance $R_c$.'
address:
- ' $^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada'
- ' $^2$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand'
- ' $^3$Department of Physics, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, CT 06515, USA'
author:
- 'Taras Yavors’kii$^1$, Michel J P Gingras$^{1,2}$, Matthew Enjalran$^3$'
title: '[Ill-Behaved Convergence of a Model of the Gd$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ Garnet Antiferromagnet with Truncated Magnetic Dipole-Dipole Interactions]{}'
---
: GGG, dipolar interactions, Ewald method
Introduction
============
There are currently many highly-frustrated magnetic materials being experimentally studied where the magnetic species consist of a rare-earth 4f ion, such as Ho$^{3+}$, Dy$^{3+}$, Gd$^{3+}$ or Tb$^{3+}$, which can have a large magnetic dipole moment. Because of the large moment, the long-range dipole-dipole interactions in these systems are an important part of the full spin Hamiltonian. The role of dipolar interactions in highly frustrated magnetic Ising systems has been systematically investigated for the three-dimensional pyrochlore lattice of corner-sharing tetrahedra [@Gingras-CJP; @Melko; @Isakov-PRL].
In highly-frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnets of corner-sharing triangles or tetrahedra, any state with zero total magnetic moment on each elementary triangle or tetrahedron unit is a classical ground state [@Moessner-Chalker]. There are an infinite number of such spin configurations and this is why these systems fail to develop conventional magnetic order at nonzero temperature [@Moessner-Chalker]. In cases where dipolar interactions are somewhat weaker than nearest-neighbor exchange interactions, one might have naively assumed that the long-range dipolar interactions can be truncated at a finite cut-off distance, $R_c$, since the nearest-neighbor exchange energetically controls and enforces the nearest-neighbor correlations. Previous studies on the Ising spin ice pyrochlore systems [@Gingras-CJP; @Melko; @Isakov-PRL] and the Heisenberg pyrochlore antiferromagnet [@Enjalran-condmat; @Cepas] have found that this naive expectation is erroneous and that truncating the dipolar interactions at a finite cut-off distance $R_c$ leads to spurious (unphysical) long-range ordered phases, and that it is crucial to consider dipolar interactions to infinite distance ($R_c=\infty$). In this paper we report a third example of a highly frustrated spin system which is very sensitive to the dipolar cut-off. Specifically, we consider a Heisenberg model on the three-dimensional garnet lattice structure of corner-shared triangles. Our work extends the study of a dipolar Ising version of the model on a garnet lattice [@Yoshioka04] and is relevant to the ultimate understanding of the nature of the incommensurate spin-spin correlations that develop in the Gd$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ garnet (GGG) antiferromagnet below a temperature of 500 mK [@Petrenko-PRL; @Petrenko-Physica].
Model and method
================
In order to investigate the problem of an adequate treatment of the dipolar interactions in GGG, we consider below a minimal model Hamiltonian $H$ for it. To best expose the physics of a truncated dipolar lattice sum, we ignore the effects of the quantum nature of the Gd$^{3+}$ spins, lattice disorder [@Petrenko-PRL], exchange interactions beyond nearest neighbors [@Petrenko-PRL; @Wolf; @condmat0511403] and possible single ion anisotropy [@Rimai], all of which are potentially important for a thorough quantitative understanding of GGG. We describe the magnetic $\rm Gd^{3+}$ spins ${\bf S}$ as classical and isotropic $n=3$ component (Heisenberg) vectors of the length $\sqrt{({\rm S}({\rm S}+1))}$ (${\rm S}=7/2$) coupled by frustrated antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor exchange and long range dipolar interactions, of strength $J=0.107$ K and $D=0.0457$ K, respectively [@Wolf; @condmat0511403]: $$\nonumber
H= \;J\; \sum_{<i,j>} {\bf S}_i\cdot{\bf S}_j\; +
\;D\; \sum_{i>j}
\frac{1}{r_{ij}^3}\, \left[ {\bf S}_i\cdot{\bf S}_j-3\,({\bf S}_i\cdot\hat{r}_{ij}) ({\bf S}_j
\cdot\hat{r}_{ij})\right ].
\label{Ham}$$ In Eq. (\[Ham\]), $i, j$ span the sites of the GGG lattice (see Fig. 2 in Ref. [@Wolf] for the GGG lattice structure) which are separated by vectors ${\bf r}_{ij} \equiv r_{ij} \hat{r}_{ij}$ of directions $\hat{r}_{ij}$; $\langle i, j \rangle$ denotes pairs of nearest neighbors. The size of the GGG conventional cubic cell is $a= 12.349$ Å [@Petrenko-PRL].
(450,390) (0,200)[{width="50mm"}]{} (150,200)[{width="50mm"}]{} (300,200)[{width="50mm"}]{} (0,15)[{width="50mm"}]{} (150,15)[{width="50mm"}]{} (300,15)[{width="50mm"}]{}
We aim to identify the critical (or, soft) modes of model (\[Ham\]) for which a magnetic instability first develops as the temperature, $T$, is reduced. We consider the soft mode spectrum in the Gaussian (mean-field theory, or MFT) approximation [@MFT]. Following Ref. [@MFT], we apply MFT to calculate the neutron scattering intensity $I({\bf q})$. This allows for a convenient way of analyzing the physical influence of finite $R_c$ on the magnetic correlations as well as for a direct comparison with experimental data [@Petrenko-PRL]: $$\label{Sofq}
I({\bf q}) = [f(|{\bf q}|)]^2 \times \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}
1/N \sum_{ij} \langle {\bf S}_{i}^{\perp}
\cdot{{\bf S}}_{j}^{\perp} \rangle e^{\imath{\bf {q}}\cdot{\bf {r}}_{ij}}\,.$$ Here, angular brackets denote a thermal average, $N$ is the number of spins, ${\bf S}_i^\perp$ represents the components of spin ${\bf S}_i$ at site $i$ perpendicular to the scattering vector ${\bf q}$, and $f(|{\bf q}|)$ is the magnetic form-factor of Gd$^{3+}$[@Brown]. The MFT expression for $I({\bf q})$ [@MFT] is obtained from the eigenvalues $\lambda^{\alpha}({\bf q})$ and eigenvectors of the basis-diagonalization of the Fourier transform of exchange and dipolar interactions in Eq. (\[Ham\]) [@MFT]: $$\label{IqMFT}
I({\bf q}) = [f(|{\bf q}|)]^2 \sum_{\alpha}
\frac{|{\bf F}^{\alpha}_{\perp}({\bf q})|^2}
{\left(n - \lambda^{\alpha}({\bf q})/T\right)} \,.$$ Here $\alpha=\{1,\ldots,n\cdot N_b=36\}$ enumerates the eigenvalues and the vector ${\bf F}^{\alpha}_{\perp}({\bf q})$ incorporates information on the eigenvectors and represents the role of the paramagnetic form factor of the GGG primitive unit cell, which contains $N_b=12$ ions. The ordering wave vector ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ is given by locating in the first Brillouin zone the global maximum, $\lambda_{\rm max}$, of the maximum value (upper branch), $\lambda^{\rm up} ({\bf q})$, among the 36 $\lambda^\alpha ({\bf q})$ eigenvalues. The mean field critical temperature, $T_c^{\rm MFT}=\lambda_{\rm max}/n$, is used to define a (positive) dimensionless temperature $\tau=T/T_{\rm c}^{\rm MFT}-1$ to serve as a natural energy scale.
Results
=======
With the aim of studying the effect of the dipolar cut-off on the magnetic correlations of model (\[Ham\]), we first compute, for various $R_c$, $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ for arbitrary ${\bf q}$ in the first Brillouin zone. Technically, we calculate the $\lambda^{\alpha}({\bf q})$ modes on a finite $32^3$ ${\bf q}$-space grid in the zone, and obtain their values at any ${\bf q}$ using a three dimensional cubic interpolation procedure. We verify the grid-independence of the results by considering denser grids and by cross-checking the interpolated results with exact calculations at judiciously chosen ${\bf q}$ values.
We find that the dipolar term of Eq. (\[Ham\]) selects a unique ordering wave vector ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ with corresponding mode $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q}_{\rm ord})$ out of the massively degenerate spectrum of soft modes of the nearest-neighbor model at any cut-off distance $R_c>1$. The ordering wavevector ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ was found to belong to the (hhl) planes of the first Brillouin zone for all $R_c>1$. However, its location in those planes is very sensitive to $R_c$. We display this in Fig. \[hhlRc.eps\] by showing the dependence of the $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ modes on ${\bf q}$ in the (hhl) plane for $R_c=3,4,5,100,1000$. We note their three important properties as reflected in Fig. \[hhlRc.eps\]. First, for each value of $R_c$, $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ is characterized by a relatively small overall dispersion $\lambda_{\rm max}/\lambda_{\rm min}-1 \approx 10\%$ throughout the zone, where $\lambda_{\rm min}$ is the global minimum of the branch. Even within the interval 1% below $\lambda_{\rm max}$ (or at 13% of the overall dispersion, as delineated by the outermost isolines), $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ covers the major part of the (hhl) plane. Second, though the general topology of $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ within the Brillouin zone is preserved with varying dipolar cut-off distance $R_c$, its fine structure is manifestly sensitive to $R_c$. The ordering wave vector ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ displays a non-monotonous dependence upon $R_c$ as shown in Fig. \[hhlRc.eps\] by its movement throughout the zone. Third, ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$ converges to a well-defined value, and so does the dispersion of $\lambda^{\rm up}({\bf q})$ away from ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}$, at large values of $R_c$, as is evident by comparing the $R_c=1000$ panel with the limiting case of $R_c=\infty$, recast by the Ewald method [@MFT]. These are the central results of the paper.
(450,330) (5,320) (215,320) (5,160) (215,160)
We now proceed to calculate the neutron scattering intensity $I({\bf q})$ of model (\[Ham\]) within the MFT scheme, Eq. (\[IqMFT\]). Unlike the spectra $\lambda^{\alpha}({\bf q})$, $I({\bf q})$ can be directly compared to experiments, such as the one on a powder sample of GGG in zero external magnetic field [@Petrenko-PRL]. We determine the powder intensity $I(q)$ by numerically calculating the spherical average of $I({\bf q})$, which entails the application of a cubic interpolation procedure separately to the numerator and denominator of Eq. (\[IqMFT\]). To illustrate the influence of $R_c$ on the spin-spin correlations of model (\[Ham\]), we show in Fig. \[fc.eps\] the MFT powder scattering profiles $I(q)$ of model (\[Ham\]) at several $R_c=3,10,100,\infty$.
The $I(q)$ profiles show different degrees of dependence on the dipolar cut-off distance $R_c$ at different dimensionless MFT temperatures $\tau$ (Fig. \[fc.eps\]). At temperatures sufficiently far from the mean-field critical regime (Fig. \[fc.eps\], $\tau =0.1$), the magnetic correlations are not very sensitive to $R_c$. In fact, it has been found in Monte Carlo simulations [@Petrenko-PRL], that paramagnetic liquid-like correlations of GGG can be well described by completely ignoring the dipolar term. At $\tau\approx0.01$ the profiles start to capture the effect of the dipolar interactions on the magnetic correlations. The effect turns out to depend on $R_c$. Indeed, at $\tau\approx0.001$[^1] the profiles clearly display a specific ${q}-$dependence sensitive to the chosen $R_c$. Starting from this regime, the influence of small $R_c$ becomes uncontrollable, as seen by the formation of Bragg peaks at spurious ordering wave vectors (cf. Fig. \[hhlRc.eps\]). Figure \[fc.eps\] shows that even the consideration of a rather large dipolar cut-off of $R_c=100$ does not allow one to reproduce magnetic correlations consistent with the physical $R_c=\infty$ limit. This, together with the incommensurability of the fundamental ordering wave vector of the physical $R_c=\infty$ case: ${\bf q}_{\rm ord}= 2\pi/a \; (0.348\;0.348\;0.253)$ strongly warns against using a standard Monte Carlo method with periodic boundary conditions to tackle this problem. Moreover, we anticipate that a $1/L^3$ finite-size correction of the real space representation of the Ewald interactions would be sufficiently large for numerically accessible system sizes so as to prohibit a quantitative disentanglement of the role of perturbative terms [@Petrenko-PRL; @condmat0511403; @Rimai] to model (\[Ham\]), presumably a necessary condition for obtaining a quantitative description of the experimental incommensurate magnetic correlations [@Petrenko-PRL] in GGG.
Conclusion
==========
To conclude, we have identified another example of a highly frustrated Heisenberg antiferromagnetic system, namely that on the garnet lattice, where the selection of the soft mode is sensitive to an ad-hoc cut-off distance $R_c$ of the dipolar interactions. This adds to the cases of the Ising (spin ice) [@Gingras-CJP; @Melko; @Isakov-PRL] and the dipolar Heisenberg antiferromagnets [@Enjalran-condmat; @Cepas], both on the pyrochlore lattice. Continued progress in understanding GGG may be possible provided the dipolar interactions are treated at their physical infinite cut-off limit $R_c=\infty$. This will, however, require systematic investigations of the roles of long-range exchange [@condmat0511403] and single ion anisotropy [@Rimai] in this material. Finally, we note that the positions and relative intensity of the $I(q)$ maxima differ dramatically from those found experimentally (Fig. 2a of Ref. [@Petrenko-PRL]); an adjustment of $\tau$ does not solve the discrepancy. This may indicate that a quantitative description of the low-temperature spin-spin correlations in GGG requires inclusion of exchange interactions beyond nearest neighbours [@Wolf; @condmat0511403] and/or single ion anisotropy.
Support for this work was provided by the NSERC of Canada, the Canada Research Chair Program (Tier I, M.G), the Province of Ontario and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. M.G. thanks the U. of Canterbury (UC) for an Erskine Fellowship and the hospitality of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC where part of this work was completed.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
Gingras M J P and den Hertog B C 2001 [*Can. J. Phys.*]{} [**79**]{} 1339–51
Melko R G and Gingras M J P 2004 [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**16**]{} R1277–319
Isakov S V, Moessner R and Sondhi S L 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{} 217201
Moessner R and Chalker J T 1998 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**58**]{} 12049–62
Enjalran M and Gingras M J P 2003 [*Preprint*]{} cond-mat/0307152
Cépas O and Shastry B S 2004 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**69**]{} 184402, and references therein
Yoshioka T, Koga A and Kawakami N 2004 [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**73**]{} 1805–11
Petrenko O A, Ritter C, Yethiraj M and McK Paul D 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 4570–3
Petrenko O A, McK Paul D, Ritter C, Zeiske T and Yethiraj M 1999 [*Physica B*]{} [**266**]{} 41–8
Kinney W I and Wolf W P 1979 [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{} 2115–7
Yavors’kii T, Enjalran M and Gingras M J P, cond-mat/0511403
Rimai L and deMars G A 1962 [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{} 1254–6
Enjalran M and Gingras M J P 2004 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**70**]{} 174426, and references therein
Brown P J 1983–1993 [*Magnetic form factors*]{}, chap. 4.4.5, in: [*International tables for crystallography*]{}, vol. C, 391–9, ed A J C Wilson (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co.).
[^1]: The powder MFT Bragg intensities grow as $\log|\tau|$ as opposed to the $1/\tau$ growth of the ${\bf q}$-dependent intensities. This explains the necessity of considering rather small $\tau$ in order to theoretically approach the critical regime.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent article Tran [*et al.*]{} \[Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 172505 (2008)\] report on the result of the muon-spin rotation ($\mu$SR) measurements of Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ superconductor. Based on the analysis of the temperature and the magnetic field dependence of the Gaussian relaxation rate $\sigma_{sc}$ they suggest that Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ is the superconductor with two isotropic $s-$wave like gaps. An additional confirmation was obtained from the specific heat data published earlier by partly the same group of authors in \[Acta Mater. [**56**]{}, 5694 (2008)\]. The purpose of this Comment is to point out that from the analysis made by Tran [*et al.*]{} the presence of two superconducting energy gaps in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ can not be justified. The analysis of $\mu$SR data does not account for the reduction of $\sigma_{sc}$ with increasing temperature, and, hence, yields inaccurate information on the magnetic penetration depth. The specific heat data can be satisfactory described within the framework of the one-gap model with the small residual specific heat component. The experimental data of Tran [*et al.*]{}, as well as our earlier published $\mu$SR data \[Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 014502 (2008)\] all seem to be consistent with is the presence of [*single*]{} isotropic superconducting energy gap in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$.'
author:
- 'R. Khasanov'
- 'P.W. Klamut'
- 'A. Shengelaya'
- 'I.M. Savić'
- 'C. Baines'
- 'H. Keller'
title: 'Comment on “Muon-spin rotation studies of the superconducting properties of Mo$_3$Sb$_7$” '
---
[*The magnetic field dependence of the $\mu$SR depolarization rate $\sigma_{sc}$*]{}. It is commonly accepted that the Gaussian muon-spin depolarization rate (square root of the second moment of the $\mu$SR line) of the superconductor in the vortex state ($\sigma_{sc}$) is directly related to the magnetic penetration depth $\lambda$ in terms of: $$\sigma_{sc}=A(b)\cdot\lambda^{-2}.
\label{eq:sigma-lambda}$$ Here $A(b)$ is the proportionality coefficient ($b=B/B_{c2}$ is the reduced magnetic field, $B_{c2}$ is the upper critical field). One needs to stress, however, that the proportionality coefficient $A(b)$ is [*not constant*]{}. Its dependence on $b$ accounts for reduction of $\sigma_{sc}$ due to stronger overlapping of vortices by their cores with increasing magnetic field. As shown by Brandt,[@Brandt03] only for very low fields ($0.13/\kappa^2\ll b\ll 1$, $\kappa=\lambda/\xi$, $\xi$ is the coherence lengths) one can neglect the dependence of $A(b)$ on the reduced magnetic field and assume it to be constant.
The condition $A(b)=const$ is definitively not satisfied in Ref. . The experiments were conducted for reduced fields in the range of $0.0025\leq b\leq0.025$ at $T=0.1$ K and $0.0036\leq b\leq0.036$ at $T=1$ K \[$B_{c2}(0.1$ K)$\simeq2$ T and $B_{c2}(1$ K)$\simeq1.4$ T are taken from Ref. \]. As follows from Fig. 6 of Ref. at these regions $A(b)$ for Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ superconductor ($\kappa>50$) is strongly field dependent. This implies, in turn, that in order to obtain $\lambda$ from $\sigma_{sc}(B)$ data, one needs to account for reduction of $A(b)$ with increasing magnetic field.
![(Color online) The fit of $\sigma_{sc}(B)$ dependences obtained by Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] by assuming field independent $\lambda$. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig:lambda_vs_H_muSR"}](sigma_vs_h){width="1.0\linewidth"}
It may be done, [*e.g.*]{}, within the framework the London model (as is made by the authors, but without accounting for some limitations of the model, see the discussion below), or by using the approach developed by Brandt in Ref. .
Figure \[fig:lambda\_vs\_H\_muSR\] shows the results of the fit of equation:[@Brandt03] $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{sc}[\mu {\rm s}^{-1}]=4.83\cdot10^4\times
(1 - b) \nonumber \\
\left[1 + 1.21\left(1 - \sqrt{b} \right)^3\right]&
\lambda^{-2}[{\rm nm}]
\label{eq:sigma_vs_h}\end{aligned}$$ to the experimental $\sigma_{sc}(B)$ data of Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] The Eq. (\[eq:sigma\_vs\_h\]) is derived within the framework of Ginzburg-Landau theory for the superconductor with [*single*]{} isotropic $s-$wave like gap.[@Brandt03] It describes with less than 5% error the field variation of $\sigma_{sc}$ for an ideal triangular vortex lattice and it holds for type-II superconductors with the value of the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $\kappa\geq5$ in the range of fields $0.25/\kappa^{1.3}\lesssim b\leq1$.
An agreement of Eq. (\[eq:sigma\_vs\_h\]) with the experimental data of Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] is relatively good (see Fig. \[fig:lambda\_vs\_H\_muSR\]) thus pointing to the field independent $\lambda$ and, consequently, to the presence of only [*one*]{} superconducting energy gap in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$. We want also to note that in our recent paper,[@Khasanov08_MoSb] which was published 3 month before the submission of Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08], $\sigma_{sc}$ as a function of magnetic field for Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ superconductor was measured up to 4 times higher field ($\mu_0H=0.2$ T, $b\simeq 0.1$) and was found to be consistent with Eq. (\[eq:sigma\_vs\_h\]) and, consequently, with the field independent magnetic penetration $\lambda$.
In reference to the interpretation of $\mu$SR data we note, that the authors of Ref. have mixed, somehow, the statements of field dependent $\lambda$ and $\sigma_{sc}$. The muon-spin depolarization rate of the superconductor in the vortex state $\sigma_{sc}$ is [*always*]{} field dependent, while dependence of $\lambda$ on the magnetic field is the characteristic of unconventional superconductors (like cuprates,[@Sonier07; @Kadono04; @Khasanov09-Bi2201] pnictides,[@Luetkens08-Khasanov08_Sm] double gap MgB$_2$,[@Cubitt03_Angst04] [*etc.*]{}). In a single gap $s-$wave superconductor the magnetic penetration depth is found to be independent on the magnetic field.[@Kadono04; @Khasanov05-RbOs; @Khasanov06_LiPdB] In the Ref. , which is cited by Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] in order to justify the unconventional two-gap superconductivity in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$, Sonier refers to the field dependent penetration depth $\lambda$, but not the muon-spin depolarization rate $\sigma_{sc}$.
. The fit of $\sigma_{sc}$ vs. $B$ data by means of the modified London model, used by Tran [*et al.*]{},[@Tran08] is in favor of the “one-gap” picture. Note that the London model is based initially on the statement of [*field independent*]{} $\lambda$. By pointing to an agreement of this model with the experimental $\sigma_{sc}(B)$ data, the authors of Ref. strongly contradict themselves, since the key argument of their paper is, in contrast, the [*field dependent*]{} $\lambda$.
We want to stress however, that the London model uses some simplifications and assumptions and is strictly valid for the extreme type-II superconductor ($\lambda\gg\xi$) for fields in the region $0\ll B \ll B_{c2}$. The possibility to use this model in order to describe the experimental $\mu$SR data needs to be justified for each particular case. The authors have not done that. On the other hand, the results of the numerical calculations of Brand,[@Brandt03] which are valid for any type-II superconductors and in the full field region (from $0$ up to $B_{c2}$), are free from these imperfections.
[*Dependence of the magnetic penetration depth $\lambda$ on temperature*]{}.
![(Color online) $\lambda^{-2}(T)/\lambda^{-2}(0)$ dependences of Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ reconstructed from $\sigma_{sc}(T)$ data of Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] (black circles) and that reported in Ref. (red circles). The solid lines represent the single-gap fit of $\lambda^{-2}(T)/\lambda^{-2}(0)$ data assuming Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ is the superconductor within the clean (solid curve) and the dirty (dashed curve) limit (after Ref. ). The inset show the corresponding $\lambda^{-2}(T)$ dependences. []{data-label="fig:lambda_vs_T"}](lambda_vs_T){width="1.0\linewidth"}
For the experiment conducted in constant magnetic field one needs, in addition, to account for dependence of the coefficient $A(b)$, which relates the muon-spin depolarization rate $\sigma_{sc}$ to the penetration depth $\lambda$ \[see Eq. (\[eq:sigma-lambda\])\], on temperature. It is caused by the temperature dependence of the the second critical field $B_{c2}$ and, as a consequence, that of $b=B/B_{c2}(T)$. Obviously, this needs to be considered in order to reconstruct $\lambda(T)$ from $\sigma_{sc}(T)$ obtained experimentally. The detailed description of the reconstruction procedure (also in application to Mo$_3$Sb$_7$) is given in Refs. , and .
Figure \[fig:lambda\_vs\_T\] shows $\lambda^{-2}(T)$ normalized on its value at $T=0$ for Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ superconductor. The inset represents $\lambda^{-2}(T)$ data. The solid black and the red circles refer to $\lambda^{-2}(T)$ reconstructed from $\sigma_{sc}(T)$ of Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] and that reported in Ref. , respectively. The inset of Fig. \[fig:lambda\_vs\_T\] implies that within the whole temperature region the difference between the absolute $\lambda^{-2}$ values obtained in both sets of experiments does not exceed 10% (5% in $\lambda$ value), which may be caused by the different sample shape (single crystalline samples in Ref. vs. fine powder in Ref. ), as well as the sample preparation procedures.
The lines in the main panel of Fig. \[fig:lambda\_vs\_T\] correspond to the fit of $\lambda^{-2}(T)$ data from Ref. by assuming that Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ is a superconductor with the [*single*]{} $s-$wave like energy gap within the clean (solid line) and the dirty (dashed line) limit. It is obvious that both sets of the experimental data are in agreement with the each other as well as as with the “single-gap” fitting curves from Ref. .
. The 1 nm error in the absolute $\lambda$ value is unrealistic. The fit was performed within the framework of the certain (modified London) model, the validity of which, in application to Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ and the conditions of the experiment, was not justified. The fit of the $\sigma_{sc}(B)$ data by using Eq. (\[eq:sigma\_vs\_h\]) \[see Fig. \[fig:lambda\_vs\_H\_muSR\]\] results in $\lambda(0.1$ K)$=673(3)$ nm which is 8 nm higher than $\lambda(0.1$ K)$=665(1)$ nm reported by Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] In addition, the authors did not account for any other possible sources of uncertainties as, [*e.g.*]{}: i) vortex lattice disorder; ii) different possible symmetry of the vortex lattice (triangular vs. squared); iii) non-gaussian line shape of the $\mu$SR line which is expected to be seen even in a powder sample of the isotropic (weakly anisotropic) superconductor; iv) the background contribution from the Ag backing plate which may be influenced by the magnetic field expelled by Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ superconductor, [*etc.*]{} None of them were discussed by Tran [*et al.*]{} in Ref. . For these reasons and accounting for the uncorrect assumption about temperature independent proportionality between $\lambda^{-2}$ and $\sigma_{sc}$ (see the discussion above), we call the penetration depth data presented by Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08] “inaccurate”.
[*Temperature dependence of the electronic specific heat*]{}.
![(Color online) The electronic specific heat $C_{el}$ as a function of $T^{-1}$ after Ref. . Lines correspond to the one gap fit with (the solid line) and without (dashed line) the residual electronic specific heat. Note the logarithmic $C_{el}$ scale. []{data-label="fig:cel_vs_T"}](cel_vs_T){width="1.0\linewidth"}
One of the arguments pointing to the presence of two superconducting energy gaps in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ was an agreement of the gap values obtained in Ref. with that deduced by Tran [*et al.*]{}[@Tran08_Cel] in specific heat experiments ($\simeq13$% and $\simeq5$% difference in the absolute values of the the big and the small gap, respectively). Fig. \[fig:cel\_vs\_T\] represents the specific heat data from Ref. together with the fits based on the “one-gap” BCS model. Note that, the simplest assumption about the presence of small temperature independent residual electronic specific heat, which may be easily caused by the presence of small inclusions of metallic Mo, leads to good agreement of the “one-gap” fit with the experimental data (see Fig. \[fig:cel\_vs\_T\], note the logarithmic $C_{el}$ scale).
[*Conclusions.*]{} The fact that the “two-gap” fits performed by Tran [*et al.*]{} in Refs. and lead to reasonable agreement between the proposed description and the experiment is obvious. Using a model with more parameters would always yield a more satisfactory fit. However, there is neither a statistical nor a physical justification for introducing more than one gap parameter in the description. The “one-gap” model provide already a statistically sound fit to the $\mu$SR as well as specific heat data.
In our opinion, the presence of two superconducting energy gaps in Mo$_3$Sb$_7$ may not find its justification in the experimental data presented by Tran [*et al.*]{} in Refs. and . The field dependence of the muon-spin depolarization rate $\sigma_{sc}$ is well described by assuming the field independent magnetic penetration depth $\lambda$. The temperature dependences of $\lambda^{-2}$ and the electronic specific heat are consistent with what is expected for a BCS superconductor with the single $s-$wave like energy gap.
[99]{} V.H. Tran, A.D. Hillier, D.T. Adroja, and Z. Bukowski, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 172505 (2008). E.H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 054506 (2003). C. Candolfi, B. Lenoir, A. Dauscher, J. Hejtmánek, E. Šantavá, and J. Tobola, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 092509 (2008). R. Khasanov, P.W. Klamut, A. Shengelaya, Z. Bukowski, I.M. Savić, C. Baines, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 014502 (2008). J.E. Sonier, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**70**]{}, 1717 (2007). R. Kadono, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**16**]{}, S4421 (2004); R. Khasanov, T. Kondo, S. Strässle, D.O.G. Heron, A. Kaminski, H. Keller, S.L. Lee, and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, R180507 (2009). H. Luetkens, H.-H. Klauss, R. Khasanov, A. Amato, R. Klingeler, I. Hellmann, N. Leps, A. Kondrat, C. Hess, A. Köhler, G. Behr, J. Werner, and B. Büchner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 097009 (2008); R. Khasanov, H. Luetkens, A. Amato, H.-H. Klauss, Z.-A. Ren, J. Yang, W. Lu, and Z.-X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 092506 (2008). R. Cubitt, M.R. Eskildsen, C.D. Dewhurst, J. Jun, S.M. Kazakov, and J. Karpinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 047002 (2003); M. Angst, D. Di Castro, D.G. Eshchenko, R. Khasanov, S. Kohout, I.M. Savic, A. Shengelaya, S.L. Bud’ko, P.C. Canfield, J. Jun, J. Karpinski, S.M. Kazakov, R.A. Ribeiro, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 224513 (2004). R. Khasanov, D.G. Eshchenko, D. Di Castro, A. Shengelaya, F. La Mattina, A. Maisuradze, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, J. Karpinski, S.M. Kazakov, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 104504 (2005). R. Khasanov, I.L. Landau, C. Baines, F. La Mattina, A. Maisuradze, K. Togano, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 214528 (2006). I.L. Landau and H. Keller, Physica C [**466**]{}, 131 (2007); R. Khasanov, A. Shengelaya, A. Maisuradze, D. Di Castro, I.M. Savić, S. Weyeneth, M.S. Park, D.J. Jang, S.-I. Lee, and H. Keller, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 184512 (2008). V.H. Tran, W. Miller, and Z. Bukowski, Acta Mater. [**56**]{}, 5694 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This note is concerned with the so-called superconcentration phenomenon. It shows that the Bakry-Émery’s Gamma calculus can provide relevant bound on the variance of function satisfying a inverse, integrated, curvature criterion. As an illustration, we present some variance bounds for the Free Energy in different models from Spin Glasses Theory.'
author:
- |
Kevin Tanguy\
University of Angers, France
date: Note of
title: 'Remarks on Superconcentration and Gamma calculus. Applications to spin glasses'
---
Introduction
============
Superconcentration phenomenon has been introduced by Chatterjee in [@Chatt1] and has given birth to a lot a work (cf. [@KT1] for a survey). Each of these work, used various ad-hoc methods to improve upon sub-optimal bounds given by classical concentration of measure (cf. [@BLM; @Led]). In this note, we want to show that the celebrated Gamma calculus from Bakry and Émery’s Theory is relevant to such improvements. To this task, we introduce an inverse, integrated, Gamma two criterion which provides a useful bound on the variance of a particular function. As far as we are concerned, this criterion seems to be new. We give below a sample of our modest achievement.\
Denote by $\gamma_n$ the standard Gaussian measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and by $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ the standard Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup. $\Gamma$ will stand for the so-called “carré du champ” operator, associated to the infinitesimal generator $L=\Delta-x\cdot \nabla$ of $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$, and $\Gamma_2$ its iterated operator. We refer to section two for more details about this topic.
Let $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a regular function and assume that there exists $\psi\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}_+\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that
1. for any $t\geq 0$,
$$\label{G1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma_2(P_t f)d\gamma_n\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_t f)d\gamma_n+\psi(t),$$
2. $$\int_0^\infty e^{-2t}\int_t^\infty e^{2 s}\psi(s)ds dt<\infty.$$
Then the following holds
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \bigg|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\nabla fd\gamma_n\bigg|^2+4\int_0^\infty e^{-2 t}\int_t^\infty e^{2s}\psi(s)dsdt.$$
with $|\cdot|$ the standard Euclidean norm.
Equation can be seen as an inverse, integrated, curvature inequality for the function $f$.
As an application of Theorem \[prop.courbure.dimension.inverse\], we show that some results due to Chatterjee can be expressed in term of such criterion. From our point of view, this expression seems to ease the original scheme of proof and could possibly lead to various extensions. It also permits to easily recover some known variance bounds in Spin Glass Theory (cf. [@BovKurLow; @Talspin1; @Talspin2]).\
Denote by $F_{n,\beta}$ the Free Energy associated to the Sherrington and Kirkpatrick’s Spin Glass Model (SK model in short) (cf. section four for more details about this). We show that
The following holds for the SK model. Let $0<\beta<\frac{1}{2}$ be, then
$${\rm Var}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{C_\beta}{2\beta^2},\quad n\geq 1$$
with $C_\beta>0$ is a constant depending only on $\beta$.
The methodology can also be used for the Random Energy Model (REM in short) (cf. section four for more details) and provides the following bounds.
The following holds in the REM.
1. High temperature regime : for $0<\beta<\sqrt{\frac{\ln 2}{2}}$, we have
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \bigg(\frac{1-\beta^2}{1-2\beta^2}\bigg)\frac{1}{n},\quad n\geq 1$$
2. Low temperature regime : for $\beta\sim\sqrt{\log n}$, we have $${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{C}{\log n},\quad n\geq e$$ with $C>0$ a universal constant.
This note is organized as follows. In section two, we recall some facts about superconcentration and Gamma calculus. In section three, we will prove our main results. Finally, in section four, we will give some applications in Spin Glass Theory.
Framework and tools
===================
In this section, we briefly recall some notions about superconcentration, Gamma calculus and interpolation methods by semigroups. General references about these topics could be, respectively, [@Chatt1; @BGL].
Superconcentration
------------------
It is well known (cf. [@Led; @BLM]), that concentration of measure of phenomenon is useful in various mathematical contexts. Such phenomenon can be obtained through functional inequalities. For instance, the standard Gaussian measure, on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\gamma_n$ satisfies a Poincaré’s inequality :
For any function $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ smooth enough, the following holds
$$\label{eq.poincare}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla f|^2d\gamma_n$$
where $|\cdot|$ stands for the Euclidean norm.
Although this inequality holds for a large class of function, it could lead to sub-optimal bounds. A classical example is the function $f(x)=\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}x_i$. For such function, Poincaré’s inequality implies that
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq 1$$
but it is known that ${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\sim \frac{C}{\log n}$ for some constant $C>0$. In Chatterjee’s terminology, in this Gaussian framework, a function $f$ is said to be superconcentrated when Poincaré’s inequality is sub-optimal.\
As we have said in the introduction, this phenomenon has been studied in various manner : semigroup interpolation [@KT], Renyi’s representation of order statistics [@BT], Optimal Transport [@KT1], Ehrard’s inequality [@Val],…(cf. the Thesis [@KT2] for a recent survey about superconcentration). In this note, we want to show that some differential inequalities between the operator $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma_2$ from Bakry and Émery’s Theory could provide superconcentration.
Semigroups interpolation and Gamma calculus
-------------------------------------------
For more details about semigroups interpolation and $\Gamma$ calculus, we refer to [@BGL; @Led2]. Although our work can easily be extended to a more general framework, we will focus on a Gaussian setting.\
The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $(X_t)_{t\geq0}$ is defined as follow :
$$X_t=e^{-t}X+\sqrt{1-e^{-2t}}Y,\quad t\geq 0,$$ with $X$ and $Y$ i.i.d. standard Gaussian vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$, associated to this process, acts on a class of smooth function and admits an explicit representation formula :
$$P_tf(x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f\big(xe^{-t}+\sqrt{1-e^{-2t}}y\big)d\gamma_n(y),\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\,t\geq 0$$
Its infinitesimal generator is given by
$$L=\Delta-x\cdot\nabla$$
Furthermore, $\gamma_n$ is the invariant and reversible measure of $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$. That is to say, for any function $f$ and $g$ smooth enough,
$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} P_t fd\gamma_n=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} fd\gamma_n \quad \text{et}\quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} fP_tgd\gamma_n=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} gP_tfd\gamma_n.$$
Now, let us recall some properties satisfied by $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ which will be useful in the sequel.
The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ satisfies the following properties
1. $P_t(f)$ is a solution of the heat equation associated to $L$
$$\label{eq.chaleur}
{\rm i.e.}\quad\partial_t (P_tf)=P_t (Lf)=L(P_tf).$$
2. $(P_t)_{t\geq0}$ is ergodic, that is to say, for $f$ smooth enough
$$\label{eq.ou.ergodicite}
\lim_{t\to+\infty}P_t(f)= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}fd\gamma_n={\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[f]$$
3. $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ commutes with the gradient $\nabla$. More precisely, for any function $f$ smooth enough,
$$\label{eq.commutation.gaussienne}
\nabla P_t(f)=e^{-t}P_t(\nabla f), \quad t\geq 0.$$
4. $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a contraction in $L^p(\gamma_n)$, for any function $f\in L^p(\gamma_n)$ and every $t\geq 0$,
$$\label{eq.ou.contraction}
\|P_t(f)\|_p\leq \|f\|_p.$$
As it exposed in [@BGL], it is possible to give a dynamical representation of the variance of a function $f$ along the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ :
$$\label{eq.representation.variance.gaussienne}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)=2\int_0^\infty \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla P_s( f)|^2d\gamma_n ds=2\int_0^\infty e^{-2s}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|P_s(\nabla f)|^2d\gamma_n ds$$
Gamma calculus and Poincaré’s inequality
----------------------------------------
Let us introduce the fondamental operator $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma$ from Bakry and Emery’s Theory. Given an infinitesimal generator $L$ set, for $f$ and $g$, two smooth functions,
$$\Gamma(f,g)=\frac{1}{2}\big[L(fg)-fLg-Lfg\big]\quad \text{and}\quad \Gamma_2(f,g)=\frac{1}{2}\big[L\Gamma(f,g)-\Gamma(f,Lg)-\Gamma(Lf,g)\big]$$
In the case of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck’s infinitesimal generator $L=\Delta-x\cdot \nabla$, it is easily seen that
$$\label{eq.gamma.ou}
\Gamma_1(f)=|\nabla f|^2\quad \Gamma_2(f)=\|{\rm Hess} f\|_2^2+\|\nabla f\|^2$$
where $\|{\rm Hess} f\|_2=\big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n\big(\frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}\big)^2\big)^{1/2}$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the tensor of the second derivatives of $f$.\
Now, let us briefly recall how a relationship between $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma_2$ can be used to give a elementary proof of Poincaré’s inequality .\
First, notice that the representation formula of the variance can be expressed in term of $\Gamma$ :
$$\label{eq.variance.represantation2}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)=2\int_0^\infty \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_tf)d\gamma_n ds.$$
Then, observe that implies the celebrated curvature-dimension criterion $CD(1,+\infty)$ (cf. [@BGL])
$$\label{eq.curvature.dimension}
\Gamma_2\geq \Gamma.$$
Set $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_tf)d\gamma_n$. It is classical that
$$I'(t)=-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma_2(P_tf)d\gamma_n,\quad t\geq 0$$
Thus, the inequality leads to a differential inequality
$$\label{eq.int.curvature.dimension}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma_2(P_t f)d\gamma_n\geq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_t f)d\gamma_n \Leftrightarrow 2I+I'\leq0,\quad t\geq 0$$
which can be easily integrated between $s$ and $t$ (with $0\leq s\leq t$). That is
$$I(t)e^{2t}\leq I(s)e^{2s}.$$
It is now classical to let $s\to0$ to easily recover Poincaré’s inequality for the measure $\gamma_n$. As we will see in the next section, we will show that a differential inequality of the form
$$\label{eq.inverse.curvature.dimension}
I'\geq -2(I+\psi),$$
for some function $\psi$, can be used to obtain relevant bound (with respect to superconcentration phenomenon) on the variance of the function $f$ (being fixed) by letting $s$ fixed and $t\to+\infty$.
Let us make few remarks.
1. As it is proved in [@BGL], the integrated curvature dimension inequality is, in fact, equivalent to the Poincaré’s inequality .\
2. As we will see in the next section, the inequality $I'\geq -2(I+\psi)$ is equivalent to a inverse, integrated, curvature dimension inequality which seems to be new. However, notice that the major difference between and \[eq.inverse.curvature.dimension\] is that the first one holds for a large class of function whereas the second is only true for a particular function $f$ (and $\psi$ depends on $f$).
Inverse, integrated, curvature inequality
=========================================
In this section, we will use the methodology exposed in the preceding section to obtain variance bounds for a (fixed) function $f$ satisfying a inverse, integrated, curvature inequality $IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$.\
First, let us state a definition. We want to highlight the fact that this definition will be stated in a Gaussian framework $({\mathbb{R}}^n,\Gamma, \gamma_n)$ with $\Gamma$ associated to the infinitesimal generator $L=\Delta-x\cdot \nabla$ and the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck’s semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$. The next definition can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to fit the general framework of [@BGL].
Let $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function. We said that $f$ satisfy a inverse, integrated, curvature criterion with function $\psi\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}_+\to {\mathbb{R}}$ if
$$\label{G1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma_2(P_t f)d\gamma_n\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_t f)d\gamma_n+\psi(t),\quad t\geq 0$$
When the previous inequality is satisfied we denote it by $f\in IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$.
1. Notice, again, that the inequality holds, a priori, only for the function $f$.\
2. In the general framework of [@BGL], we would say that $f\in IC_{\mu}(\rho, \psi)$, with $\mu$ a probability measure and $\rho\geq 0$, if and only if
$$\int_{E}\Gamma_2(P_t f)d\mu\leq \rho\bigg( \int_{E}\Gamma(P_t f)d\mu+\psi(t)\bigg),\quad t\geq 0$$
for the Markov triple $(E,\Gamma,\mu)$.\
3. At some point, in the framework of the superconcentration’s theory, it is implicitly assumed that an integrated curvature dimension also holds. That is to say, for every $f$ belonging to a nice set of function (which is stable under the action of the semigroup), the following holds
$$\int_E\Gamma_2(f)d\mu\geq \rho \int_E\Gamma(f)d\mu, \quad \rho>0.$$
Therefore $\mu$ satisfied a Poincaré’s inequality with constant $\rho$.
Here we recall the statement of our main result.
\[prop.courbure.dimension.inverse\]
Let $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function. Assume that the following holds
1. $f\in IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$ for some function $\psi\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}_+\to{\mathbb{R}}$.\
2. $$\int_0^\infty e^{-2t}\int_t^\infty e^{2 s}\psi(s)ds dt<\infty.$$
Then,
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \bigg|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\nabla fd\gamma_n\bigg|^2+4\int_0^\infty e^{-2 t}\int_t^\infty e^{2s}\psi(s)dsdt$$ with $|\cdot|$ the standard Euclidean norm.
The inverse curvature condition $IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$ (equation \[G1\]) is equivalent to the following differential inequality :
$$\label{eq.diff1}
I'\geq -2(I+\psi),$$
where $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla P_t f|^2d\gamma_n$, $t\geq 0$. Set $I(t)=K(t)e^{-2t}$, inequality becomes
$$\label{eq.diff2}
K'(t)\geq -2e^{2t}\psi(t),\quad t\geq 0$$
Now, integrate inequality between $s$ and $t$. That is
$$K(t)-K(s)\geq -2\int_s^t e^{2u}\psi(u)du,\quad \text{for all} \quad0\leq s\leq t.$$
Then, let $t\to\infty$, this yields
$$K(s)\leq \big[\lim_{t\to\infty}K(t)\big]+2\int_s^\infty e^{2u}\psi(u)du,\quad s\geq 0,$$
To conclude, observe that
$$K(t)=I(t)e^{2t}\to_{t\to \infty}\bigg|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\nabla fd\gamma_n\bigg|^2$$
by ergodicity of $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$. Finally, we have, for every $t\geq 0$,
$$\label{G2}
I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_n}\Gamma(P_t f)d\gamma_n\leq e^{-2t} \bigg(\bigg|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\nabla fd\gamma_n\bigg|^2+2\int_t^\infty e^{2s}\psi(s) ds\bigg).$$
It suffices to use the dynamical representation of the variance with elementary calculus to end the proof.
This method of interpolation, between $t$ and $+\infty$, has also been used in [@KT3] in order to obtain Talagrand’s inequality of higher order.
Another Variance bound
----------------------
As we will see in the last section, it is sometimes useful to restrict an $IC_{\mu}(1,\psi)$, for some probability measure $\mu$, up to a time $T$ in order to improve the dependance with respect to some parameter.\
In other words, the setting is the following : assume that an $IC_\mu(1,\psi)$ holds and that we are able to produce some $T>0$ such that the bound of $I(T)$ (given by the equation ) is particularly nice (with respect to some parameter). Now, we have to bound the variance in a different manner in order to use the information on $I(T)$. To this task, we will prove the next proposition.
\[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\] Let $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a function smooth enough. Then, for any $T>0$
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \frac{2TI(0)}{1-e^{-2T}}\bigg[\frac{1}{\log a}-\frac{1}{a\log a}\bigg]$$
with $a=\frac{I(0)}{I(T)}$ and $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_tf)d\gamma_n$.
This proposition will be used to show that the Free Energy is superconcentrated for some Spin Glasses models. Although we stated the preceding Proposition \[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\] for the standard Gaussian measure $\gamma_n$, it will also hold (up to obvious renormalization) for $\mu$ the law of a centered Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $M$.
To prove the preceding theorem, we will need two further arguments.\
First, we present an inequality due to Cordero-Erausquin and Ledoux [@CoLed]. The proof of this inequality rests on the fact that the Poincaré’s inequality satisfied by $\gamma_n$ implies an exponential decay of the variance along the semigroup $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$.
\[lem.cordero.ledoux\]\[Cordero-Erausquin-Ledoux\]
Let $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a function smooth enough. Then, for any $T>0$, the following holds
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \frac{2}{1-e^{-2T}}\int_0^TI(t) dt$$
with $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_tf)d\gamma_n$.
For the sake of completeness we give the proof of the preceding Lemma. $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)&=&{\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[f^2]-{\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[(P_Tf)^2]+{\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[(P_Tf)^2]-{\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[P_Tf]^2\\
&=&-\int_0^T\frac{d}{ds}{\mathbb{E}}_{\gamma_n}[(P_sf)^2]ds+{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(P_Tf)\\
&\leq & 2\int_0^TI(s)ds+e^{-2T}{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f).\end{aligned}$$
Secondly, we will use the fact that the infinitesimal generator $(-L)$ of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ admits a (discrete) spectral decomposition. Then, denote by $dE$ the spectral measure. According to [@BGL], this leads to a different representation of $t\mapsto I(t)$. With $f\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ being fixed, we have :
$$I(t)=\int_0^\infty e^{-2t} dE(f),\quad t\geq 0$$
As it is proven in [@BauWan] (with the preceding representation), $t\mapsto I(t)$ satisfies an Hölder-type inequality. That is to say, for every $T>0$,
\[lem.baudoin.wang\]\[Baudoin-Wang\] $$\label{eq.holder.spectrale}
I(s)\leq I(0)^{1-s/T}I(T)^{s/T},\quad 0\leq s\leq T$$
Now, we can prove Proposition \[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\] with the help of preceding Lemma.
(of Proposition \[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\]) First use Lemma \[lem.cordero.ledoux\] to get
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)\leq \frac{2}{1-e^{-2T}}\int_0^TI(t) dt.$$
Then, use Lemma \[lem.baudoin.wang\]. This yields
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(f)&\leq& \frac{2}{1-e^{-2T}}\int_0^TI(0)^{1-s/T}I(T)^{s/T} dt\\
&=&\frac{2I(0)}{1-e^{-2T}}\int_0^Te^{-\frac{s}{T}\log a}dt\end{aligned}$$
where $a=\frac{ I(0)}{I(T)}\geq 1$ and $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_tf)d\gamma_n$. Finally, elementary calculus ends the proof.
Application in Spin Glasses’s theory
====================================
Introduction
------------
We begin by a short introduction to the Theory of Spin Glass (cf. [@Talspin1; @Talspin2; @Bov1] for more details).\
Most of the time, in Spin Glasses Theory, it is customary to consider a centered Gaussian field $\big(H_n(\sigma)\big)_{\sigma\in \{-1,1\}^n}$ on the discrete cube $\{-1,1\}^n$ (the map $\sigma\mapsto H_n(\sigma)$ is called the Hamiltonian of the system) and to focus on $\max_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}H_n(\sigma)$ (or $\min_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}H_n(\sigma)$). In general, this quantity is rather complex and presents a lack of regularity. Therefore, one focus on a smooth approximation of the maximum (or the minimum) called the Free Energy $F_{n,\beta}$. This function is defined as follow
$$F_{n,\beta}=\pm\frac{1}{\beta}\log \bigg(\sum_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}e^{\pm \beta H_n(\sigma)}\bigg)$$
where $\beta>0$ corresponds to the (inverse) of the temperature and its sign depends on whether you want to study the maximum or the minimum of $H_n$ over the discrete cube.\
For instance, for the REM, we have $$H_n(\sigma)=\sqrt{n}X_\sigma,\quad \sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n$$ with $(X_\sigma)_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}$ is a sequence of i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variables.\
For the SK Model, the Hamiltonian is more complex, $$H_n(\sigma)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i,j=1}^nX_{ij}\sigma_i\sigma_j,\quad \sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n$$ with $(X_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq n}$ is a sequence of i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variables.\
In the remaining of this section, we will show how inverse, integrated, curvature inequality can provide relevant bounds on the variance of $F_{n,\beta}$. We will focus on the REM and the SK Model. For the remaining of this note we will denote by $f_{\beta}$, for $\beta>0,$ the following function
$$f_{\beta}(x)=\frac{1}{\beta}\log \big(\sum_{i=1}^ne^{\beta x_i}\big), \quad x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$$
Random Energy Model
-------------------
In this section we will show how Theorem \[prop.courbure.dimension.inverse\] is useful to obtain relevant bound on the variance of the Free Energy $F_{n,\beta}$ (with $\beta$ close to $0$) for the REM.
\[prop.rem.inverse.curvature\] For any $\beta>0$, $f_\beta\in IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$ with
$$\psi(t)=2\beta^2e^{-2t} I(t)$$
where, let us recall it, $I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_t f_\beta)d\gamma_n$ and $\Gamma$ is the standard “carré du champ” operator.
We will need the following Lemma to prove the preceding Proposition.
\[lem.courbure.dimension\] Let $(u_j)_{j=1,\ldots,n}$ be a family of function, with $u_i\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}$ for any $j=1,\ldots,n$, satisfying the following condition.
- $0\leq u_j(x)\leq 1$ $\forall j=1,\ldots,n,\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $.\
- $\sum_{j=1}^nu_j(x)\leq 1$ $\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$.\
Then, for any function $v\,:\,{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ and any probability measure $\mu$, we have
$$\sum_{j=1}^n\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_j(x) v(x)d\mu(x)\bigg)^2\leq \bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}vd\mu\bigg)^2$$
Fubini’s Theorem implies that
$$\sum_{j=1}^n\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_j(x) v(x)d\mu(x)\bigg)^2=\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_j(x)u_j(y)v(x)v(y)d\mu(x)d\mu(y).$$
Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^n\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_j(x) v(x)d\mu(x)\bigg)^2&\leq&\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_j(x)v(x)v(y)d\mu(x)d\mu(y)\\
&\leq&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v(x)v(y)d\mu(x)d\mu(y)\\
&=&\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v(x)d\mu(x)\bigg)^2\end{aligned}$$
Now we turn to the proof of Proposition \[prop.rem.inverse.curvature\].
(Proposition \[prop.rem.inverse.curvature\]).
First, observe that the condition $IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$ is equivalent to
$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma_2\big(P_t(f_\beta)\big)d\gamma_n\leq (1+2\beta^2e^{-2t})\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma\Big(P_t (f_\beta)\big)d\gamma_n,\quad t\geq 0.$$
That is (since $\Gamma_2(f)=\|{\rm Hess}f\|_2^2$ and $\Gamma(f)=|\nabla f|^2$)
$$\label{eq.courbure.dimension.integree.inverse.energie.libre}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_n}\|{\rm Hess} P_t(f_\beta)\|_2^2d\gamma_n\leq 2\beta^2e^{-2t}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla P_t (f_\beta)|^2d\gamma_n,\quad t\geq0.$$
Now, observe that, pointwise, equation is equivalent to (thanks to the commutation property between $\nabla$ and $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$)
$$\sum_{i,j=1}^n[P_t(\partial^2_{ij}f_\beta)]^2\leq 2\beta^2\sum_{i=1}^n [P_t(\partial_i f_\beta)]^2,\quad \forall t\geq 0$$
Elementary calculus yields, for every $i=1,\ldots,n$, and every $\beta>0$,
$$\partial_if_\beta=\frac{e^{\beta x_i}}{\sum_{k=1}^n e^{\beta x_k}}$$
and, for every $j=1,\ldots,n$,
$$\partial_j\partial_if_\beta=\beta(\partial_if_\beta\delta_{ij}-\partial_if_\beta\partial_j f_\beta).$$
Thus, for every $t\geq 0$,
$$\sum_{i,j=1}^n[P_t(\partial^2_{ij}f_\beta)]^2=\beta^2\sum_{i=1}^n\big[P_t(\partial_i f_\beta)\big]^2-2\beta\sum_{i=1}^nP_t(\partial_i f_\beta) P_t\big[(\partial_i f_\beta)^2\big]+\beta^2\sum_{i,j=1}^n\big[P_t(\partial_i f_\beta\partial_j f_\beta)\big]^2.$$
First ignore the crossed terms (which are always non positive), then apply Lemma \[lem.courbure.dimension\] to the third term.\
Indeed, let $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ be fixed and set $u_j=\partial_jf_\beta$ and $v=\partial_if_\beta$. Thus, Lemma \[lem.courbure.dimension\] implies
$$\sum_{j=1}^n \big[P_t(\partial_if_\beta\partial_jf_\beta)\big]^2\leq P_t^2(\partial_if\beta).$$
This inequality finally yields,
$$\sum_{i,j=1}^n[P_t(\partial^2_{ij}f_\beta)]^2\leq \beta^2\sum_{i=1}^n\big[P_t(\partial_i f_\beta)\big]^2+\beta^2\sum_{i,j=1}^n\big[P_t(\partial_i f_\beta\partial_j f_\beta)\big]^2 \leq 2\beta^2\sum_{i=1}^n\big[P_t(\partial_i f_\beta)\big]^2.$$
Now, the criterion $IC_{\gamma_n}(1,\psi)$ gives the following bound on the variance of $F_{n,\beta}$.
\[prop.rem\] For $\beta\in\big(0,\sqrt{\frac{\ln 2}{2}}\big)$, we have
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \bigg(\frac{1-\beta^2}{1-2\beta^2}\bigg)\frac{1}{n}.$$
For $\beta\sim\sqrt{\log n}$, we have $${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{C}{\log n}.$$ with $C>0$ a universal constant.
These bounds has to be compared with the results exposed in [@BovKurLow; @Chatt1] (be careful with the different renormalization). In [@BovKurLow], it is shown that
$${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\sim \frac{C(\beta)}{n},\quad \beta<\sqrt{\frac{\log n}{2}}$$
with $C(\beta)=\frac{e^{\beta^2}}{\beta^2}(1-e^{-\beta^2})$. Despite the wrong dependance in $\beta$, we recover the right order of magnitude in $n$ in this temperature regime.\
On the contrary, in the low temperature regime (when $\beta\sim \sqrt{\log n}$, cf. [@Chatt1; @BovKurLow]), the variance of $F_{n,\beta}$ is of the same order as the variance of the maximum of i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variable. That is of order $C/\log n$.
As it will be useful in the sequel, observe that (by symmetry) the following holds
$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\partial_if_\beta d\gamma_n=\frac{1}{n},\quad \forall i=1,\ldots,n.$$
Now, let $\beta>0$ and use Theorem \[prop.courbure.dimension.inverse\] which implies that
$$\label{eq.free.energy}
{\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{1}{n}+4\beta^2\int_0^\infty e^{-2s}(1-e^{-2s})\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}P_s^2(\partial_if_\beta)d\gamma_nds$$
where we used Fubini’s Theorem and the commutation property between $\nabla$ and $P_s$.\
For the first bound, when $\beta\in\big(0,\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2})$, it is possible to rewrite (thanks to the dynamical representation of the variance ) the integral in the right hand side as
$$2\beta^2 {\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})-4\beta^2\int_0^\infty\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}P_s^2(\partial_if_\beta)d\gamma_nds$$
Furthermore, by Jensen’s inequality and the invariance of $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ with respect to $\gamma_n$, we have
$$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}P_s^2(\partial_if_\beta)d\gamma_n\geq \bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}P_s(\partial_if_\beta)d\gamma_n\bigg)^2=\frac{1}{n^2},\quad \forall i=1,\ldots,n,\quad \forall s>0$$
Thus, ${\rm Var}_{\gamma_n}(F_{n,\beta})\leq\bigg(\frac{1-\beta^2}{1-2\beta^2}\bigg)\frac{1}{n}$.\
For the second bound, we will use the inequality together with hypercontractive estimates of $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ (cf. [@Chatt1; @KT1; @KT2; @CoLed]). More precisely, we have
$$\|P_s(\partial_i f_\beta)\|_2^2\leq \|\partial_if_\beta\|^2_{1+e^{-2s}},\quad \forall i=1,\ldots,n,\quad \forall s>0$$
It is then standard, cf. section 4 in [@KT2] for instance, to prove that
$$\int_0^\infty e^{-2s}(1-e^{-2s})\|\partial_if_\beta\|_{1+e^{-2s}}^2ds\leq \frac{C\|\partial_i f_\beta\|_2^2}{\big[1+\log \frac{\|\partial_i f\beta\|_2}{\|\partial_i f_\beta\|_1}\big]^2}$$
where $C>0$ is a numerical constant. Then, it is elementary to conclude.
SK Model
--------
In this section we show how some work of Chatterjee (from [@Chatt1]) can be rewritten in term of an inverse, integrated, curvature criterion. Then, it allows us to easily recover a bound, obtained by Talagrand (cf. [@Talspin1; @Talspin2]), on the variance of the Free Energy for the SK model at high temperature.\
First, we need to express the $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma_2$ operator when $\gamma_n$ is replaced by $\mu$ the law of a centered Gaussian vector, in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, with covariance matrix $M$.\
Let $X$ be a random Gaussian vector with $\mathcal{L}(X)=\mu$ and consider $Y$ an independant copy of $X$. It is then possible to define the generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, which we will still denote by $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$, as follow
$$X_t=e^{-t}X+\sqrt{1-e^{-2t}}Y,\quad t\geq 0$$
Similarly, we also denote by $(P_t)_{t\geq 0}$ the associated semigroup. Then, it is known (cf. [@Chatt1; @KT; @KT2]) that, for any smooth function $f\,:\, {\mathbb{R}}^n \to{\mathbb{R}}$,
$$I(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\Gamma(P_t f)d\mu=2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}e^{-2t}\sum_{i,j}M_{ij}(\partial_if) P_t(\partial_j f)d\mu,\quad t\geq 0$$
As we will see latter, it will be more convenient to work with
$$I_r(t)=2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}e^{-2t}\sum_{i,j}(M_{ij})^r(\partial_if) P_t(\partial_j f)d\mu,\quad t\geq 0$$ where $r$ is a positive integer. In the rest of this section, we choose $f=f_\beta$.
Assume that $M_{ij}\geq 0$ for all $(i,j)\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^2$. Then, for any $t\geq 0$, the following holds $$\label{eq.chatterjee}
I'_r(t)\geq -2\big[I_r(t)+2\beta^2e^{-2t}J_{r+1}(t)\big]$$ with $J_r(t)=e^{2t}I_r(t)$.
1. In [@Chatt1], Chatterjee proved that $J'_r(t)\geq -4\beta^2e^{-2t}J_{r+1}(t)$ for any $r\in{\mathbb{N}}^{\ast}$. The proof is similar the proof of Lemma \[lem.courbure.dimension\] with the additional use of Hölder’s inequality.\
2. In particular, when $r=1$, Chatterjee’s proposition amounts of saying that
$$f_\beta\in IC_{\mu}(1,\psi)$$
with $\psi(t)=2\beta^2e^{-2t}J_2(t)$. Unfortunately, it remains hard to upper bound this quantity by something relevant.
As observed in the preceding remark, the inverse, integrated, curvature criterion can not be used in the present form. However, it is possible to recycle the arguments of section three. That is, use $l$ times, with $l\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the fundamental Theorem of analysis (on $t\mapsto I_r(t)$) together with the inequality and let $l\to+\infty$. This leads to a useful bound on the function $t\mapsto I_r(t)$ for any $r\in {\mathbb{N}}^\ast$.
Assume that $M_{ij}\geq 0$ for all $(i,j)\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^2$. Then, for any $t\geq 0$, the following holds
$$\label{eq.chatterjee.2}
I_r(t)\leq e^{-2t} \sum_{i,j=1}^n(M_{ij})^re^{2\beta^2 e^{-2t}M_{ij}}\nu_i\nu_j,\quad \forall r\geq 1$$
where $\nu_i=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\partial_if_\beta d\mu$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
When $r=1$, the main step of Chatterjee’s proof is equivalent to show that $f_\beta\in IC_\mu(1, \psi)$ with $\psi(t)=2\beta^2e^{-2t}\sum_{i,j=1}M_{ij}e^{2\beta^2e^{-2t}M_{ij}}\nu_i\nu_j$.
Unfortunately, the repeated use of the differential inequality degrades the upper bound on $t\mapsto I_r(t)$. As we will briefly see in the next subsection, Chatterjee used equation only for a fixed $T>0$ (large enough). We show, in the next Proposition, that this bound (for $r=1$) is still relevant to recover some work of Talagrand on the variance of $F_{\beta,n}$, with small $\beta$, for the SK model (cf. [@Talspin1; @Talspin2]).
Let $M$ be the covariance structure of the SK model. Then, for any $\beta\in\big(0,\frac{1}{2}\big)$, the following holds
$$\label{eq.free.energy.sk}
{\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{C_\beta}{2\beta^2}$$
with $C_\beta>0$ is a universal constant which does not depend on $n$ (only on $\beta$).
First we show that inequality leads to a general upper bound on the variance of $F_{n,\beta}$ which might be of independant interest. Then, we choose $M$ to be the covariance structure of the $SK$ model and proved inequality .\
When $r=1$, Proposition combined with equation implies that, for any $\beta>0$,
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})&\leq& 2\int_0^\infty e^{-2t}\sum_{i,j=1}^n M_{ij}e^{2\beta^2e^{-2t}M_{ij}}\nu_i\nu_jdt\\
&\leq& \frac{1}{2\beta^2}\sum_{i,j=1}^ne^{2\beta M_{ij}}\nu_i\nu_j\end{aligned}$$
Following Chatterjee (cf. [@Chatt1]), choose $M$ to be the covariance structure of the SK model. That is,
$$M_{\sigma \sigma'}=\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i\sigma_i'\bigg)^2,\quad \forall \sigma,\sigma'\in\{-1,1\}^n.$$
Besides, observe (by symmetry) that, for each $\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n,$ $$\nu_{\sigma}={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\big[\partial_\sigma F_{n,\beta}\big]=\frac{1}{2^n}.$$
Thus, $${\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{1}{2\beta^2}{\mathbb{E}}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\big[e^{2\beta^2\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sigma_i\sigma'_i\big)^2}\bigg]$$
Finally, if $\beta\in\big(0,\frac{1}{2}\big)$ we have ${\mathbb{E}}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\big[e^{2\beta^2\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sigma_i\sigma'_i\big)^2}\bigg]=C(\beta)$.
1. Talagrand obtained such upper bound on the variance, for $0<\beta<1$, as a consequence of precise (and much harder to prove than our variance bounds) concentration inequalities for the Free Energy.\
2. Preceding result can also be used to show that the ground states of the SK model is superconcentrated. Indeed, since $\|f_\beta-\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}\|_{\infty}\leq \frac{\log n}{\beta}$ for all $\beta>0$, we have
$${\rm Var}_\mu\big(\max_{\sigma\in \{-1,1\}^n}H_n(\sigma)\big)\leq 3{\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})+6\bigg(\frac{\log n}{\beta}\bigg)^2,\,\beta>0$$
Then, choose $\beta=1/4$, this yields ${\rm Var}_\mu\big(\max_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}H_n(\sigma)\big)\leq C_{\beta}(\log n)^2$ which improve upon the bound given by Poincaré’s inequality.\
Improvements of Variance bounds with respect to the parameter $\beta$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us collect some results of Chatterjee and briefly explain how Proposition \[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\] can be used to improve the dependance of the variance bounds with respect to $\beta$. However, the dependance in $n$ will be worse.\
Chatterjee used, in [@Chatt1], a Theorem of Bernstein about completely monotone function. As far as we are concerned, the spectral framework exposed in section three seems to be more natural to work with and provides equivalent results.\
The arguments, in order to improve the dependance in $\beta$, can be summarize as follow : choose $T$ such that $I(T)$ can be bounded by a relevant quantity and apply Proposition \[prop.partial.inverse.curvature\].
In the $SK$ model the following holds
$${\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})\leq \frac{C_1n\log (2+C_2\beta)}{\log n},\quad \forall \beta>0$$ with $C_1,C_2>0$ two numerical constants.
Here $T>0$ is choosen such that $${\mathbb{E}}_{\sigma,\sigma'}\bigg[M_{\sigma\sigma'}e^{2\beta^2e^{-2T}M_{\sigma\sigma'}}\bigg]=C_\beta,\quad \forall \beta>0$$
where $M_{\sigma\sigma'}=\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i\sigma_i'\big)^2$ and $C_\beta>0$ is a constant that does not depend on $n$. That is $T=\frac{1}{2}\log\big(\frac{2\beta^2}{\gamma}\big)$ for some sufficiently small constant $\gamma>0$ (cf. [@Chatt1]).
In the REM, the following holds for $\beta>2\sqrt{\log 2}$,
$${\rm Var}_\mu(F_{n,\beta})\leq C_\beta$$
where $C_\beta>0$ is a constant that does no depend on $n$.
Here $T$ is choosen as $T=\frac{1}{2}\log (2\beta ^2)$ so that $I(T)\leq \frac{n}{2^n}e^{-2T}e^n$ and the upper bound is relevant in the low temperature regime (cf. [@Chatt1; @BovKurLow]). Notice the difference of renormalization with Proposition \[prop.rem\] (one has to replace the number of random variables $n$ by $2^n$ and the i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variables $(X_i)_{i=1,\ldots,2^n}$ by $\sqrt{n}X_i$ in the Proposition).
*Aknowledgment: I thank M. Ledoux for fruitful discussions on this topic.*
[10]{}
D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux. . Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 348, 2014.
F. Baudoin and J. Wang. Curvature dimension inequalities and subelliptic heat kernel gradient bounds on contact manifolds. , 40:163–193, 2014.
S. Boucheron and M. Thomas. Concentration inequalities for order statistics. , 2012.
T. Boucheron, G. Lugosi, and P. Massart. . Oxford University Press, 2013.
A. Bovier. , volume 163. Cambridge sudies in advenced mathematics, 2016.
A. Bovier, I. Kurkova, and M. L[ö]{}we. Fluctuations of the Free Energy in the REM and the $p$-spin SK models. , 30(2):605–651, 2002.
S. Chatterjee. . Springer, 2014.
D. Cordero-Erausquin and M. Ledoux. Hypercontractive measures, Talagrand’s inequality, and Influences. , 2012.
M. Ledoux. The geometry of Markov diffusions operators. , 2000.
M. Ledoux. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 89, 2001.
M. Talagrand. . Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2011.
M. Talagrand. , volume 55 of [*Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics*]{}. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
K. Tanguy. Talagrand’s inequality at higher order and application to boolean analysis. .
K. Tanguy. Some superconcentration inequalities for extrema of stationary gaussian processes. , 2015.
K. Tanguy. Non asymptotic variance bounds and deviation inequalities by Optimal Transport. , 2017.
K. Tanguy. . PhD thesis, Institute of Mathematics of Toulouse, 2017.
P. Valettas. On the tightness of Gaussian concentration for convex functions. , To appear.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have carried out high-field resistivity measurements up to 27T in EuFe$_2$As$_2$ at $P$=2.5GPa, a virtually optimal pressure for the $P$-induced superconductivity, where $T_\mathrm{c}$=30K. The $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram has been constructed in a wide temperature range with a minimum temperature of 1.6K ($\approx$0.05$\times$$T_\mathrm{c}$), for both $B$$\parallel$$ab$($B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}$) and $B$$\parallel$$c$($B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$). The upper critical fields $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}$(0) and $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$(0), determined by the onset of resistive transitions, are 25T and 22T, respectively, which are significantly smaller than those of other Fe-based superconductors with similar values of $T_\mathrm{c}$. The small $B_\mathrm{c2}(0)$ values and the $B_\mathrm{c2}(T)$ curves with positive curvature around 20K can be explained by a multiple pair-breaking model that includes the exchange field due to the magnetic Eu$^{2+}$ moments. The anisotropy parameter, $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}/B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$, in EuFe$_2$As$_2$ at low temperatures is comparable to that of other “122" Fe-based systems.'
author:
- 'Nobuyuki Kurita$^{1,2}$'
- 'Motoi Kimata$^{1,2}$'
- 'Kota Kodama$^{1,3}$'
- Atsushi Harada$^1$
- Megumi Tomita$^1$
- 'Hiroyuki S. Suzuki$^1$'
- Takehiko Matsumoto$^1$
- Keizo Murata$^4$
- 'Shinya Uji$^{1,2,3}$'
- 'Taichi Terashima$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Upper Critical Field of Pressure-Induced Superconductor EuFe$_2$As$_2$'
---
The discovery of superconductivity in LaFeAs(O,F) at $T_\mathrm{c}$=26K[@Kamihara] has inspired experimental and theoretical research on a group of FeAs-layered superconductors (SCs).[@review] Basically, Fe-based high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductivity[@Kito2008; @ZARen2008a; @Wang_56K] occurs when the antiferromagnetic (AF) order in the mother compounds is suppressed by means of carrier doping,[@Kamihara] application of pressure ($P$),[@Alireza] or isovalent substitution.[@Ren_EuFe2AsP2] As compared to other methods in studying such interplay between magnetism and superconductivity, pressure experiments have a significant advantage in that they are free from random impurity potentials that may distort the underlying physics of the low-lying energy states. Among the various crystal structures, tetragonal ThCr$_2$Si$_2$-type (“122") compounds have been investigated more intensively owing to the availability of highly-pure stoichiometric single crystals. In particular, $A$Fe$_2$As$_2$ ($A$=Sr, Eu) exhibits $P$-induced bulk superconductivity with $T_\mathrm{c}$ of order 30K.[@Alireza; @Matsubayashi_Sr; @Terashima_Eu1] In contrast, superconductivity under hydrostatic pressure is not exhibited by CaFe$_2$As$_2$,[@Yu_Helium] and its occurrence in BaFe$_2$As$_2$ has not been established definitively.[@Matsubayashi_Sr; @Yamazaki_Ba]
A fundamental characteristic of SCs is the upper critical field $B_\mathrm{c2}$. $B_\mathrm{c2}$ has its roots in the breakdown of Cooper pairs; hence, the $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram provides important insights into the pairing mechanism of high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductivity. Thus far, to our knowledge, there has been no reports on $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $P$-induced Fe-based SCs at low temperatures. This is mainly attributed to the difficulty in conducting high-pressure experiments on high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ SCs under a high-field. In the case of SrFe$_2$As$_2$ ($T_\mathrm{c}$=30K at 4.2GPa), a field of 8T brings about a small reduction in $T_\mathrm{c}$ (i.e., to 27K) for $B$$\parallel$$ab$.[@Kotegawa_Sr] Assuming an orbitally limited case,[@WHH1966] $B_\mathrm{c2}$ ($T$=0K) could exceed 60T.[@Kotegawa_Sr] However, the low-temperature region of the $B_\mathrm{c2}$ curve, where paramagnetic and/or multiband effects may play important roles,[@twobandLaFeAsO1] has not been investigated.
In the case of EuFe$_2$As$_2$ ($T_\mathrm{c}$=30K at $\sim$2.5GPa), $B_\mathrm{c2}$ is relatively small, i.e., $\sim$16T between 5K and 10K,[@Terashima_Eu1] and hence can be traced down to very low temperatures. EuFe$_2$As$_2$ is unique in that the localized Eu$^{2+}$ moments exhibit an AF order below 20K[@Raffius_Mossbauer; @Jeevan_single; @Ren; @Xiao_PRB09; @Jiang_NJP09] in addition to an AF order arising from the FeAs layers at $T_\mathrm{\>0}$$\sim$190K. $T_\mathrm{N}$ of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments is insensitive to pressure, and the AF order occurs in the $P$-induced superconducting state as evidenced by magnetic and heat capacity measurements under high-pressure.[@Terashima_Eu1; @Miclea; @Kurita_Eu1; @Matsubayashi_Eu] Despite the AF order, which is produced by a weak interlayer interaction, the dominant interaction among the Eu$^{2+}$ moments is the intralayer ferromagnetic (FM) interaction, and hence the FM alignment of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments is easily achieved by the application of 1$\sim$2T even below $T_\mathrm{N}$ at ambient pressure as well as under high pressure.[@Xiao_PRB09; @Jiang_NJP09; @Terashima_Eu1; @Terashima_mag; @Miclea; @Xiao_PRB10] Thus, EuFe$_2$As$_2$ provides an excellent opportunity where a long-standing issue of the interplay between superconductivity and magnetism can be studied in a high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ material using high-quality single crystals.
In this report, we present the $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_2$ at a pressure of 2.5GPa and minimum temperature of 1.6K via high-field resistivity measurements up to 27T, and discuss the origin of the distinctive $B_\mathrm{c2}$ curves.
Single crystals of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ were prepared via the Bridgman method from a stoichiometric mixture of the constituent elements. The samples analyzed in this study were obtained from the same batch (residual resistivity ratio $RRR$=7) as that used in Refs. and . The resistivity of two samples, denoted by $^{\#}$1 and $^{\#}$2, was simultaneously measured at $P$=2.5GPa via an ac four-probe method in a $^4$He cryostat ($T$$\ge$1.6K). Sample$^{\#}$1 ($^{\#}$2) was aligned with the $ab$-plane ($c$-axis) parallel to the longitudinal direction of a hybrid-type piston cylinder pressure cell[@PistonCell] for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ ($\parallel$$c$) measurements. For both samples, the magnetic field was applied along the piston cylinder axis in a direction perpendicular to that of the current. To generate hydrostatic pressure, Daphne7474 (Idemitsu Kosan) oil, which remains in the liquid state up to 3.7GPa at room temperature,[@Daphne7474] was used as the pressure-transmitting medium. The samples were gradually cooled at an average rate of 0.5K/min. The pressure was calibrated at 4.2K by the resistance change of a Manganin wire.[@Terashima_Eu1] Magnetic fields up to 27T were produced by a water-cooled resistive magnet installed at the Tsukuba Magnet Laboratory, National Institute for Materials Science. A 17-T superconducting magnet was used for preliminary resistivity studies. In this study, the magnetic field $B$ denotes an externally applied field, and the magnetization within a sample (up to $\sim$0.9T[@Terashima_mag]) is neglected.
![(Color online) $\rho$ vs $T$ for EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ at $P$=2.5GPa for samples$^{\#}$1 and $^{\#}$2 in the absence of applied field. The direction of current $I$ is $I$$\parallel$$ab$. The inset illustrates the $T$$-$$P$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$.[@Kurita_Eu2] $T_\mathrm{\>0}$ and $T_\mathrm{N}$ denote the temperatures of the AF order arising from the FeAs layers and localized Eu$^{2+}$ moments, respectively. The solid circles denote $T_\mathrm{c}$ determined under the criterion $\rho$=0. The crosses denote the values obtained from Ref.. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig1\] shows the temperature dependence of the resistivity, $\rho(T)$, for the two samples, $^{\#}$1 and $^{\#}$2, at $P$=2.5GPa in the absence of an applied field. For both samples, $\rho$ exhibits virtually $T$-linear dependence in the broad temperature range above $T_\mathrm{c}$ without any anomaly due to the AF order of the FeAs layers. This observation is consistent with the phase diagram shown in the inset:[@Miclea; @Kurita_Eu2] $P$=2.5GPa is just above the critical pressure $P_\mathrm{c}$, where $T_\mathrm{\>0}$$\rightarrow$0, as indicated by the arrow. Similar $\rho$$\sim$$T$ behavior was also reported in several optimally doped Fe-based SCs.[@Tlinear1; @Tlinear2] However the reason for such behavior has not been verified thus far. Both samples exhibit a sharp transition to zero resistivity at $T_\mathrm{c}$=30 K; the reentrant-like behavior as reported in Ref. is not observed for either sample at this pressure. Our previous work[@Kurita_Eu1] indicates that reentrant-like behavior may be observed for $P$$<$$P_\mathrm{c}$ but not for $P$$>$$P_\mathrm{c}$ (as long as $P$ is not far from $P_\mathrm{c}$) in our single crystals. Since both $T_\mathrm{c}$ and $B_\mathrm{c2}$ attain maximum values at $P$$\approx$$P_\mathrm{c}$, followed by a monotonic decrease with increasing $P$.[@Kurita_Eu2], $B_\mathrm{c2}$ determined at 2.5GPa in this study is expected to be close to its maximum value.
Figure \[fig2\](a)-(d) shows the resistivity of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ at 2.5 GPa as a function of $B$ and $T$ for the two orientations $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$. A magnetic field of 27T is sufficient to recover the normal state at the minimum temperature, 1.6K ($\approx$0.05$\times$$T_\mathrm{c}$), for both orientations. Using the data in Fig. \[fig2\](a) and (b), the $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ is constructed for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ at 2.5GPa, as shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. Three sets$-$$B_\mathrm{c2}$, $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{on}$ (onset), and $B_\mathrm{c2}^x$ ($x$=0 and 50, $x$% of the normal state resistivity $\rho_\mathrm{n}$)$-$are plotted, and their definitions are illustrated in the inset. The solid and open symbols are obtained from the $\rho(B)$ and $\rho(T)$ measurements, respectively. $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$ is consistent with the previous result($\times$) obtained from the ac-$\chi$ measurement for $B$$\parallel$$ab$.[@Terashima_Eu1] Note that all the curves of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ ($B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}$) obtained under different criteria exhibit qualitatively similar $T$-dependence. The same is also true for $B_\mathrm{c2}$ for $B$$\parallel$$c$ ($B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$), as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a). $T_\mathrm{N}$ at zero field is indicated by an arrow in Figs. \[fig3\] and \[fig4\]. However, we note that, since the AF order of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments is destroyed by an applied field of $\sim$1T,[@Terashima_Eu1] the $B_\mathrm{c2}$ curves for both $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$ are in the paramagnetic or field-induced FM state of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments.
![(Color online) (a) $\rho$ vs $B$ and (b) $\rho$ vs $T$ for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ (sample$^{\#}$1) and (c) $\rho$ vs $B$ and (d) $\rho$ vs $T$ for $B$$\parallel$$c$ (sample$^{\#}$2) in EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ at $P$=2.5GPa.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2){width="0.8\linewidth"}
A distinctive feature, the concave (upward) curvature of $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}$ around 20K, has not been reported in other Fe-based SCs without localized magnetic ions. Therefore, it is likely related to the magnetic state of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments. Similar concave $B_\mathrm{c2}(T)$ curves have been reported in Chevrel-phase compounds such as (Eu,$M$)Mo$_6$S$_8$ ($M$=Sn,[@JP_SnEuMoS] La,[@JP_LaEuMoS] etc.) and EuMo$_6$S$_8$ under pressure.[@JP_EuMoS] In these systems, the conduction electrons are subjected to an exchange field $B_J$ in addition to an applied field via AF coupling with the Eu$^{2+}$ localized magnetic moments. Note that the concave curvature is an indication of the negative sign of $B_J$; $B_J$ is antiparallel to the applied field.[@JP_effect; @JP_EuMoS] Within a multiple pair-breaking picture, $B_{c2}$ in the dirty limit of three-dimensional SCs with negative $B_J$ can be expressed by[@WHH1966; @JP_effect2]
$$\begin{aligned}
\ln \frac{1}{t} = & \biggl( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{i\lambda_\mathrm{so}}{4\gamma} \biggr) \times \Psi \biggl( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{h+i\lambda_\mathrm{so}/2+i\gamma}{2t} \biggr) \\
+ \biggl( \frac{1}{2} & - \frac{i\lambda_\mathrm{so}}{4\gamma} \biggr) \times \Psi \biggl( \frac{1}{2} + \frac{h+i\lambda_\mathrm{so}/2-i\gamma}{2t} \biggr) - \Psi \biggl( \frac{1}{2} \biggr)\\
\gamma=&[\alpha^2 (h+ h_J)^2-\lambda_\mathrm{so}^2]^{\frac{1}{2}} \label{eq1}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\Psi$ and $\lambda_\mathrm{so}$ are the digamma function and spin-orbit scattering parameter, respectively. The magnetic scattering parameter $\lambda_\mathrm{m}$ used in the complete formula[@WHH1966; @JP_effect2] is typically ignored for simplicity.[@JP_EuMoS; @JP_effect3] The Maki parameter $\alpha$ is defined as $\sqrt{2}$$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*}$/$B_\mathrm{p}$, using the orbital critical field $B_\mathrm{c2}^*$ at $T$=0 and the Pauli-Clogston paramagnetic limit $B_\mathrm{p}$[@CClimit1]. Reduced units$-$$t$=$T$/$T_\mathrm{c}$, $h$=0.281$B_\mathrm{c2}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*}$, and $h_J$=0.281$B_J$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{*}$$-$are employed. We assume $B_J$=$\beta$$M$ ($\beta$:constant), where the magnetization $M$ is modeled within a molecular-field approximation.[@Magnetization] To simplify the following discussions, $\alpha$ for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ is set to 3, a typical value for “122" systems.
![(Color online) $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ at 2.5GPa. The values of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ are determined under three different criteria, as illustrated for $\rho(B)$ data at 4.2K (inset). The solid or open symbols denote $B_\mathrm{c2}$ determined from $\rho(B)$ and $\rho(T)$ measurements, respectively. The solid and dashed curves are fits to Eq.(\[eq1\]). [**$\times$**]{} denotes the previous $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$ result deduced from an ac-$\chi$ measurement for $B$$\parallel$$ab$[@Terashima_Eu1]. The arrow indicates $T_\mathrm{N}$ of Eu$^{2+}$ moments in the superconducting state in the absence of an applied field at 2.6GPa[@Terashima_Eu1]. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![(Color online) (a) $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ for $B$$\parallel$$c$ at 2.5GPa. The solid and open symbols denote $B_\mathrm{c2}$ deduced from $\rho(H)$ and $\rho(T)$ data, respectively. The dashed curves are fits to Eq.(\[eq1\]). The inset shows $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$ vs $T_\mathrm{c}$ for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$. The dashed curves are fits for $T$=0 extrapolation (see text). (b) $T$-variation of an anisotropy parameter, $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$, determined by the onset and zero-resistivity. (c) $T$-dependence of the superconducting transition width, $\Delta B_\mathrm{c2}$(=$B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{on}$$-$$B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$), for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The solid curve in Fig. \[fig3\] was calculated from Eq.(\[eq1\]) for $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$ data with $T_\mathrm{c}$ set to the experimental value $T_\mathrm{c}$=29K. The fit yields a parameter set ($\lambda_\mathrm{so}$, $\beta$)=(7.9, $-$187). $\beta$=$-$187 indicates that the maximum of $|B_J|$, $B_J^\mathrm{m}$, is around 168T. The fit captures the qualitative characteristics of the experimental $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$ curve satisfactorily, especially the positive curvature below $T_\mathrm{N}$=20K, and shows that the low value of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ (compared to other Fe-based SCs’ with similar $T_\mathrm{c}$ values) is due to the large $B_J$, which is a consequence of a large Eu$^{2+}$ magnetization due to the field-induced FM alignment of the Eu$^{2+}$ moments. However, its deviation from the experimental curve is also noticeable at low fields near $T_\mathrm{c}$. This disagreement probably indicates that the phase diagram in this $T$-range is affected by a subtle competition between superconductivity and magnetic fluctuations, and it is beyond the scope of Eq.(\[eq1\]), which assumes a homogeneous $B_J$ produced by paramagnetic spins. Since the dominant interaction among the Eu$^{2+}$ moments is the intralayer FM interaction,[@Jiang_NJP09; @Terashima_mag; @Xiao_PRB09; @Xiao_PRB10] the FM fluctuations develop when $T$ is lowered to $T_\mathrm{N}$, as evidenced by the enhancement of the magnetic susceptibility as $T$$\rightarrow$$T_\mathrm{N}$.[@Jiang_NJP09; @Terashima_Eu1; @Terashima_mag] Such FM fluctuations may be detrimental to superconductivity. One way to phenomenologically overcome this problem and to improve the fit in a $T$-range not close to $T_\mathrm{c}$ is to use a reduced value of $T_\mathrm{c}$. Thus, the three dotted curves are calculated using the reduced $T_\mathrm{c}$ value. They reproduce the experimental curves excellently over the entire $T$-range, with a minimum temperature of 1.6K. For $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$, we assumed ($\lambda_\mathrm{so}$, $\beta$, $T_\mathrm{c}$)=(2.7, $-$83, 24K), where $B_J^\mathrm{m}$$\sim$75T. Here, it may be worthwhile to compare the parameters with those of the Chevrel compounds. The comparison revealed that the obtained $\lambda_\mathrm{so}$ is comparable to that found in the Chevrel-type Eu compounds,[@JP_EuMoS; @JP_effect3] and $B_J^\mathrm{m}$ in EuFe$_2$As$_2$ is a few times greater than that reported in the Chevrel-type Eu compounds.[@JP_EuMoS; @JP_effect3] We note that the concave curvature of $B_\mathrm{c2}$ in EuFe$_2$As$_2$ essentially differs from the positive curvatures often observed in highly two-dimensional SCs such as high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ cuprates. In the latter, the curvature is highly dependent on what criterion is chosen to define $B_\mathrm{c2}$, and it is most likely affected by the vortex lattice phase transitions, i.e. from a vortex-liquid state to a vortex-solid state.[@Ando_Bc2]
Figure \[fig4\](a) shows the $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram of EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ for $B$$\parallel$$c$ at 2.5GPa,[@DiscrepancyinBc2] determined in the same manner as that used for $B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$. A concave curvature around 20K is also visible for the $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$ curves. The dashed curves are calculated using the parameters comparable to those used for $B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$, i.e., for $B_\mathrm{c2}^{\>0}$, the fit gives ($\alpha$, $\lambda_\mathrm{so}$)=(1.9, 2.6) when we assume ($\beta$, $T_\mathrm{c}$)=($-$83, 24K), identical to the values used for $B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$. The calculated curves tend to saturate below 3K, whereas the experimental curves appear to increase linearly as $T$ decreases to zero. The unsaturation of $B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$ has been observed in other Fe-based SCs,[@twobandLaFeAsO1; @Yuan_BaK122; @twobandSrFeCo2As2; @Kano] and it has been explained using a two-band model. Figure \[fig4\](b) shows the anisotropy ratio, $\Gamma$=$B_\mathrm{c2}^{ab}$/$B_\mathrm{c2}^{c}$, calculated from $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}(T)$ and $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{on}(T)$. In spite of the quasi-two-dimensional layered structure in EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$, we obtain a small value of $\Gamma$, ranging between 0.9 and 1.4, which is comparable to that obtained for other “122" compounds.[@twobandSrFeCo2As2; @Yuan_BaK122; @Kano; @BaFeCo2As2_Yamamoto] In contrast to the monotonic decrease in $\Gamma$ with decreasing $T$ in other “122" compounds, $\Gamma$ in EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$ exhibits a broad maximum at around 8K, which is likely ascribed to the presence of the $B_J$.
In order to compare the magnitude of $B_\mathrm{c2}$(0) with that of other Fe-based SCs, we estimate it by extrapolating the low-$T$ data to $T$$=$0, as shown by the dashed curves in the inset of Fig. \[fig4\](a). For the extrapolations, an empirical expression, $B_\mathrm{c2}(t)=B_\mathrm{c2}(0)$(1$-$$t^2$)/(1$+$$t^2$),[@Extraporation] and a linear fit are used for $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}$ and $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$, respectively. We obtain $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{ab}(0)$=24.7T and 19.7T and $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$(0)=21.5T and 17.2T for $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{on}$ and $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$, respectively. $B_\mathrm{c2}(0)$ in EuFe$_2$As$_2$ is significantly lower than $B_\mathrm{c2}(0)$$>$50T in other Fe-based SCs at $T_\mathrm{c}$=20-30K.[@twobandLaFeAsO1; @Yuan_BaK122; @twobandSrFeCo2As2; @Kano] The width of the superconducting transition, $\Delta B$ (=$B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{on}$$-$$B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{\>0}$), increases as $T$ decreases to 15K for both $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$ \[Fig. \[fig4\](c)\]. Below 15K, $\Delta B$ is virtually $T$-independent, as reflected by the parallel-shifts of the $\rho(B)$ curves in Fig. \[fig2\](a) and (c). The $T$-dependence may correlate with the development of $M$; $M$ at $B$=$B_\mathrm{c2}(T)$ increases rapidly as $T$ decreases from $T_\mathrm{c}$, but it is virtually saturated below $\sim$15K.[@Jiang_NJP09] At 1.6K, $\Delta B$ is estimated as 5.1T and 4.4T for $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$, respectively. The relatively narrow transition width at low $T$, which is also observed in Ba(Fe,Co)$_2$As$_2$,[@BaFeCo2As2_Yamamoto; @Kano] signifies a strong vortex pinning force in EuFe$_2$As$_{2}$.
In conclusion, we carried out high-field resistivity measurements up to 27T for EuFe$_2$As$_2$ at 2.5GPa, and we constructed the $B_\mathrm{c2}$$-$$T_\mathrm{c}$ phase diagram down to a minimum temperature of 1.6K. Our analysis was based on a multiple pair-breaking model, and it revealed that the distinctive $B_\mathrm{c2}$ curves with positive curvature and the reduced $B_\mathrm{c2}$ values can be attributed to the substantial negative exchange field from the Eu$^{2+}$ moments. The low temperature anisotropy at 1.6K, $\Gamma$=1.2, is comparable to the results obtained for other “122" systems.
[25]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
., ****, ().
For recent reviews, see K. Ishida [*et al*]{}., ****, () and D. C. Johnston, Advances in Physics ****, 803 (2010). H. Kito [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, 063707 (2008).
., ****, ().
C. Wang [*et al*]{}., Europhys. Lett. ****, 67006 (2008).
P. L. Alireza [*et al*]{}., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter ****, 012208 (2008).
Z. Ren [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 137002 (2009).
K.Matsubayashi [*et al*]{}., J.Phys.Soc.Jpn.****,073706(2009).
T. Terashima [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, 083701 (2009); ****, 118001 (2009); Physica C ****, S443 (2010).
W. Yu [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 020511(R) (2009).
T. Yamazaki [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 224511 (2010).
., ****, ().
H. Kotegawa [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, 013709 (2009).
F. Hunte [*et al*]{}., Nature ****, 903 (2008). H. Raffius [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Chem. Solids ****, 135 (1993) H. S. Jeevan [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B ****, 052502 (2008).
Z. Ren [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B ****, 052501 (2008).
Y. Xiao [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. B ****, 174424 (2009)
S. Jiang [*et al*]{}., N. J. Phys. ****, 025007 (2009)
C. F. Miclea [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 212509 (2009).
N. Kurita [*et al*]{}., arXiv: 1008.0684 (2010), to appear in J. Phys: Conf. Ser. (2011).
K. Matsubayashi [*et al*]{}., arXiv:1007.2889 (2010).
T. Terashima [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, 103706 (2010).
Y. Xiao [*et. al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. ****, 220406 (R) (2010)
Y. Uwatoko [*et al*]{}., Physica C ****, 1658 (2003)
K. Murata [*et al*]{}., Rev. Sci. Instrum. ****, 085101(2008)
R. H. Liu [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 087001 (2008). M. Gooch [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 104504 (2009).
N. Kurita [*et. al.*]{}, unpublished.
$\mathrm{\O}$. Fischer [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. ****, L474 (1975).
M. S. Torikachvili and M. B. Maple, Solid State Commun. ****, 1 (1981).
M. Decroux [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 1563 (1984) V. Jaccarino and M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 290 (1962).
$\mathrm{\O}$. Fisher, Helv. Phys. Acta ****, 331 (1972).
C. Rossel [*et al*]{}., J. Appl. Phys. ****, 3099 (1985)
B. S. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. ****, 7 (1962); A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 266 (1962)
The model reproduces experimental $c$-axis magnetization satisfactorily.[@Terashima_mag] The anisotropy of magnetization is small, except for a low-$T$ and low-$B$ region;[@Jiang_NJP09] hence, we use the same model for both $B$$\parallel$$ab$ and $B$$\parallel$$c$.
Y. Ando [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 12475 (1999).
There is discrepancy between the present and previous $B_\mathrm{c2}^\mathrm{c}$ data. The latter was determined from ac-$\chi$.[@Terashima_Eu1] This could be due to the difference in the applied pressure and/or sample variations. In this study, $\rho$ was simultaneously measured using the two samples from the same piece.
H. Q. Yuan [*et al*]{}., Nature ****, 565 (2009).
S. A. Baily [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. ****, 117004 (2009).
M. Kano [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. ****, 084719 (2009).
A. Yamamoto [*et al*]{}., Appl. Phys. Lett. ****, 062511 (2009)
A. Leitner [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. ****, 1408 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the persistence probability for some two-sided discrete-time Gaussian sequences that are discrete-time analogs of fractional Brownian motion and integrated fractional Brownian motion, respectively. Our results extend the corresponding ones in continuous-time in [@Molchan1999a] and [@Molchan2017a] to a wide class of discrete-time processes.'
author:
- Frank Aurzada
- Micha Buck
title: 'Persistence probabilities of two-sided (integrated) sums of correlated stationary Gaussian sequences'
---
Introduction
============
Persistence concerns the probability that a stochastic process has a long negative excursion. In this paper, we are concerned mainly with two-sided discrete-time processes: If $Z = (Z_n)_{n \in \Z}$ is a stochastic process, we study the rate of decay of the probability $${\P\left({Z_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}, \quad \text{as} \quad N \to \infty.$$ In many cases of interest, the above probability decreases polynomially, i.e., as $N^{-\theta+o(1)}$, and it is the first goal to find the persistence exponent $\theta$. For a recent overview on this subject, we refer to the surveys [@Majumdar1999], [@Bray2013a], [@Aurzada2015a].
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the persistence probability for the discrete-time analogs of two-sided fractional Brownian motion (FBM) and two-sided integrated fractional Brownian motion (IFBM). Our study extends results in [@Molchan1999a] and [@Molchan2017a], respectively, to a wide class of discrete-time processes.
The study of persistence probabilities of FBM, IFBM and related processes has received considerable attention in theoretical physics and mathematics, recently. For instance, see [@Molchan2004] and [@Molchan2017a] where a relation between the Hausdorff dimension of Lagrangian regular points for the inviscid Burgers equation with FBM initial velocity and the persistence probabilities of IFBM is established; the interest for it arises from [@She1992] and [@Sinai1992]. Further, in [@Oshanin2013] a physical model involving FBM is studied as an extension to the Sinai model; see also [@Aurzada2013b]. Here, persistence probabilities are related to scaling properties of a quantity, called steady-state current. Moreover, persistence of non-Markovian processes that are similar to FBM are studied in [@Castell2013] and [@Aurzada2016aUnp], confirming results in [@Redner1997] and [@Majumdar2003].
Let us recall that a FBM $(W_H(t))_{t \in \R}$ is a centered Gaussian process with covariance $${\E\left[{W_H(t) W_H(s)}\right]} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \vert t \vert^{2H} + \vert s \vert^{2H} - \vert t-s \vert^{2H} \right), \quad t,s\in\R,$$ where $0 < H < 1$ is a constant parameter, called Hurst parameter. For $H = 1/2$ this is a usual two-sided Brownian motion. For any $0 < H < 1$, the process has stationary increments, but no independent increments (unless $H = 1/2$). Furthermore, it is an $H$-self-similar process. An IFBM $(I_H(t))_{t \in \R}$ is defined by $I_H(t) := \int_0^t W_H(s) {\,\textrm{d}}s$ and is an $(H+1)$-self-similar process.
In order to define the discrete-time analogs, let $(\xi_n)$ be a real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence such that $$\label{eq:varS}
\sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n \E \xi_j \xi_k \sim n^{2H} \ell(n), \quad n \to \infty,$$ with $0<H<1$ and $\ell$ slowly varying at infinity. Here and below, we write $f(x) \sim g(x)$ $(x \to x_0)$ if $\lim f(x)/g(x)=1$ as $x \to x_0$. Then, (\[eq:varS\]) implies the weak convergence result $$\label{scalingLimit}
\left( \frac{1}{n^H \ell(n)^{1/2}} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor nt \rfloor} \xi_k \right)_{t \geq 0} \Rightarrow (W_H(t))_{t \geq 0}$$ with fractional Brownian motion $(W_H(t))$, see e.g. Theorem 4.6.1 in [@Whitt2002]. For this reason, it is natural to consider the stationary increments sequence $(S_n)_{n\in\Z}$ given by $$S_n-S_{n-1}:=\xi_n \text{ for } n \in \Z \quad \text{and} \quad S_0:=0$$ as a discrete-time analog of FBM.
Now, we will define the discrete-time analog of IFBM such that symmetry properties like in the continuous-time setting are satisfied. With this in mind, a natural process is given by $${I_n-I_{n-1}:=(S_n+S_{n-1})/2} \text{ for } n \in \Z \quad \text{and} \quad I_0:=0.$$ In Section 2, we discuss relations to the process with increments $(S_n)$ (instead of $((S_n+S_{n-1})/2)$), which may also seem natural but for which our method of proof does not apply directly due to a lack of symmetry.
In [@Molchan1999a] it is shown that one has ${\P\left({W_H(t) \leq 1 \ :\ \vert t \vert \leq T}\right)} = T^{-1 + o(1)}$. Our first result, treats the discrete-time analog. The technique we use to prove the theorem is completely different from the one in [@Molchan1999a].
\[thm:S\_n\] Let $(\xi_n)$ be a real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence such that (\[eq:varS\]) holds. Then, there is a constant $c>0$ such that, for every $N\geq 1$, $$c^{-1} N^{-1} \leq {\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \leq N^{-1}.$$
In order to prove the corresponding result for the process $(I_n)$, we will use a change of measure argument. This argument requires an additional assumption as follows: Let $\mu$ denote the spectral measure of the sequence $(\xi_n)$, i.e., $$\E \xi_j \xi_k =: \int_{(-\pi,\pi]} e^{i \vert j-k \vert u} {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u).$$ The spectral measure $\mu$ has a (possibly vanishing) component that is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Let us denote by $p$ its density, i.e., ${\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u) =: p(u){\,\textrm{d}}u + {\,\textrm{d}}\mu_s(u)$. We will assume that $p$ satisfies $$\label{eq:specDens}
p(u) \sim \ell(1/u) \vert u \vert^{1-2H}, \quad u \to 0,$$ where $\ell$ is a slowly varying function at infinity. It is well-known that (\[eq:specDens\]) implies (\[eq:varS\]) and thus (\[scalingLimit\]).
The nature of this assumption can be understood by considering the fractional Gaussian noise process, defined by $\xi_n^{\textsc{fgn}} := W_H(n) - W_H(n - 1)$. This stationary centered Gaussian sequence has an absolutely continuous spectral measure with density function $p_{\textsc{fgn}}$ that satisfies (see e.g. [@Samorodnitsky_2006]) $$p_{\textsc{fgn}}(u) \sim m_H \vert u \vert^{1-2H},\quad u \to 0,$$ where $m_H = \Gamma(2H + 1) \sin(\pi H)/2 \pi$. So, we assume that the density of the absolutely continuous part of the spectral measure of the stationary process $(\xi_n)$ is comparable to the spectral density of fractional Gaussian noise, up to the slowly varying function $\ell$.
We are now ready to state our second main result.
\[thm:I\_n\] Let $(\xi_n)$ be a real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence such that (\[eq:specDens\]) holds. Then, $${\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} = N^{-(1-H)+o(1)}.$$
We recall that [@Molchan2017a] considers the continuous-time case. Many arguments from that paper can be adapted to our setup. However, for instance, arguments using self-similarity need to be replaced by new ideas. Furthermore, new results concerning the change of measure are needed and may be of independent interest.
For example, as a byproduct of the change of measure techniques, we can improve Theorem 11 in [@Aurzada2016aUnp], where the persistence problem of the one-sided discrete-time analog of FBM is considered. There it is shown that for every real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence $(\xi_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that holds and every $a > 0$, there is some constant $c>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm11aurzada}
c^{-1}N^{-(1-H)} &\frac{\sqrt{\ell(N)}}{\sqrt{\log(N)}} \leq {\P\left({S_n < 0 \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N}\right)} \quad \text{and}\\
&\qquad {\P\left({S_n < -a \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N}\right)} \leq c N^{-(1-H)} \sqrt{\ell(N)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, one has a lower bound for the probability ${\P\left({S_n < b \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N}\right)}$, if $b$ is non-negative, and an upper bound, if $b$ is negative. In order to get both, a lower estimate and an upper estimate, for some arbitrary $b \in \R$, [@Aurzada2016aUnp] uses a change of measure argument. To get this argument to work, a strong assumption on the covariance function of $(S_n)$ is made; namely $\inf_{n \geq 1} \E {S_1 S_n} > 0$ (see also our Remark \[rem:fgn\] below). We are able to prove upper and lower bounds whenever is satisfied. We state this result as Corollary \[cor:thm11aurzada\] below.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we collect some basic properties of the processes $(S_n)$ and $(I_n)$. Moreover, we present some results concerning the reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of the considered processes that may be of independent interest. In Section 3, we give a proof of Theorem \[thm:S\_n\]. Finally, in Section 4, we prove our main result, Theorem \[thm:I\_n\].
Preliminaries
=============
Let $(W_H(t))$ be a FBM with Hurst parameter $0<H<1$ and $(I_H(t))$ an IFBM. Then, unlike $(W_H(t))$, the process $(I_H(t))$ does not have stationary increments. Instead, the process satisfies for all $t_0 \in \R$ $$\left( I_H(t+t_0) - I_H(t_0)- t W_H(t_0) \right)_{t\in\R} \eqd \left(I_H(t)\right)_{t\in\R} .$$ In the discrete-time setup, we have analogous properties. From the definition of the process $(S_n)$, we straightforwardly obtain stationary increments $$\left( S_{n_0+n}-S_{n_0} \right)_{n \in \Z} \eqd \left( S_n \right)_{n \in \Z} \quad \text{for all} \quad n_0 \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ Also, it is easy to verify that we have $$\label{eq:tt}
\left( I_{n_0+n}-I_{n_0}-n\tilde{S}_{n_0} \right)_{n \in \Z} \eqd \left( I_n \right)_{n \in \Z}\quad \text{for all} \quad n_0 \in \mathbb{Z},$$ where $(\tilde{S}_n)_{n \in \Z}$ denotes the sequence given by $\tilde{S}_n := \frac{S_n + S_{n-1}}{2}$.
Let us now recall the definition of the reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) of a centered Gaussian process $(X_t)_{t \in \mathbb{T}}$. For this purpose, let $\mathbb{H}$ denote the $L^2$-closure of the set $\operatorname{span}\{X_t : t \in \mathbb{T}\}$. Then the RKHS $\mathcal{H}$ of $(X_t)$ is the Hilbert space of functions $$\mathbb{T} \ni t \mapsto {\E\left[{X_t h}\right]}, \quad h \in \mathbb{H},$$ with inner product $\left< {\E\left[{Xh_1}\right]} , {\E\left[{Xh_2}\right]} \right>_{\mathcal{H}} = {\E\left[{h_1 h_2}\right]} $.
The following result, Proposition 1.6 in [@Aurzada2013], will be an important tool throughout this work.
\[prop:changeOfMeasure\] Let $X$ be some centered Gaussian process with RKHS $\mathcal{H}$. Denote by $\|\cdot\|$ the norm in $\mathcal{H}$. Then, for each $f \in \mathcal{H}$ and each measurable $S$ such that ${\P\left({X \in S}\right)} \in (0, 1)$, we have $$\label{eq:changeOfMeasure1}
e^{-\sqrt{2 \|f\|^2 \log(1/{\P\left({X \in S}\right)})} - \|f\|^2/2} {\P\left({X \in S}\right)} \leq {\P\left({X+ f \in S}\right)}.$$ If $\|f\|^2 < 2 \log(1/{\P\left({X \in S}\right)})$, we have in addition $$\label{eq:changeOfMeasure2}
{\P\left({X+ f \in S}\right)} \leq e^{\sqrt{2 \|f\|^2 \log(1/{\P\left({X \in S}\right)})} - \|f\|^2/2} {\P\left({X \in S}\right)}.$$
We want to mention that the proof of Proposition 1.6 in [@Aurzada2013] fails if $\|f\|^2 \geq 2 \log(1/{\P\left({X \in S}\right)})$. Thus, unlike in [@Aurzada2013], we have excluded this case here. In the applications of this proposition that we know of, the function $f \in \mathcal{H}$ is fixed and one is interested in the asymptotic behavior of the probabilities ${\P\left({X \in S^{(N)}}\right)}$ for $N\to\infty$, where $(S^{(N)})$ is a sequence of measurable sets such that $\lim_{N\to\infty} {\P\left({X \in S^{(N)}}\right)} = 0$. In this case the condition is satisfied for $N$ large enough. Hence, Proposition 1.6 in [@Aurzada2013] can be applied in the same way as before.
First, we show the existence of a function in the RKHS of $(\xi_n)_{n\in\Z}$ with certain asymptotic behavior.
\[prop:RKHS\] Let $H \in (0,1)$, $\rho \in (-1,H-1)$ and let $\mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ denote the RKHS of the process $(\xi_n)_{n \in \Z}$. Then, if is satisfied, there is an even function $h \in \mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ such that $h>0$ and $h(n) \sim n^\rho$.
Recall that $h \in \mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ if and only if there is a function $\varphi \in L^2(\mu)$ with $h(n) = \int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \varphi(u) e^{-inu} {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u)$, see e.g. Comment 2.2.2 (c) in [@Ash1975]. In order to prove the Proposition, we will first consider a function $\varphi_1 \in L^2(\mu)$ such that the corresponding function $h_1 \in \mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ has the correct asymptotic behavior. This function can attain non-positive values at finitely many times. To fix this, we will construct afterwards another function $\varphi_2 \in L^2(\mu)$ such that the corresponding function $h_2 \in \mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ is non-negative, takes positive values when $h_1$ takes non-positive values and decays faster than $h_1$. Then, for suitable constants $c_1,c_2>0$, the function $h = c_1 h_1 + c_2 h_2$ has the required properties.
*Construction of $h_1$:* Due to , there is a function $\tilde{\ell}$ and a constant $u_0>0$ such that $p(u)=\tilde{\ell}(u) \vert u \vert^{1-2H}$ for $u \in [-u_0,u_0]$ and $\tilde{\ell}$ is slowly varying at zero. By Potter’s theorem, see Theorem 1.5.6 in [@Bingham1987], $u_0$ can be chosen such that $\tilde{\ell}(u_0)/\tilde{\ell}(u) \leq A \left( \frac{\vert u \vert}{u_0} \right)^{-\delta}$ for $\vert u \vert < u_0$, fixed $A>1$ and fixed $0 < \delta < 2(H-1-\rho)$. We set $$\varphi_1(u) := \begin{cases} {\vert u \vert^{2H-2-\rho}}/{\tilde{\ell}(u)}, & u \in [-u_0,u_0] \cap \text{supp}( \mu_s)^C,\\ 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ Then, $\varphi_1 \in L^2(\mu)$ because $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \vert \varphi_1(u) \vert^2 {\,\textrm{d}}\mu (u)
&=
\int_{-u_0}^{u_0} \frac{\vert u \vert^{2H -3 - 2\rho }}{\tilde{\ell}(u)} {\,\textrm{d}}u \\
&\leq
\frac{A}{\tilde{\ell}(u_0)} \int_{-u_0}^{u_0} \vert u \vert^{2 H -3 -2\rho } \left( \frac{\vert u \vert}{u_0} \right)^{-\delta} {\,\textrm{d}}u < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used that $2H-3-2\rho-\delta>-1$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \cos(nu) \varphi_1(u) {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u)
&=
\int_{-u_0}^{u_0} \cos(nu) \vert u \vert^{-\rho - 1 } {\,\textrm{d}}u \\
&=
n^{\rho} \int_{-n u_0}^{n u_0} \cos(v) \vert v \vert^{-\rho-1} {\,\textrm{d}}v \\
&=
2 n^{\rho} \int_{0}^{n u_0} \cos(v) \vert v \vert^{-\rho-1} {\,\textrm{d}}v .\end{aligned}$$ Since $-\rho-1<0$, it is easy to show, using the Leibniz criterion and the concavity of $(\cdot)^{-\rho-1}$, that the latter integral converges to a constant $c/2>0$. Thus, $$h_1(n) = \int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \varphi_1(u) e^{-inu} {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u) \sim c n^\rho.$$
*Construction of $h_2$:* Choose $n_0$ such that $h_1$ attains only positive values for $\vert n \vert > n_0$. Let $g \in C^1$ be an even real-valued function with support contained in $[-u_0/2,u_0/2]$ such that the Fourier coefficients for $\vert n \vert \leq n_0$ do not vanish, e.g. take any smooth even function $g$ with $g(u)>0$ for $\vert u \vert < \min(u_0/2,\pi/(2n_0))$ and $g(u)=0$ otherwise. Then, the function $f $ given by $f(u):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi g(v)\overline{g}(u-v){\,\textrm{d}}v$ has Fourier coefficients $\hat{f}_n = \vert \hat{g}_n \vert^2$. In particular $\hat{f}_n > 0$ for $\vert n \vert \leq n_0$. Moreover, $f \in C^2$ because $f$ is a convolution of two differentiable functions. Thus, we have $$0 \leq \hat{f}_n = \frac{1}{(in)^2} (\widehat{f''})_n \leq \frac{\sup_{x \in (-\pi,\pi]} \vert f''(x) \vert}{\vert n \vert^2} \quad \text{for} \quad n \in \Z \setminus \{0\}.$$ Now, we consider the function $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_2(u) := \begin{cases} \frac{f(u)}{\vert u \vert^{1-2H} \tilde{\ell}(u)}, & u \in [-u_0,u_0] \cap \text{supp}( \mu_s)^C,\\ 0 ,& \text{otherwise} . \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Let $M$ denote the maximum of $f$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \vert \varphi_2(u) \vert^2 {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u)
&\leq
\int_{-u_0}^{u_0} \frac{M^2}{\vert u \vert^{1-2H} \tilde{\ell}(u)} {\,\textrm{d}}u \\
&\leq
\frac{A}{\tilde{\ell}(u_0)} \int_{-u_0}^{u_0} \frac{M^2}{\vert u \vert^{1-2H} } \left( \frac{\vert u \vert}{u_0} \right)^{-\delta} {\,\textrm{d}}u
<
\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $2H-1-\delta>-1$. Furthermore, we have by construction of $\varphi_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
h_2(n)
&=
\int_{(-\pi,\pi]} \varphi_2(u) e^{-inu} {\,\textrm{d}}\mu(u)
=
\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(u) e^{-inu} {\,\textrm{d}}u = \hat{f}_n. \end{aligned}$$
As a corollary of Proposition \[prop:RKHS\], we show the existence of functions with certain asymptotic behavior in the RKHSs of $(S_n)_{n \in \Z}$ and $(I_n)_{n \in \Z}$, respectively.
\[cor:RKHS\] Let $H\in(0,1)$, $\rho \in (-1,H-1)$ and let $\mathcal{H}_H(S)$ and $\mathcal{H}_H(I)$ denote the RKHS of the processes $(S_n)_{n \in \Z}$ and $(I_n)_{n \in \Z}$, respectively. Then, if is satisfied, there are functions $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(S)$, $g \in \mathcal{H}_H(I)$ such that $f$ is odd with $f(n) > 0$ for $n>0$ and $f(n) \sim n^{\rho+1}$ as $n \to \infty$ whereas $g$ is even and positive on $\Z \setminus \{0\}$ with $g(n) \sim n^{\rho+2}$ as $n \to \infty$.
Let $h \in \mathcal{H}_H(\xi)$ be the positive and even function in Proposition \[prop:RKHS\] with $h(n) \sim n^\rho$. Then, by the definition of the RKHS, there is a random variable $X$ in the $L^2$-closure of the set $\operatorname{span}\{\xi_n : n \in \Z\}$ with $h(n)={\E\left[{\xi_n X}\right]}$. Now, let the functions $f,g$ be given by $f(n) ={(\rho+1)}{\E\left[{S_n X}\right]}$ and $g(n) = {(\rho+1)(\rho+2)}{\E\left[{I_n X}\right]}$, respectively. Since the sets $\operatorname{span}\{\xi_n : n \in \Z\}$, $\operatorname{span}\{S_n : n \in \Z\}$ and $\operatorname{span}\{I_n : n \in \Z\}$ coincide, we have $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(S)$ and $g \in \mathcal{H}_H(I)$. By $h(n) \sim n^\rho$ and the symmetry of $h$, we have $-f(-n) = f(n) = (\rho+1)\sum_{k=1}^n h(k) \sim n^{\rho+1}$ as $n \to \infty$. Thus, we have further $g(-n) = g(n) = (\rho+1)(\rho+2) \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} {\E\left[{S_k X}\right]} + {\E\left[{S_n X}\right]}/2 \sim n^{\rho+2}$ as $n \to \infty$.
As a first application of Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], we compare the persistence probabilities of $(I_n)$ to a closely related process. Let $(\bar{I}_n)_{n\in\Z}$ be the sequence given by $\bar{I}_n-\bar{I}_{n-1}:=S_n$ for $n \in \Z$ and $\bar{I}_0:=0$. This process is related to the process $(I_n)$ by the identity $\bar{I}_n = I_n + S_n/2$. Both processes are defined as integrals of stationary increments sequences that have FBM as scaling limit. In the context of this paper, the major difference between these processes is that $(I_n)$ vanishes only at $0$ and satisfies $(I_n) \eqd (I_{-n})$ whereas $\bar{I}_{-1}=\bar{I}_0=0$ and $\bar{I}_1$ does not vanish. The symmetry property of $(I_n)$ resembles the continuous-time case and is needed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:I\_n\]. In the following corollary, we relate the persistence probabilities of both processes.
Let $(\xi_n)$ be a real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence such that (\[eq:specDens\]) holds. Then, $${\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ -N-1 \leq n \leq N}\right)} \leq {\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}.$$ If in addition ${\E\left[{ \bar{I}_n \bar{I}_m}\right]} \geq 0$ for all $n,m \in \Z$, then one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}
\leq
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \ell_0(N),\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell_0$ denotes a slowly varying function at infinity.
The first inequality follows directly from the definitions of the processes, since one has $I_n=(\bar{I}_n+\bar{I}_{n-1})/2$ for all $n \in \Z$. Using Slepian’s Lemma and the additional assumption about the correlations of $(\bar{I}_n)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IbarSlepian}
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}
\geq & \,
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq \log(N)}\right)}\\
&\cdot {\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ By the same argument and Theorem \[thm:S\_n\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq \log(N)}\right)}
\geq & \,
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ 0 \leq n \leq \log(N)}\right)}\\
&\cdot {\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ -\log(N) \leq n < 0 }\right)} \\
\geq & \,
{\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ 0 \leq n \leq \log(N)}\right)}\\
&\cdot {\P\left({S_n \geq 0 \ :\ -\log(N) \leq n < 0 }\right)} \\
\geq & \,
c^{-2} \log(N)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the first factor on the right hand side in can be estimated by a slowly varying function at infinity. It remains to relate the second factor on the right hand side in to the probability ${\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}$.
By Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], for $\varepsilon \in (0,1/4)$, there is a symmetric function $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(I)$ such that $f(n) \geq \vert n \vert^{1+H-\varepsilon}$ for all $n \in \Z$. Obviously, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IbarDecomp}
\begin{aligned}
&{\P\left({I_n \leq -n^{1+H-\varepsilon} \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \leq
{\P\left({\bar{I}_n \leq 0 \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}\\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \quad +
{\P\left({ \exists n \ :\ \bar{I}_n - I_n > n^{1+H-\varepsilon} ,\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ We will see that the second term on the right hand side is of lower order, while the term on the left hand side can be related to ${\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}$. For this purpose, let $X$ denote a standard normal random variable. Then, by using $\bar{I}_n-I_n=S_n/2$ in the first step and in the second step, we have for $N$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IbarHighJumps}
\begin{aligned}
&{\P\left({ \exists n \ :\ \bar{I}_n - I_n > n^{1+H-\varepsilon} ,\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}\\
& \quad \quad \leq
2\sum_{n=\lceil \log(N) \rceil}^N {\P\left({S_n/2 > n^{1+H-\varepsilon}}\right)}\\
& \quad \quad \leq
2\sum_{n=\lceil \log(N) \rceil}^N {\P\left({n^{H+\varepsilon} X > n^{1+H-\varepsilon}}\right)}\\
& \quad \quad \leq
2N {\P\left({ X > \log(N)^{1-2\varepsilon}}\right)}\\
& \quad \quad \leq
2N e^{-(\log(N))^{2-4\varepsilon}/2}\\
& \quad \quad \leq
2N^{-2}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ In the fourth step above, we used the standard estimate ${\P\left({X > x}\right)} \leq e^{-x^2/2}$ for $x\geq 1$. Finally, using Proposition \[prop:changeOfMeasure\], we obtain for $N$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}
\leq &
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\
\leq &
{\P\left({I_n \leq -f(n) \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\ & \cdot e^{\sqrt{2\|f\|^2 \log(1/{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)})}-\|f\|^2/2} \\
\leq &
{\P\left({I_n \leq -n^{1+H-\varepsilon} \ :\ \log(N) < \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\ & \cdot e^{\sqrt{2\|f\|^2 \log(1/{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)})}-\|f\|^2/2}.\end{aligned}$$ This, together with , and Theorem \[thm:I\_n\], finishes the proof.
As another application of Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], we can give an improvement of Theorem 11 in [@Aurzada2016aUnp]:
\[cor:thm11aurzada\] Let $(\xi_n)$ be a real valued stationary centered Gaussian sequence such that holds. Then, for every $b \in \R$ there is some constant $c>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
N^{-(1-H)} \sqrt{\ell(N)} e^{-c\sqrt{\log(N)}}
&\leq
{\P\left({\max_{1\leq n \leq N} S_n \leq b}\right)}\\
&\leq
N^{-(1-H)}\sqrt{\ell(N)}e^{c \sqrt{\log(N)}} \quad \forall N \in \mathbb{N}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $a>0$. By Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], there is a function $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(S)$ with $f(n) \geq 2a$ for all $n \geq 1$. Further, using the lower estimate in , we have for $N$ large enough $$N^{-1} \leq {\P\left({ S_n \leq a \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N }\right)} .$$ This together with Proposition \[prop:changeOfMeasure\] yields for $N$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
&{\P\left({S_n \leq -a \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N}\right)}\\
&\qquad\qquad=
{\P\left({ S_n + f(n) \leq -a + f(n) \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N }\right)}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq
{\P\left({ S_n + f(n) \leq a \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N }\right)}\\
&\qquad\qquad\geq
{\P\left({ S_n \leq a \ :\ 1 \leq n \leq N }\right)} e^{-\sqrt{2 \|f\|^2 \log(N) } - \|f\|/2}
.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with finishes the proof.
\[rem:fgn\] In Theorem 11 in [@Aurzada2016aUnp], the authors assume $\inf_{n \geq 1} \E S_nS_1>0$ to get the change of measure argument to work. For instance, the fractional Gaussian noise process $(\xi_n^{\textsc{fgn}})$ satisfies this assumption. This can be easily verified by using that $\E S_n^2 = n^{2H}$. In general, this does not remain true if one only has . For example, consider the case where $\ell(x) = 1 + {\cos(\pi x )}/{\log(x)}$ in . Then, one has $\sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n \E \xi_j \xi_k \sim n^{2H}$ but the function $\E S_n S_1$ attains infinitely often positive and negative values.
Consider the function $f \colon \mathbb{N} \to \R$ with $f(n)=\mathbbm{1}_{n=1}$. Clearly, $f$ is in the RKHS of the process $(\xi_n)_{n \geq 1}$ if and only if $\xi_1 \not\in \mathbb{H}_2$, where $\mathbb{H}_2$ denotes the $L^2$-closure of the set $\operatorname{span}\{\xi_n : n \geq 2\}$. It is well known that this condition is equivalent to the Kolmogorov condition $$\label{eq:kolmogorovsFormula}
\int_{-\pi}^\pi \log(p(u)) {\,\textrm{d}}u > - \infty,$$ where $p$ denotes the density of the component of the spectral measure of $(\xi_n)$ that is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, see e.g. Theorem 2.5.4 in [@Ash1975]. In this case, all constant functions are in the RKHS of the process $(S_n)_{n \geq 1}$. Hence, the proof of Corollary \[cor:thm11aurzada\] still works if we replace condition by and .
Proof of Theorem 1
==================
Upper bound {#upper-bound .unnumbered}
-----------
Let $T_N$ denote the time where the process $(S_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ attains its maximum on $\{0,1,\ldots,N\}$. Since $(S_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$ has stationary increments and ${\P\left({S_j = S_k}\right)}=0$ for $j \neq k$, the upper bound follows from $$\begin{aligned}
N \cdot {\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ -N \leq n \leq N}\right)}
&\leq
\sum_{k=1}^N {\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ -k \leq n \leq N-k}\right)} \\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^N {\P\left({S_n \leq S_k \ :\ 0 \leq n \leq N}\right)}\\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^N {\P\left({T_N=k}\right)} \\
&\leq
1.\end{aligned}$$
Lower bound {#lower-bound .unnumbered}
-----------
Using again the stationary increments of $(S_n)_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:proofSlow}
\begin{aligned}
(N+1)& \cdot {\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ -N \leq n \leq N}\right)}\\
&\geq
\sum_{k=0}^N {\P\left({S_n \leq 0 \ :\ -N-k \leq n \leq 2N-k}\right)} \\
&=
\sum_{k=0}^N {\P\left({S_n \leq S_{N+k} \ :\ 0 \leq n \leq 3N}\right)}\\
&=
\sum_{k=0}^N {\P\left({T_{3N} = N+k}\right)}\\
&=
{\P\left({T_{3N} \in [N,2N]}\right)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we consider the continuous functional $F \colon ( D([0,1]) , \|\cdot\|_\infty) \to (\mathbb{R},\vert \cdot \vert)$ given by $$F(g) = \left( \sup_{x \in \left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}\right)} g(x) - \sup_{x \in \left(0,\frac{1}{3}\right) \cup \left(\frac{2}{3},1\right)} g(x) \right)_+ \wedge 1,$$ where $(x)_+ := \max(x,0)$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $D([0,1])$ denotes the set of all càdlàg functions on $[0,1]$. We set $$Y_N(t) = \frac{1}{N^H \ell(N)^{1/2}} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor Nt \rfloor} \xi_k.$$ Due to (\[scalingLimit\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({T_{3N} \in [N,2N]}\right)} &= {\E\left[{\mathbbm{1}_{T_{3N} \in [N,2N]}}\right]} \geq \E F\left( Y_N \right) \to c_0 > 0, \quad \text{as } N \to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ This and show the lower bound.
Proof of Theorem 2
==================
The proof is structured as follows: We first consider the functional $$F_N := \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \left( \gamma_{k,k}^- - \gamma_{k,N-k}^+ \right)_+,$$ where for $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $m \in \mathbb{N}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{k,m}^- := \min_{1 \leq n \leq m} \frac{I_k-I_{k-n}}{n}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\gamma_{k,m}^+ := \max_{1 \leq n \leq m} \frac{I_{k+n}-I_{k}}{n},\end{aligned}$$ and determine the polynomial order of $\E F_N$ as $N \to \infty$. Then, we relate the quantity $\E F_N$ to the probability $$\label{eq:probProof}
\tilde{p}_N := {\P\left({I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0, \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}.$$ Finally, we obtain the asymptotic order of $$\label{eq:prob}
p_N:={\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)}$$ from (\[eq:probProof\]) by using a change of measure argument (Proposition \[prop:changeOfMeasure\] and Corollary \[cor:RKHS\]).
Upper bound for $\E F_N$ {#upper-bound-for-e-f_n .unnumbered}
------------------------
In the following, we fix $N$ and write $\gamma_k^-=\gamma_{k,k}^-$ and $\gamma_k^+=\gamma_{k,N-k}^+$ to ease notation. Let $C_N \colon [0,N] \to \R$ denote the concave majorant of $I_n$ on $[0,N]$, i.e., $C_N$ is the smallest concave function with $I_n \leq C_N(n)$. Obviously, $C_N$ is a piecewise linear function and we denote by $\{k_{1},k_{2},\ldots\}$ (depending on $N$) its nodal points. At these points the slope on the left is $\gamma_{k_{i}}^-$ and the slope on the right is $\gamma_{k_{i}}^+$. Further, we note that $\gamma_{k}^- - \gamma_{k}^+ \geq 0$ if and only if $k$ is a nodal point of $C_N$. In that case one has $\gamma_{k_{i}}^+=\gamma_{k_{i+1}}^-$. Thus, $$F_N = \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \left( \gamma_{k}^- - \gamma_{k}^+ \right)_+ = \sum_i \left( \gamma_{k_{i}}^- - \gamma_{k_{i+1}}^- \right) = \gamma_{0}^+ - \gamma_{N}^-.$$ By $\E \tilde{S}_N = 0$, (\[eq:tt\]) and $(I_n) \eqd (I_{-n})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\E\left[{ -\gamma_{N}^-}\right]}
&= {\E\left[{-\min_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_N-I_{N-n}}{n} }\right]} \\
&= {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_{N-n}-I_N-(-n)\tilde{S}_N }{n}}\right]} \\
&= {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_{-n}}{n}}\right]} = {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n}}\right]} = \E \gamma_{0}^+.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\label{eq:EF}
\E F_N = 2 \E \gamma_{0}^+.$$ Due to (\[eq:EF\]), one obtains the upper estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\E F_N &= 2 {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n \tilde{S}_k}{n}}\right]} \\
&\leq 2 {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n \max_{1 \leq j \leq N }\tilde{S}_j}{n}}\right]}
= 2 {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq j \leq N} \tilde{S}_j}\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be obtained from (\[scalingLimit\]) that $$\frac{1}{N^H \ell(N)^{1/2}} {\E\left[{ \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \tilde{S}_n}\right]} \to {\E\left[{ \sup_{t \in [0,1] } W_H(t)}\right]} \in (0,\infty),$$ where $(W_H(t))$ is a fractional Brownian motion, see e.g. proof of Theorem 11 in [@Aurzada2016aUnp]. Thus, there is a constant $c$ such that for all $N$ $$\label{eq:EFleq}
\E F_N \leq c \, \ell(N)^{1/2} N^H .$$ In the following, $c$ will denote a varying positive constant independent of $N$ for ease of notation.
Lower bound for $\E F_N$ {#lower-bound-for-e-f_n .unnumbered}
------------------------
Since $(\xi_n)$ is a stationary process, we have $$\E S_j S_k = \frac{1}{2} \left( \E S_j^2 + \E S_k^2 - \E S_{\vert j-k \vert}^2 \right) .$$ Consequently, $$\E \left(I_N+\frac{S_N}{2}\right)^2 = \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^N \E S_j S_k = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^N \left( \E S_j^2 + \E S_k^2 - \E S_{\vert j-k \vert}^2 \right).$$ Counting how often $\E S_k^2$ is added, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\E \left(I_N+\frac{S_N}{2}\right)^2 &=
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^N N \E S_k^2 + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=1}^N N \E S_k^2 - \sum_{k=1}^N (N-k) \E S_k^2\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^N k \E S_k^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\E S_n^2 \sim n^{2H}\ell(n)$, we can apply Proposition 1.5.8 in [@Bingham1987] to obtain $$\label{eq:VarInApriori}
\E \left(I_N+\frac{S_N}{2}\right)^2 \sim N^{2H+2} \ell(N) / (2H+2).$$ Now, using the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, we have $\left\vert \E S_N I_N \right\vert \leq \sqrt{\E S_N^2 \E I_N^2}$ and we can thus conclude from that $$\label{eq:EI_n}
\E I_N^2 \sim N^{2H+2} \ell(N) / (2H+2).$$ In the following, we let $\| \cdot \|_2$ denote the norm $\|X\|_2={\E\left[{\vert X \vert^2}\right]}^{1/2}$. Moreover, we recall the identity $\E X_+ = (2 \pi)^{-1/2} \| X \|_2$ for a centered normal random variable $X$. Now, we can give a lower bound for $\E F_N$. By (\[eq:EF\]) and $\E I_1 = 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\E F_N &= 2 {\E\left[{\max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n}}\right]}
=
2 {\E\left[{\max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n}-I_1}\right]} \\
&=
2 \E\left({\max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n}-I_1}\right)_+
\geq
2 \E\left({\frac{I_N}{N}-I_1}\right)_+ \\
&=
\sqrt{2 / \pi} \left\| \frac{I_N}{N} - I_1 \right\|_2
\geq
\sqrt{2/\pi} \left( \left\| \frac{I_N}{N} \right\|_2 - \left\| I_1 \right\|_2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by (\[eq:EI\_n\]), we have $$\label{eq:EFgeq}
\E F_N \geq c^{-1} \ell(N)^{1/2} N^{H}.$$
Upper bound for $\tilde{p}_N$ {#upper-bound-for-tildep_n .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
In order to get an upper bound for the probability in , it is convenient to consider the random variable $$\vartheta_N := \left( \gamma_{0,N}^- - \gamma_{0,N}^+ \right)_+.$$ We have $$\label{eq:ineqVartheta}
\E \left( \gamma_{k}^- - \gamma_{k}^+ \right)_+ \geq \E{\vartheta_N}.$$ To see this, note that by using (\[eq:tt\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{k,N}^- - \gamma_{k,N}^+ &= \min_{1 \leq n \leq N} - \frac{I_{k-n}-I_k-(-n)\tilde{S}_k}{n} - \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_{k+n}-I_k-n\tilde{S}_k}{n} \\
&\eqd \min_{1 \leq n \leq N} - \frac{I_{-n}}{n} - \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n}
= \gamma_{0,N}^- - \gamma_{0,N}^+.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this with $\gamma_k^- - \gamma_k^+ \geq \gamma_{k,N}^- - \gamma_{k,N}^+ $ shows (\[eq:ineqVartheta\]). Applying the Markov Inequality, we see that $$\label{eq:chebyshev}
\E{\vartheta_N} \geq 2 {\P\left({ \vartheta_N \geq 2 }\right)}.$$ Using , , and , we thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:upperBound}
\begin{aligned}
c \, \ell(N)^{1/2} N^H &\geq \E {F_N} = \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \E \left( \gamma_k^- - \gamma_k^+ \right)_+ \\
&\geq (N-1) \E{\vartheta_N} \geq 2(N-1) {\P\left({ \vartheta_N \geq 2 }\right)} \\
&\geq 2(N-1) {\P\left({ \gamma_{0,N}^- \geq 1, \gamma_{0,N}^+ \leq -1 }\right)} \\
&= 2(N-1) {\P\left({ I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N }\right)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have for any $N$ $$\label{eq:pleq}
{\P\left({ I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N }\right)}
\leq c \, \ell(N)^{1/2} N^{-(1-H)} .$$
Lower bound for $\tilde{p}_N$ {#lower-bound-for-tildep_n .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
Along the lines of the proof of , one gets an analogous estimate when replacing $N$ by $\tilde{k} := \min(k,N-k)$; namely $$\label{eq:ineqVartheta2}
\E \left( {\gamma_{k}^- - \gamma_{k}^+} \right)_+ \leq \E{\vartheta_{\tilde{k}}}.$$ Now, let $1-H < \alpha < 1$. Then, we have by the monotonicity of $\vartheta_N$ for $N^\alpha \leq k \leq N-N^\alpha$ $$\label{eq:ineqVartheta2.5}
\E{\vartheta_{\tilde{k}}} \leq \E{ \vartheta_{\left\lceil N^\alpha \right\rceil } }.$$ Thus, by using and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\E F_N
&=
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \E \left({ \gamma_k^- - \gamma_k^+ }\right)_+ \\
&\leq
\left(N-2 \left\lfloor N^\alpha \right\rfloor \right) \E{ \vartheta_{\left\lceil N^\alpha \right\rceil } }
+ 2\sum_{k=1}^{\left\lfloor N^\alpha \right\rfloor} \E{ \vartheta_{k} }.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we know from (\[eq:upperBound\]), that we have for all $k$ $$\label{eq:ineqVartheta3}
\E \vartheta_k \leq c \, \ell(k)^{1/2} k^{H-1}.$$ Hence, by (\[eq:ineqVartheta3\]) and Proposition 1.5.8 in [@Bingham1987], we obtain $$\sum_{k=1}^{\left\lfloor N^\alpha \right\rfloor} \E{ \vartheta_{k} } \leq c \, \ell({\left\lfloor N^\alpha \right\rfloor})^{1/2} N^{\alpha H}.$$ Thus, we have $$c^{-1} \ell(N)^{1/2} N^H \leq \E F_N \leq N \E{ \vartheta_{\left\lceil N^\alpha \right\rceil} } + c\, \ell({\left\lfloor N^\alpha \right\rfloor})^{1/2} N^{\alpha H}.$$ Since $\alpha H < 1$, we obtain $$c^{-1} \ell(N)^{1/2} N^{H-1} \leq \E{ \vartheta_{\left\lceil N^\alpha \right\rceil} }.$$ Replacing $N$ by $\left\lceil N^{1/\alpha} \right\rceil$ yields $$\ell_1(N) N^{-(1-H)/\alpha} \leq \E{ \vartheta_{N} },$$ where $\ell_1$ is a slowly varying function at infinity.
Fix $q>1$ to be chosen later and let $\|\cdot\|_q$ denote the norm ${\E\left[{\vert X \vert^q}\right]}^{1/q}$ for some random variable $X$. Then, using $\vartheta_N \leq \vartheta_1$ and Hölder’s Inequality, we have $$\E \vartheta_N = \E \vartheta_N \mathbbm{1}_{\vartheta_N > 0}\leq \E \vartheta_1 \mathbbm{1}_{\vartheta_N > 0} \leq \| \vartheta_1 \|_q {\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)}^{1-1/q}.$$ Further, $$\| \vartheta_1 \|_q \leq \| I_{-1} - I_{1} \|_q \leq c \sqrt{q},$$ using that $I_{-1} - I_{1}$ is a Gaussian random variable. So, we have $$\frac{\ell_1(N)}{c \sqrt{q}} N^{-(1-H)/\alpha} \leq {\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)}^{1-1/q}.$$ Now, setting $q:=\log(N)+1$ yields $$\label{eq:varthAlpha}
\ell_2(N)N^{-(1-H)/\alpha} \leq {\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)},$$ where $\ell_2$ is a slowly varying function at infinity.
In the following, we will relate the probability ${\P\left({\vartheta_N>0}\right)}$ to the probability in (\[eq:probProof\]). This is divided into four steps.
*Step 1:* We start with a change of measure argument. By Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], we can find a function $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(I)$ such that $f(n) \geq \frac{3}{2}\vert n \vert$ for all $n \in \Z$. Then, using (\[eq:changeOfMeasure1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:com}
&e^{-\sqrt{2\|f\|^2 \log(1/{\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)})}-\|f\|^2/2} {\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)}
\\& \qquad \qquad \qquad \leq
{\P\left({\min_{-N \leq n \leq -1} \frac{I_n + f(n)}{n} - \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n + f(n)}{n} > 0}\right)} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \leq
{\P\left({\min_{-N \leq n \leq -1} \frac{I_n + \frac{3}{2}\vert n \vert}{n} - \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n + \frac{3}{2}\vert n \vert}{n} > 0}\right)}\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad =
{\P\left({\min_{-N \leq n \leq -1} \frac{I_n}{n} - \max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n} > 3}\right)}\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad =
{\P\left({ \vartheta_N > 3 }\right)}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ So, by (\[eq:varthAlpha\]), $ {\P\left({\vartheta_N > 0}\right)}$ and ${\P\left({ \vartheta_N > 3 }\right)}$ differ by less than a slowly varying function at infinity.
*Step 2:* Let $$A_0^{(N)} := \left\{ (x_{-N},\ldots,x_{-1},x_1,\ldots,x_N) \in \R^{2N} \ :\ x_n \leq -\vert n \vert , 1 \leq \vert n \vert \leq N \right\},$$ and let $$A_m^{(N)} := A_0^{(N)} + m b^{(N)}, \quad \text{where } b^{(N)}:=(-N,\ldots,-1,1,\ldots,N).$$ In the following, we write $I \in A_m^{(N)}$ instead of $(I_{-N},\ldots,I_{-1},I_1,\ldots,I_N) \in A_m^{(N)}$ for ease of notation. We will show that $\{\vartheta_N > 3\} \subseteq \cup_{m \in \Z} \{ I \in A_m^{(N)} \}$. For this purpose, let $m^{(N)}$ be an integer-valued random variable such that $\min_{-N \leq n \leq -1} \frac{I_n}{n} \in [m^{(N)}+1,m^{(N)}+2)$. Then, we obviously have $I_n \leq (m^{(N)}+1)n$ for $-N \leq n \leq -1$. Furthermore, assuming $\vartheta_N > 3$, we can conclude that $$\max_{1 \leq n \leq N} \frac{I_n}{n} < \min_{-N \leq n \leq -1} \frac{I_n}{n} - 3 < m^{(N)} -1 .$$
*Step 3:* We show that ${\P\left({I \in A_0^{(N)}}\right)} \geq {\P\left({I \in A_m^{(N)}}\right)}$. For this purpose, we make use of an argument that is commonly used to prove Anderson’s Inequality. It is well known that for any convex subsets $A,B \subseteq \R^{2N}$ and $0 < \lambda < 1$, one has $$\mu \left( \lambda A + (1-\lambda) B \right)
\geq
\mu \left( A \right)^\lambda
\mu \left( B \right)^{1-\lambda},$$ where $\mu$ is a centered Gaussian measure on $\R^{2N}$, see e.g. Theorem 2 in [@Prekopa1971]. Since $(I_{-N},\ldots,I_{-1},I_1,\ldots,I_N)$ is a centered Gaussian random variable, by setting $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({I \in A_0^{(N)}}\right)} &= {\P\left({ I \in \frac{1}{2} A_{-m}^{(N)} + \frac{1}{2} A_{m}^{(N)} }\right)} \\ &\geq {\P\left({ I \in A_{-m}^{(N)}}\right)}^{1/2} {\P\left({I \in A_{m}^{(N)}}\right)}^{1/2}={\P\left({I \in A_m^{(N)}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used that one has $A_0^{(N)} = \frac{1}{2} A_{-m}^{(N)} + \frac{1}{2} A_{m}^{(N)}$ and, by symmetry of the process $(I_n)$, ${\P\left({ I \in A_{-m}^{(N)}}\right)} = {\P\left({I \in A_{m}^{(N)}}\right)}$.
*Step 4:* Now, we relate the quantities ${\P\left({\vartheta_N > 3}\right)}$ and $\tilde{p}_N$. Since $I_{-1}$ is a centered Gaussian random variable, we can choose a constant $c_0$ such that ${\P\left({I_{-1} \leq -(a_N + 1)}\right)} \in o(N^{-1})$ for $a_N = \sqrt{c_0 \log(N) }$. Further, by ${\P\left({\cup_{m \geq a_N} A_m}\right)} \leq {\P\left({I_{-1}<-(a_N + 1)}\right)}$ and symmetry of the process $(I_n)$, we get $${\P\left({\cup_{\vert m \vert \geq a_N} A_m}\right)} \in o(N^{-1}).$$ Altogether we thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\P\left({\vartheta_N > 3}\right)}
&\leq
{\P\left({ \cup_{m \in \Z} A_m }\right)} \\
&\leq
\sum_{\vert m \vert < a_N} {\P\left({A_m}\right)} + {\P\left({\cup_{\vert m \vert \geq a_N} A_m }\right)} \\
&\leq
2a_N {\P\left({A_0}\right)} + 2{\P\left({ I_{-1} \leq -(a_N+1) }\right)} \\
&=
2a_N {\P\left({I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} + o(N^{-1}).
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Putting this together with and , we get $$\label{eq:pgeq}
\ell_3(N) N^{-(1-H)/\alpha} \leq
{\P\left({I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)},$$ where $\ell_3$ denotes a slowly varying function at infinity.
Polynomial rate of $p_N$ {#polynomial-rate-of-p_n .unnumbered}
------------------------
Clearly, we have from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:probLowerBound}
\begin{aligned}
\ell_3(N) N^{-(1-H)/\alpha}
&\leq
{\P\left({I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\
&\leq
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} = p_N.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $p_N \geq c^{-1}N^{-1}$ for some suitable constant $c$. This estimate will be used in the following change of measure argument. Due to Corollary \[cor:RKHS\], we can choose a function $f \in \mathcal{H}_H(I)$ with $f(n) \geq \vert n \vert$ for all $n \in \Z$. Then, by (\[eq:pleq\]) and Proposition \[prop:changeOfMeasure\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:probUpperBound}
\begin{aligned}
c \, \ell(N)^{1/2} N^{-(1-H)}
&\geq
{\P\left({I_n + \vert n \vert \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\
&\geq
{\P\left({I_n + f(n) \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \\
&\geq
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert\leq N}\right)} e^{-\sqrt{2\|f\|^2 \log(1/p_N)}-\|f\|^2/2}
\\
&\geq
{\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} e^{-\sqrt{2\|f\|^2 \log(cN)}-\|f\|^2/2} .
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we take $\log$ in , and divide by $\log(N)$. Then, taking $\limsup_N$ and $\liminf_N$, respectively, and letting $\alpha \nearrow 1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{\log\left( {\P\left({I_n \leq 0 \ :\ \vert n \vert \leq N}\right)} \right)}{\log(N)} = H-1.\end{aligned}$$
[10]{}
, vol. 27 of [ *Probability and Mathematical Statistics*]{}. Academic Press, New York, 1975.
Persistence of fractional [B]{}rownian motion with moving boundaries and applications. , 12 (2013).
Universality of the asymptotics of the one-sided exit problem for integrated processes. , 1 (2013), 236–251.
Persistence probabilities for stationary increment processes. , to appear, preprint available at arXiv:1606.00236.
ersistence [P]{}robabilities and [E]{}xponents. In [*Lévy [M]{}atters [V]{}*]{}, vol. 2149 of [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{}. Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 183–224.
. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 1987.
ersistence and [F]{}irst-[P]{}assage [P]{}roperties in [N]{}onequilibrium [S]{}ystems. , 3 (2013), 225–361.
On the one-sided exit problem for stable processes in random scenery. (2013).
Persistence in nonequilibrium systems. , 3 (1999), 370–375.
ersistence of a particle in the [M]{}atheron21de [M]{}arsily velocity field. (2003).
Maximum of a fractional [B]{}rownian motion: probabilities of small values. , 1 (1999), 97–111.
he [I]{}nviscid [B]{}urgers [E]{}quation with [F]{}ractional [B]{}rownian [I]{}nitial [D]{}ata: [T]{}he [D]{}imension of [R]{}egular [L]{}agrangian [P]{}oints. , 6 (2017), 1546–1554.
mall [V]{}alues of the [M]{}aximum for the [I]{}ntegral of [F]{}ractional [B]{}rownian [M]{}otion. , 3-4 (2004), 923–946.
nomalous [F]{}luctuations of [C]{}urrents in [S]{}inai-[T]{}ype [R]{}andom [C]{}hains with [S]{}trongly [C]{}orrelated [D]{}isorder. (2013).
Logarithmic concave measures with application to stochastic programming. (1971), 301–316.
Survival probability in a random velocity field. (1997), 4967–4972.
ong [R]{}ange [D]{}ependence. , 3 (2006), 163–257.
he [I]{}nviscid [B]{}urgers [E]{}quation with [I]{}nitial [D]{}ata of [B]{}rownian [T]{}ype. , 3 (1992), 623–641.
tatistics of [S]{}hocks in [S]{}olutions of [I]{}nviscid [B]{}urgers [E]{}quation. , 3 (1992), 601–621.
Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York, 2002.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[****]{}\
[*School of ITMS*]{}, [*University of Ballarat*]{}, [*VIC 3353*]{}, [*Australia*]{}\
[email protected]
title: '**G-coupling functions: The Infinite Dimensional case**'
---
[**Abstract**]{}
In this work we present a class of functions, motivated by gap functions, which we call G-coupling functions. We will show that these functions can generate a duality scheme for minimization problems by means of the general conjugation theory. Thanks to this scheme, a Lagrange-type function is introduced as well.\
\
[**Keywords:**]{} general conjugation theory, non convex optimization, gap functions.
Introduction
============
For solving non-convex optimization problems, a tool that is becoming more important is *generalized conjugation*. In [@MOR] the G-coupling functions are introduced in finite dimensional spaces. Here we extend this definition to the infinite dimensional case. These coupling functions will allow us to see duality schemes in a different way. The usual theory found in the literature ([@RUB], [@SOSA], and references therein) are related to a fixed coupling function, but here we consider (for a specified function $f$) a family of coupling functions.\
These coupling functions are motivated by gap functions. It is interesting to point out, that many of these (gap) functions have similar properties. However, in some cases they are functions of one vector and it is important, since they are linked to specified optimization problems, that those functions have zeros.\
On the other hand, G-coupling functions will be defined as functions in two variables and they might not have zeros. Even more, given a specified proper function $f$, it is shown that a certain sub-family of this family of coupling functions satisfies many interesting properties.\
In Section 2, we describe how many gap functions have similar properties, which are useful for the definition of G-coupling functions.\
In Section 3, it is found the definition of G-coupling function with properties related to generalized conjugation using this family of functions and a fixed proper function $f$.\
In Section 4, it can be seen how these ideas generate Lagrange-type functions (see [@RUB-YANG]).
Motivation
==========
In several works already published, there can be found definitions of GAP functions for particular problems. Now we present 2 concrete examples.\
In [@BUR], the Variational Inequality Problem is studied: $$(VIP)\text{ Find }x_0\in C,\text{ such that, }\exists y^*\in
T(x_0)\text{ with }\langle y^*,x-x_0\rangle \geq 0\ \forall x\in
C,$$ where $T$ is a maximal monotone correspondence which is defined as follows: given a point to set map, $T$, it will be said that it is a maximal monotone correspondence if it satisfies that $\langle u-v,x-y \rangle \geq 0$ for every $u\in T(x),\ v\in T(y)$ with $x,y\ \in C$ and if there exists $v$, such that $\langle
u-v,x-y \rangle \geq 0$, for all $x,y\ \in C$ and for all $u\in
T(x)$, then $v\in T(y)$. The corresponding GAP function is then defined as follows: $$h_{T,C}(x):=\sup_{(v,y)\in G_C(T)}\langle v,x-y\rangle,$$ where $G_C(T)=\{(v,y):\ v\in T(y),\ y\in C\}$ and $C$ is a non-empty closed convex set. This function happens to be non-negative and convex, and it is equal to zero only in solutions of $(VIP)$.\
In [@SOSA], the Equilibrium Problem is studied: $$(EP)\text{ Find }x\in K,\text{ such that }f(x,y)\geq 0,\ \forall
y\in K,$$ where $K\subset I\!\!R^n$ is a non-empty closed convex set and $f:K\times K\rightarrow I\!\!R$ is a function that satisfies:
1. $f(x,x)=0$, for all $x\in K$.
2. $f(x,\cdot):K\rightarrow I\!\!R$ is convex and l.s.c.
3. $f(\cdot,y):K\rightarrow I\!\!R$ is u.s.c.
The GAP function is defined as: $$g_f(y):=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle\sup_{x\in K}f(x,y) & if\ y\in K \\
+\infty & \text{in other case}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ In this case, the function $g_f$ is non-negative, convex and l.s.c. and if it vanishes at $x_0$, then $x_0$ is a solution of $(EP)$.\
In these examples, gap functions are used to transform a special Equilibrium Problem (for example, the VIP is a particular case of an EP) into a minimization problem.\
Now our attention is focused in using coupling functions that could be related, at least in some general aspect, to GAP functions. Therefore these functions must link both primal and dual variables. Since these coupling functions must be related to a sense of “gap", we consider these functions as non-negative and with 2 arguments.\
Let us remember that for the minimization problem, the convex conjugation theory allows us to generate a dual problem and there is implicit another concept of gap function (see [@AVRIEL], [@J.P.SOSA.OC] and [@ROCK]): consider $$\alpha =\inf[f(x):x\in I\!\!R^n]. \qquad (P)$$ Define a function $\varphi:I\!\!R^n\times I\!\!R^p\rightarrow \overline{I\!\!R}$, where $\overline{I\!\!R}=I\!\!R\cup\{-\infty,+\infty\}$, satisfying $$\varphi(x,0)=f(x),\ \forall x\in I\!\!R^n.$$ Then $\varphi$ will be called a perturbation function and the function $h:I\!\!R^p\rightarrow \overline{I\!\!R}$ defined by $$h(u)=\inf_{x\in I\!\!R^n}\varphi(x,u)$$ will be called the marginal function. Observe that $$\alpha=h(0)=\inf_{x\in
I\!\!R^n}\varphi(x,0)=\inf_{x\in I\!\!R^n}f(x).$$ Considering now $h^{**}$, the convex bi-conjugate (see [@ROCK]) of $h$ one has: $$h^{**}(0)\leq h(0)=\alpha$$ where $$h^{**}(0)=\sup[\langle
u^*,0\rangle -h^*(u^*): u^*\in I\!\!R^p].$$ Then, making $-\beta=h^{**}(0)$, one has $$\beta=\inf_{u^*\in
I\!\!R^p}h^*(u^*).\qquad (Q)$$ $(Q)$ is called the dual problem of $(P)$ and in general we have $-\beta\leq\alpha$. It is said that there is no duality gap whenever $h^{**}(0)=h(0)$. It is easy to prove that $h^*(u^*)=\varphi^*(0,u^*)$, and if we define the function $k:I\!\!R^n\rightarrow \overline{I\!\!R}$ by $\displaystyle k(x^*):=\inf_{u^*\in I\!\!R^p}\varphi^*(x^*,u^*)$, then $\beta=k(0)$.\
This analysis is summarized in the following scheme: $$\begin{array}{rclcrcl}
\alpha & = & \inf f(x) \qquad (P) & & \beta & = & \inf h^*(u^*) \qquad (Q) \\
\varphi(x,0) & = & f(x),\ \forall x\in I\!\!R^n & & \varphi^*(0,u^*) & = & h^*(u^*),\ \forall u^*\in I\!\!R^p \\
h(u) & = &\displaystyle \inf_x \varphi(x,u) & & k(x^*) & = &\displaystyle \inf_{u^*}\varphi^*(x^*,u^*) \\
\alpha & = & h(0) & & \beta & = & k(0) \\
\end{array}$$ $$-\beta \leq \alpha.$$ If $h$ is proper and convex, a necessary and sufficient condition for ensuring that there will be no duality gap ($-\beta =\alpha$) is that $h$ be l.s.c. at 0 (in general $\varphi$ l.s.c. does not imply that $h$ would be l.s.c.).\
\
Further more, if $h$ is convex, l.s.c. and $0\in ri(dom(h))$, then $\alpha=-\beta$ and the dual problem has at least one optimal solution, and if $\overline{u^*}$ is an optimal solution of $(Q)$ and $\varphi=\varphi^{**}$, then $$\overline{x} \text{ is an optimal solution of }(P)
\Longleftrightarrow f(\overline{x})+h^*(\overline{u^*})=0.$$ Consider now the function $g:I\!\!R^n \times I\!\!R^p \rightarrow
\overline{I\!\!R}$ defined by: $$g(x,u^*)=f(x)+h^*(u^*).$$ This function vanishes at $(x_0,u^*_0)$ if and only if $x_0$ solves the primal problem and $u^*_0$ solves the dual one. In addition, this function is non-negative and if the first variable is kept fixed, the function is convex and l.s.c. It is clear now, which properties are satisfied for many gap functions.
G-coupling Functions
====================
As stated before, G-coupling functions are first introduced in [@MOR] for finite dimensional spaces. We are going to extend this notion for arbitrary Banach spaces.\
Henceforth, we consider two arbitrary Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$.
A non-negative function $g:A\times B\rightarrow I\!\!R$, with $A\times B\subset X\times Y$ will be called a G-coupling function if
1. $\displaystyle \inf_{x\in A,\ y\in B}g(x,y)=0.$
Define $$\mathcal{F}^{A,B}:=\{g:A\times B\rightarrow
I\!\!R:\ g \text{ is a G-coupling function}\}.$$
Not every G-coupling function has zeros:\
\
[**Example:**]{} Define on $X\times Y$ $$g(x,y)=\exp(\|x\|-\|y\|).$$ Then $g\in\mathcal{F}^{X,Y}$ is continuous and it does not have any zeros.\
Let us turn our attention now to how the family of functions $\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ will allow us to establish duality schemes in (at least for now) the minimization problem. It is important to point out that in the following we consider an unusual type of duality, $f:A\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$ is kept fixed and $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$, for a given $B\subset Y$, is variable.\
Consider a proper function $f:A\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$. For a given $B\subset Y$ take $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$. Define $f^g:B\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$ and $f^{gg}:A\rightarrow
I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$ as follows (for example see [@RUB] and references therein): $$f^g(y):=\sup_{x\in
A}\{g(x,y)-f(x)\}\ \forall y\in B,$$ $$f^{gg}(x):=\sup_{y\in B}\{g(x,y)-f^g(y)\}\ \forall
x\in A.$$ In some cases, it would be better to consider a $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ which satisfies: With this, we have the following:
Let $f:A\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup \{+\infty\}$ be a proper function and given $B\subset Y$ take $g\in
\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$. Then $$f^g(y)+f(x)\geq g(x,y)\geq 0,\ \forall (x,y)\in
A\times B,$$ which implies $$f(x)\geq -f^g(y),\ \forall (x,y)\in A\times B.$$ Moreover if $g$ satisfies $(D2)$, then $f^g$ is a convex l.s.c function.
Unless it is mentioned, not every $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ satisfies $(D2)$.\
It would be interesting to know which condition either a G-coupling function $g$ or the function $f$ must satisfy in order that the function $f^g$ be proper, because with this one would have a non-trivial function related to $f$. The following lemma ensures the existence of such a function $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ for any $B\subset Y$, taking as a starting point a natural condition on $f$ which must be imposed if $f$ is the objective function of a minimization problem.
Let $f$ be as before. Then $f$ is bounded from below if and only if, for every non-empty $B\subset Y$, there exists $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ such that $f^g$ is proper.
[**Proof:**]{}
1. Suppose that $\inf
f>-\infty$, then for a non-empty $B_0\subset Y$ fixed, consider $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B_0}$ as follows: $$\displaystyle g(x,y)= \|y\|,\ \forall (x,y)\in A\times B.$$ Thus $$f^{g}(y)=\|y\|-\inf f\ \forall y\in B_0,$$ which is clearly a proper function and since $B_0\subset Y$ was fixed arbitrarily, the result is satisfied for every $B\subset Y$.
2. Take a non-empty $B_0\subset Y$ and $g\in
\mathcal{F}^{A,B_0}$ such that $f^g$ is proper. Let us suppose that $\inf f=-\infty$, from [@RUB] we can see that this implies that $\inf f^{gg}=-\infty$. Then: $$-\infty=\inf f^{gg}=\inf_{x\in A}\left(\sup_{y\in B_0}
[g(x,y)-f^g(y)]\right)\geq$$ $$\sup_{y\in B_0}\left(\inf_{x\in A}
[g(x,y)-f^g(y)]\right)\geq\sup_{y\in B_0}(-f^g(y))=-\inf_{y\in
B_0}f^g(y),$$ which means $\displaystyle -\infty\geq -\inf_{y\in
B_0}(f^g(y))$. Then $\displaystyle \inf_{y\in B_0}f^g(y)=+\infty$, which implies that $f^g$ is not proper and we have a contradiction. Therefore we must have that $\inf f>-\infty$.
Notice that this proof also states, in particular, that there exists $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ for every non-empty $B\subset Y$ which satisfies $(D2)$ and $f^g$ is proper.\
Given non-empty sets $A\subset X$ and $B\subset Y$, let $$\mathcal{F}^{A}:=\{f:A\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\},\
f\text{ is proper, } \inf f>-\infty\}$$ and $\gamma_{g,f}:A\times B\rightarrow I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$ defined by: $$\gamma_{g,f}(x,y):=f(x)+f^g(y)$$ with $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ and $f\in \mathcal{F}^A$. Take $f\in\mathcal{F}^A$ and define $$\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}:=\{g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}/ f^g \text{ is
proper and }\inf \gamma_{g,f}=0\}.$$ [**Remark:**]{} Observe that $\gamma_{g,f}$ might not be in $\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$, since $\gamma_{g,f}$ can take the value $+\infty$ for somewhere in $A\times B$.
$\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ is non-empty for all non-empty $B\subset Y$.
[**Proof:**]{} Given a non-empty $B\subset Y$, define $g\in
\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ by: $$g(x,y)=\|y\|.$$ It is easy to check that $g$ belongs to $\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ (this example also proves that there are functions in $\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ which satisfy $(D2)$).\
Now consider $$(P)\ \min_x f(x)$$ with $f\in \mathcal{F}^A$. Taking $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$, define the dual problem related to $g$: $$(D_g)\ \min_{y\in B}f^g(y).$$ Since $$\inf_{(x,y)\in A\times B}\gamma_{g,f}(x,y)=\inf_{x\in A}
f(x)+\inf_{y\in B}f^g(y)=0,$$ then $$\inf_{x\in A} f(x)=-\inf_{y\in B}f^g(x^*)=
\sup_{y\in B}[-f^g(y)].$$ This means that there is no duality gap between the primal problem $(P)$ and its dual $(D_g)$ for every $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$.
Let $g\in\mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$. Then $\overline{y}$ is a solution of $(D_g)$ and $\overline{x}$ is a solution of $(P)$ if and only if $\gamma_{g,f}(\overline{x},\overline{y})=0$.
[**Proof:**]{} $\overline{x}$ and $\overline{y}$ are solutions of $(P)$ and $(D_g)$ respectively if and only if $$f(\overline{x})= \inf f=-\inf f^g=-f^g(\overline{y})
\Longleftrightarrow f(\overline{x})+f^g(\overline{y})=\gamma_{g,f}
(\overline{x},\overline{y})=0._{\Box}$$\
\
[**Remark:**]{} The previous result suggest us that the function $\gamma_{g,f}$ can be seen as the GAP function of problem $(P)$ and its dual $(D_g)$.\
The next theorem states that given non-empty sets $A\subset X$ and $B\subset Y$, the correspondence defined by $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbf{F}: & \mathcal{F}^A & \rightrightarrows &
\mathcal{F}^{A,B}\\
& f & \mapsto & \mathbf{F}(f)=\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B},
\end{array}$$ is a closed correspondence (see [@ZANG]).
Take $f\in \mathcal{F}^A$ ($A\subset X$ is non-empty) and a non-empty $B\subset Y$. If there exist $f_k:dom(f)\rightarrow
I\!\!R$, $g_k:A\times B\rightarrow I\!\!R$, sequences of functions ($k\in I\!\!N$), such that:
1. $f_k$ converges uniformly to $f$ in $dom(f)$.
2. $g_k\in \mathcal{F}_{f_k}^{A,B}$ satisfies $(D2)$ for every $k\in I\!\!N$.
3. $g_k$ converges uniformly to a function $g$ in $A\times B$.
Then $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ and it satisfies $(D2)$.
[**Proof:**]{} Let us prove first that $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}$. Since $g_k$ converges uniformly to $g$, given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $N\in I\!\!N$ such that if $k\geq N$ then $$|g_k(x,y)-g(x,y)|< \varepsilon,\qquad \forall (x,y)\in
A\times B.$$ $$\text{Hence }
g_k(x,y)-\varepsilon<g(x,y)<g_k(x,y)+\varepsilon,\ \forall
(x,y)\in A\times B.$$ Taking $\displaystyle \inf_{x,y}$ (remember that $\inf g_k =0$ for all $k\in I\!\!N$): $$-\varepsilon<\inf_{x,y}g(x,y)< \varepsilon.$$ Then $|\inf
g|<\varepsilon$. And since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, one has that $\inf g=0$. This proves that $g\in\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$.\
\
Now we prove that $g$ satisfies $(D2)$. We need to prove that $g(x,\cdot):B\rightarrow I\!\!R$ is convex and l.s.c. for all $x\in A$. Let $x_0\in A$ be fixed arbitrarily.
1. $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is convex: since for all $k\in
I\!\!N$, $g_k(x_0,\cdot)$ is convex, one has that given $y_1,y_2\in B$ and $t\in [0,1]$: $$g_k(x_0,ty_1 + (1-t)y_2)\leq
tg_k(x_0,y_1)+(1-t)g_k(x_0,y_2).$$ Making $k\rightarrow +\infty$: $$g(x_0,ty_1 + (1-t)y_2)\leq tg(x_0,y_1)+(1-t)g(x_0,y_2),$$ which proves that $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is convex.
2. $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is l.s.c.: fix $y_0\in B$ and take $\lambda <g(x_0,y_0)$. There exists $N\in I\!\!N$ such that $$|g_N(x,y)-g(x,y)|<\varepsilon,\ \forall (x,y)\in A\times B,$$ where $\displaystyle \varepsilon= \frac{g(x_0,y_0)-\lambda}{2}$. $$\text{Hence } \lambda< \lambda +
\varepsilon=g(x_0,y_0)-\varepsilon<g_N(x_0,y_0).$$ Since $g_N(x_0,\cdot)$ is l.s.c., then there exists $V(y_0)\subset B$, a neighborhood of $y_0$, such that if $y\in V(y_0)$ then $$\lambda+\varepsilon<g_N(x_0,y).$$ Reducing $g(x_0,y)$: $$\lambda+\varepsilon-g(x_0,y)<g_N(x_0,y)- g(x_0,y)<\varepsilon.$$ Therefore, if $y\in V(y_0)$, then $\lambda<g(x_0,y)$. Thus $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is l.s.c. in $y_0\in B$, and since $y_0$ was fixed arbitrarily then $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is a l.s.c. function.
We have proved that for a fixed $x_0\in A$, $g(x_0,\cdot)$ is a convex l.s.c. function, and since $x_0$ was fixed arbitrarily we have proved in fact that $g\in\mathcal{F}^{A,B}$ satisfies $(D2)$.\
\
It remains to prove that $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$. For doing this, let us show that $(f_k^{g_k})_{k\in I\!\!N}$ converges uniformly to $f^g$ (in $B$).\
\
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $N\in I\!\!N$ be such that if $k\geq N$ then $$|g_k(x,y)-g(x,y)|<\frac{\varepsilon}{4},\ \forall (x,y)\in
A\times B$$ and $$|f_k(x)-f(x)|<\frac{\varepsilon}{4},\ \forall
x\in dom(f).$$ Fix $k\geq N$ and take $y\in B$ arbitrarily, then $$f_k^{g_k}(y)-\frac{\varepsilon}{2} < g_k(x',y)-f_k(x'), \text{
for some }x'\in dom(f).$$ Hence $$f_k^{g_k}(y)-\varepsilon<g_k(x',y)-f_k(x')
-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}<g(x',y)-f(x')\leq f^g(y),$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stabeq1}
f_k^{g_k}(y)-\varepsilon<f^g(y).\end{aligned}$$ This proves that $f_k^{g_k}(y)-f^g(y)<\varepsilon.$ On the other hand: $$f^g(y)-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}<g(x'',y)-f(x''),\ \text{for some
}x''\in dom(f),$$ whence $$f^g(y)-\varepsilon
<g(x'',y)-f(x'')-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}<g_k(x'',y)-f_k(x'')\leq
f_k^{g_k}(y),$$ and so $$f^g(y)-\varepsilon< f_k^{g_k}(y).$$ This shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stabeq2}
-\varepsilon<f_k^{g_k}(y)-f^g(y).\end{aligned}$$ Since $y\in B$ was fixed arbitrarily, thanks to (\[stabeq1\]) and (\[stabeq2\]) we have that $$-\varepsilon<f_k^{g_k}(y)-f^g(y)<\varepsilon,\text{ for every
} y\in B.$$ This proves that $(f_k^{g_k})_{k\in I\!\!N}$ converges uniformly to $f^g$ (in $B$), and it is immediate to see that $f^g$ is proper and $$0\leq f(x)+f^g(y)\leq f_k(x)+f_k^{g_k}(y)+\varepsilon,\ \forall
(x,y)\in dom(f)\times B,$$ where $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary and $k$ is large enough. Taking $\displaystyle\inf_{(x,y)\in A\times
B}$ one has: $$0\leq \inf_{(x,y)\in A\times B}(f(x)+f^g(y))\leq
\varepsilon.$$ Therefore $\displaystyle\inf_{(x,y)\in A\times
B}(f(x)+f^g(y))=0$ and $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{n,m}._\Box$\
\
This theorem proves a more difficult situation, the case when $g_k\in \mathcal{F}_{f_k}^{A,B}$ satisfy $(D2)$ for all $k\in
I\!\!N$. For the general case, just omit the two $\bullet$ items and change $B$ for a non-empty set.\
At this point a natural question arises, for given $f\in\mathcal{F}^A$ and $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$, would be there any kind of relation between the optimal points and the optimal values of $f$ and $f^{gg}$? The next lemma answers this.
For a fixed non-empty $B\subset Y$ and every $g\in
\mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$, the following are satisfied:
1. $\inf f=\inf f^{gg},$
2. if $x_0$ is a global minimum of $f$, then $x_0$ is a global minimum of $f^{gg}$.
[**Proof:**]{} Remember that $f^{gg}$ is defined by: $$f^{gg}(x)= \sup_{y\in B}\{g(x,y)-f^g(y)\}.$$
1. $\inf f^{gg}\leq \inf f$ is always true. On the other hand $$f^g(y)+f^{gg}(x)\geq g(x,y)\geq 0,\ \forall x\in A,\ y\in
B,$$ which implies that $$\inf_{x\in A} f^{gg}(x)\geq -\inf_{y\in
B}f^g(y).$$ But, since $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ one has that $$\inf f=-\inf_{y\in B}f^g(y),$$ which means $$\inf f\leq \inf f^{gg}\leq \inf f.$$ Therefore $\inf f=\inf
f^{gg}$.
2. $f^{gg}(x_0)\leq f(x_0)=\inf f=\inf f^{gg}\leq
f^{gg}(x_0),$ then $f^{gg}(x_0)=\inf f^{gg}$.
Lagrangians induced by $\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$
============================================
Take $f\in \mathcal{F}^A$, a non-empty $B\subset Y$, $g\in
\mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$ and consider $$(P):\ \inf_{x\in A}f(x).$$ Recall that $$(D_g):\ \min_{y\in B}f^g(y)$$ is the dual problem of $(P)$ related to $g$. Define $L_1:I\!\!R^n \times C\rightarrow
I\!\!R\cup\{+\infty\}$, as follows: $$L_1(x,y):=f(x)-g(x,y).$$ This function has some interesting properties:
$$\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A} L_1(x,y)=\inf_{x\in
A} \sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y).$$
[**Proof:**]{} The inequality $\displaystyle \sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in
A} L_1(x,y)\leq\inf_{x\in A} \sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y)$ is always true. For the opposite: $$L_1(x,y)=f(x)-g(x,y)\leq f(x),\ \forall (x,y)\in
A\times B,$$ then $$\sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y)\leq f(x),\ \forall x\in A.$$ It follows that $$\inf_{x\in A}\sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y)\leq \inf_{x\in
A} f(x).$$ But, since $g\in \mathcal{F}_f^{A,B}$, we have that $$\inf_{x\in A} f(x)=-\inf_{y\in B}f^g(y)=-\left(\inf_{y\in
B}\left\{ \sup_{x\in A} [g(x,x^*)-f(x)] \right\} \right)$$ $$\Longrightarrow \inf_{x\in A} f(x)= \sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A}
L_1(x,y),$$ which means, $$\inf_{x\in A}\sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y)\leq
\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A} L_1(x,y).$$ Finally, $$\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A} L_1(x,y)=\inf_{x\in A} \sup_{y\in
B}L_1(x,y)._\Box$$
We are interested now in which properties are satisfied for every saddle-point of $L_1$. Remember that $(x_0,y_0)\in A\times B$ is a saddle point of $L_1$ if and only if $$L_1(x_0,y)\leq
L_1(x_0,y_0)\leq L_1(x,y_0),\ \forall (x,y)\in A\times B.$$
\[propsaddleGENERAL\] Let $L_1$ be as before, if there exists $(x_0,y_0)\in A\times B$ saddle point of $L_1$, then:
1. $x_0 \in dom(f)$.
2. $y_0$ is an optimal solution of $(D_g)$.
3. $f^{gg}(x_0)=f(x_0)$.
[**Proof:**]{}
1. This is immediate thanks to the definition of saddle point.
2. From the previous theorem and the definition of saddle point, we have that $$L_1(x_0,y_0)= \sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A}
L_1(x,y)=\inf_{x\in A} \sup_{y\in B}L_1(x,y).$$ But $$\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{x\in A} L_1(x,y)=-\inf_{y\in
B}f^g(y),$$ moreover $$L_1(x_0,y_0)=\inf_{x\in A} L_1(x,y_0)=-f^g(y_0).$$ Thus, $$f^g(y_0)=\inf_{y\in B}f^g(y).$$
3. $\displaystyle f^{gg}(x_0)=\sup_{y\in B}[g(x_0,y)-f^g(y)]=
\sup_{y\in B}\left[g(x_0,y)-\sup_{z\in A} [g(z,y)-f(z)]\right].$ Which means, $$f^{gg}(x_0)=\sup_{y\in B}\inf_{z\in
A}[g(x_0,y)-g(z,y)+f(z)]= \sup_{y\in B}\inf_{z\in
A}[g(x_0,y)+L_1(z,y)].$$ This implies $$f^{gg}(x_0)\geq \inf_{z\in
A}[g(x_0,y_0)+L_1(z,y_0)]=g(x_0,y_0)+\inf_{z\in A} L_1(z,y_0),$$ but since $(x_0,y_0)$ is a saddle point of $L_1$, then $\displaystyle\inf_{z\in A} L_1(z,y_0)=L_1(x_0,y_0)$. With this, we have that $$f^{gg}(x_0)\geq g(x_0,y_0)+L_1(x_0,y_0)=f(x_0),$$ which means $f^{gg}(x_0)\geq f(x_0)$. $f^{gg}(x_0)\leq f(x_0)$ is always true (see [@RUB] and references therein).$_\Box$
If $x_0$ is a solution of $(P)$ and $x_0^*$ is a solution of $(D_g)$, then $(x_0,x_0^*)$ is a saddle point of $L_1$.
[**Proof:**]{} This is immediate from $$0\leq g(x_0,x_0^*)\leq
f(x_0)+f^g(x_0^*)=0\Longrightarrow g(x_0,x_0^*)=0._\Box$$
In Proposition \[propsaddleGENERAL\] we would like to improve the fact that, in general, for every saddle point $(x_0,y_0)\in
A\times B$ of $L_1$ we have that $f^{gg}(x_0)=f(x_0)$. For doing this, we impose an additional condition over $g$.
Let $g\in \mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$ be such that $\displaystyle \inf_{y\in B} g(x,y)=0$ for every $x\in A$. The following are equivalent:
1. $(x_0,y_0)$ is a saddle-point of $L$.
2. $x_0$ is a solution of $(P)$ and $y_0$ is a solution of $(D_g)$.
[**Proof:**]{} The implication ii) $\Rightarrow$ i) is true thanks to the previous Proposition.\
\
Consider now $(x_0,y_0)$ a saddle-point of $L_1$, then $$L_1(x_0,y)\leq L_1(x_0,y_0),\
\forall y\in B,$$ which is equivalent to $$f(x_0)-g(x_0,y)\leq
f(x_0)- g(x_0,y_0),\ \forall y\in B$$ $$\Updownarrow$$ $$g(x_0,y_0)\leq g(x_0,y),\ \forall y\in B.$$ Finally $$g(x_0,y_0)=\inf_{y\in B}g(x_0,y)=0.$$ On the other hand $$L_1(x_0,y_0)\leq L_1(x,y_0),\ \forall x\in A.$$ This implies that $$f(x_0)\leq f(x)-g(x,y_0),\ \forall x\in A$$ (remember that $g(x_0,y_0)=0$). Taking $\displaystyle \inf_{x\in A}$ we have $$f(x_0)\leq -f^g(y_0).$$ And thus $f(x_0)=-f^g(y_0)$, which means that $x_0$ is a solution of $(P)$ and $y_0$ is a solution of $(D_g)$.\
\
[**Remark:**]{} To prove that there exists a $g\in
\mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$ such that $\displaystyle \inf_{y\in
B}g(x,y)=0$ for every $x\in A$ just consider the trivial function $g\equiv 0$.
Examples {#examples .unnumbered}
========
For these examples, consider $X=I\!\!R^n$, $h:X\rightarrow
I\!\!R^m$, $$A:=\{x\in X:h(x)\leq 0\}$$ and $f:A\rightarrow
I\!\!R$.
1. [**Classical Lagrangian**]{} Let $Y=I\!\!R^m$ and $h$ be such that $h_i:I\!\!R^n\rightarrow
I\!\!R$ is convex and l.s.c. for all $i=1,\ldots,m$. Consider $$(CP):\ \min_{x\in A}f(x),$$ where $f$ is convex and l.s.c.\
Remember that (see [@AVRIEL] and [@J.P.SOSA.OC]) the following is the well known dual problem:
$$(D_L):\ \min_{\lambda^*\geq 0}\sup_{x\in A}\{\langle
\lambda^*,-h(x)\rangle -f(x)\},$$ $h(x)=(h_1(x),\ldots, h_m(x))$. Moreover, $x_0$ is a solution of $(CP)$ and $\lambda^*_0$ is a solution of $(D_L)$ if and only if $(x_0,\lambda^*_0)$ is a saddle point of the Lagrangian function $L$, given by $$L(x,\lambda^*):=f(x)+\langle \lambda^*,h(x)\rangle,\ x\in A,\
\lambda^*\in I\!\!R^m_+.$$
Taking $B:=I\!\!R^m_+$, define $g:A\times B\rightarrow I\!\!R$ as follows: $$g(x,\lambda^*):=\langle
\lambda^*,-h(x)\rangle.$$ It is not difficult to show that $\mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$ and, even more, $$f^g(\lambda^*)=\sup_{x\in A}\{\langle \lambda^*,-h(x)\rangle
-f(x)\},\ \lambda^*\in B.$$ Therefore, using G-coupling functions, we have recovered the classical lagrangian duality.
2. [**Non-linear lagrangian function**]{} In [@RUB-YANG] we find the following well studied case of a non-linear *lagrange-type* function: $$L(x,\omega)=f(x)+\max\{\langle\omega_0,h(x)\rangle,\ldots,
\langle\omega_p,h(x)\rangle\},$$ where $x\in I\!\!R^n$ and $\omega\in (I\!\!R^m_+)^{1+p}$ ($p\in I\!\!N$).\
If we consider $Y=(I\!\!R^m)^{1+p}$ and $B=(I\!\!R^m_+)^{1+p}$, define $g:A\times B\rightarrow I\!\!R$ as follows:
$$g(x,\omega):= \min(\langle
-h(x),\omega_0\rangle,\ldots,\langle
-h(x),\omega_p\rangle),\ x\in A,\ \omega\in B,$$
we will have that $g\in\mathcal{F}^{A,B}_f$ and the lagrangian function induced is the same Lagrange-type function given by [@RUB-YANG].
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} I wish to thank to Dr. Wilfredo Sosa who was my supervisor during my Master thesis, most of these ideas are from that work. Special thanks to Dr. Regina Burachik, Dr. David Yost and Prof. Alex Rubinov for all their support and comments.
[99]{}
Avriel, Mordecai Prentice-Hall, INC., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1976).
Burachik, Regina. Tese de Doutorado, IMPA. (1995).
Crouzeix, Jean Pierre; Ocaña, Eladio; Sosa, Wilfredo. Monogafía del IMCA (2003).
Morales-Silva, Daniel; Rubinov Alex; Sosa, Wilfredo. To appear in [*Optimization*]{}.
Rockafellar, R.T. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (1970)
Rubinov, Alexander. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London (2000).
Rubinov, Alexander and Yang Xiaoqi. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London (2002).
Sosa Sandoval, Wilfredo. Tese de Doutorado, IMPA. (1999).
Zangwill, Willard Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1969).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider a coupled PDE system describing phase separation and damage phenomena in elastically stressed alloys in the presence of inertial effects. The material is considered on a bounded Lipschitz domain with mixed boundary conditions for the displacement variable. The main aim of this work is to establish existence of weak solutions for the introduced hyperbolic-parabolic system. To this end, we first adopt the notion of weak solutions introduced in [@WIAS1520]. Then we prove existence of weak solutions by means of regularization, time-discretization and different variational techniques.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: '19.12.2012'
---
$\phantom{w}$
Existence of weak solutions for a PDE system describing phase separation and damage processes including inertial effects[^1]
Christian Heinemann$^2$, Christiane Kraus[^2]
[*Dedicated to Jürgen Sprekels on the occasion of his 65th birthday*]{}
[*AMS Subject classifications*]{} 35L20, 35L51, 35K86, 35K55, 49J40, 49S05, 74A45, 74G25, 34A12, 82B26, 82C26, 35K92, 35K35.\
[*Keywords:*]{} [Cahn-Hilliard system, phase separation, hyperbolic-parabolic systems, doubly nonlinear differential inclusions, existence results, energetic solutions, weak solutions, linear elasticity, rate-dependent systems.\
]{}
Introduction
============
In micro-electronic materials such as solder alloys, different physical processes are shaping the micro-structure. For a realistic description of these structures, phase separation, coarsening and elasticity as well as damage phenomena have to be taken into account. A fully coupled system has been originally studied in [@WIAS1520] and further developed in [@WIAS1569] allowing, for instance, inhomogeneous elastic energy densities. The corresponding degenerating case has been analyzed in [@WIASxxxx]. To the authors’ best knowledge, before these works, phase separation and damage processes have only been investigated independently of each other in the mathematical literature.
Phase separation and coarsening phenomena are usually described by phase–field models of Cahn-Hilliard type. The evolution is modeled by a parabolic diffusion equation for the phase fractions. To include elastic effects, resulting from stresses caused by different elastic properties of the phases, Cahn-Hilliard systems are coupled with an elliptic equation in the case of a quasi-static balance of forces. Such coupled Cahn-Hilliard systems with elasticity are also called Cahn-Larché systems. Since in general the mobility, stiffness and surface tension coefficients depend on the phases (see for instance [@BDM07] and [@BDDM09] for the explicit structure deduced by the embedded atom method), the mathematical analysis of the coupled problem is very complex. Existence results were derived for special cases in [@Carrive00; @Gar00; @Pawlow] (constant mobility, stiffness and surface tension coefficients), in [@Bonetti02] (concentration dependent mobility, two space dimensions), [@SP12; @SP13] (concentration dependent surface tension and nonlinear diffusion) and in [@Pawlow08] in an abstract measure-valued setting (concentration dependent mobility and surface tension tensors).
Damage behavior, however, originates from breaking atomic links in the material from a microscopic point of view whereas a macroscopic theory may specify damage in the isotropic case by a scalar-valued variable related to the proportion of damaged bonds in the micro-structure of the material with respect to the undamaged ones. According to the latter perspective, phase-field models are quite common to model smooth transitions between damaged and undamaged material states. Such phase-field models have been mainly investigated for incomplete damage which means that damaged material cannot loose all its elastic energy.
Existence and uniqueness results for damage models of viscoelastic materials are proven in [@BSS05] for scalar-valued displacements. Higher dimensional damage models are analytically investigated in [@BS04; @Mielke06; @MT10; @KRZ11; @RR12] and, there, existence and regularity properties are shown. A coupled system describing incomplete damage, linear elasticity and phase separation appeared in [@WIAS1520; @WIAS1569]. There, existence of weak solutions has been proven under mild assumptions, where, for instance, the stiffness tensor may be material-dependent and the chemical free energy may be of polynomial or logarithmic type. All these works are based on the gradient-of-damage model proposed by Frémond and Nedjar [@FN96] (see also [@Fre02]) which describes damage as a result from microscopic movements in the solid. The distinction between a balance law for the microscopic forces and constitutive relations of the material yield a satisfying derivation of an evolution law for the damage propagation from the physical point of view. In particular, the gradient of the damage variable enters the resulting equation and serves as a regularization term for the mathematical analysis as well as it ensures the structural size effect. Internal constraints are ensured by the presence of non-smooth operators (subdifferential operators) in the evolution system. Hence, in the case that the evolution of the damage is assumed to be uni-directional, i.e. the damage process is irreversible, the microforce balance law becomes a doubly-nonlinear differential inclusion.
The main aim of this paper is to generalize the results for hyperbolic-parabolic damage systems introduced in [@HK13_1] to coupled phase-field systems describing [*phase separation*]{} and [*damage processes*]{} in the presence of inertial terms with mixed boundary conditions on [*non-smooth (Lipschitz) domains*]{}. The novelty of this contribution is to obtain existence results for [*phase separation*]{} with elasticity including [*inertial effects*]{} and damage processes on Lipschitz domains. We first utilize and adjust the notion of weak solutions introduced in [@WIAS1520]. Then, we prove existence of weak solutions by means of regularization, time-discretization and different variational techniques. To this end, an energy estimate has, for instance, to be established and several convergence properties are shown.
Energies and evolutionary equations
-----------------------------------
Here, we qualify our model formally and postpone a rigorous treatment to Section \[section:mainProofs\]. The presented model is based on two functionals, i.e. a generalized Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional $\mathcal E$ and a damage pseudo-dissipation potential $\mathcal R$ (in the sense by Moreau). The free energy density $\varphi$ of the system is given by $$\label{eq:free_energy}
\varphi(\varepsilon(u),c,\nabla c,z,\nabla z):=
\frac{1}{p}|\nabla z|^p +
\frac{1}{2} |\nabla
c |^2 +W(c, \varepsilon(u),z) + f(z) + \Psi(c) ,$$ where the gradient terms penalize spatial changes of the variables $c$ and $z$. $W$ denotes the elastically stored energy density accounting for elastic deformations and damage effects, $f$ is the damage dependent potential and $\Psi$ stands for the chemical energy density. The overall free energy ${\mathcal E}$ of Ginzburg-Landau type has the following structure: $$\label{eqn:EnergyTyp1}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal E(u,c,z):=\int_\Omega\Big(\varphi(\varepsilon(u),c,\nabla c,z,\nabla z)+I_{[0,\infty)}(z)\Big)\,\mathrm dx.
\end{split}$$ In this context, $I_{[0,\infty)}$ signifies the indicator function of the subset $[0,\infty)\subseteq\mathbb R$, i.e. $ I_{[0,\infty)}(x)=0$ for $x \in
[0,\infty)$ and $ I_{[0,\infty)}(x) =\infty$ for $x<0$. We assume that the energy dissipation for the damage process is triggered by a rate-dependent dissipation potential ${\mathcal R}$ of the form $$\label{eqn:EnergyTyp2}
\begin{split}
&{\mathcal R}(\dot z):=\int_\Omega\Big(\frac 12|\dot z|^2+I_{(-\infty,0]}(\dot z)\Big)\,\mathrm dx.
\end{split}$$
The governing evolutionary equations for a system state $q=(u,c,z)$ can be expressed by virtue of the functionals and . More precisely, the evolution is driven by the following hyperbolic-parabolic system of differential equations and differential inclusions:
\[eqn:PDE\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:pde1}
&\textit{diffusion:} &&c_t={\,\mathrm{div}}(m(c,z)\nabla\mu), \\
\label{eqn:pde2}
&&&\mu=-\Delta c+W_{,c}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+\Psi'(c),\\
\label{eqn:pde3} \quad
&\textit{balance of forces:} &&u_{tt}-{\,\mathrm{div}}{\left(}W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z){\right)}=l,\\
\label{eqn:pde4}
&\textit{damage evolution:} &&0\in\partial_z\mathcal
E(u,c,z)+\partial_{\dot z}\mathcal R(\partial_t z) \quad \textit{
or equivalently }\\
&&&z_t -\Delta_p z+W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\xi+\varphi=0,\\
\label{eqn:pde5}
&&&\xi\in\partial I_{[0,\infty)}(z),\\
\label{eqn:pde6}
&&&\varphi\in\partial I_{(-\infty,0]}(z_t).
\end{aligned}$$
The Cahn-Hilliard system - describes phase separation phenomena in alloys, the hyperbolic equation formulates the balance of forces including inertial effects and the inclusion - is an evolution law for the damage processes. The sub-gradients correspond to the constraints that the damage is non-negative and irreversible. Let us note that linear contributions in $f$ model damage activation thresholds.
We choose Dirichlet conditions for the displacements $u$ on a subset $\Gamma$ of the boundary $\partial\Omega$ with $\mathcal H^{n-1}(\Gamma)>0$. Let $b:[0,T]\times\Gamma\rightarrow \mathbb R^n$ be a function which prescribes the displacements on $\Gamma$ for a fixed chosen time interval $[0,T]$. The imposed boundary and initial conditions and constraints are as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{boundary displacements}:&&u=b \text{ on }{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}\times(0,T),\\
&\textit{initial concentration}: &&c(0)=c^0\text{ in }\Omega,\\
&\textit{initial displacements}: &&u(0)=u^0,\;u_t(0)=v^0\text{ in }\Omega,\\
&\textit{initial damage}:&&z(0)=z^0\text{ in }\Omega.
\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, we use natural boundary conditions for the remaining variables on (parts of) the boundary:
\[eqn:PDEIBC\]
&W\_[,e]{}(c,(u),z)=0&&\_(0,T),\
&c= z=m(c,z)=0&&, \[eqn:boundary2\]
where $\nu$ stands for the outer unit normal to $\partial\Omega$.
We like to mention that mass conservation of the system follows from the diffusion equation and , i.e. $$\int_\Omega c(t)-c^0\,\mathrm dx=0\text{ for all }t\in[0,T].$$
In the next section, we state the precise assumptions that are needed for a rigorous analysis. Section \[section:existence\] presents the main results. We give a notion of weak solutions evolved from [@HK13_1] and state the existence theorem in Subsection \[section:weakNotion\]. Since the proof is based on regularization techniques, we also give the weak notion and the associated existence result for the regularized system in Subsection \[section:H2reg\]. In the main part, Section \[section:mainProofs\], the existence proof is carried out first for the regularized case and then for the limiting case.
Notation and assumptions {#section:assumptions}
========================
Throughout this work, let $p>n$ be a constant and let $\Omega\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^n$ ($n=1,2,3$) be a bounded Lipschitz domain. For the Dirichlet boundary $\Gamma_\mathrm{D}$ and the Neumann boundary $\Gamma_\mathrm{N}$ of $\partial\Omega$, we adopt the assumptions from [@Ber11], i.e., $\Gamma_\mathrm{D}$ and $\Gamma_\mathrm{N}$ are non-empty and relatively open sets in $\partial\Omega$ with finitely many path-connected components such that $\Gamma_\mathrm{D}\cap \Gamma_\mathrm{N}=\emptyset$ and ${\overline}{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}\cup {\overline}{\Gamma_\mathrm{N}}=\partial\Omega$.
The considered time interval is denoted by $[0,T]$ and $\Omega_t:=\Omega \times [0,t]$ for $t \in [0,T]$. The partial derivative of a function $h$ with respect to a variable $s$ is abbreviated by $h_{,s}$. The set $\{v>0\}$ for a function $v\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ has to be read as $\{x\in{\overline}\Omega\,|\,v(x)>0\}$ by employing the embedding $W^{1,p}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow{\mathcal}C({\overline}\Omega)$ (because $p>n$).
The elastic energy density $W$ is assumed to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:defW}
W(c,e,z)=\frac 12 \mathbf C(z)(e-e^*(c)):(e-e^*(c)),
\end{aligned}$$ where $e^*$ denotes the eigenstrain and $\mathbf C$ the material stiffness tensor which depends on the damage variable. For $e^*$, we assume the linear relation $e^*(c)= c \, \hat{e}$ with $\hat{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}_\mathrm{sym}^{n\times n}$ (Vegard’s law). We choose the stiffness tensor function $\mathbf C \in {\mathcal}C^1([0,1];{\mathcal}L_\text{sym}({\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}))$, where ${\mathcal}L_\text{sym}({\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})$ denotes the linear mappings from ${\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ into ${\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ which are symmetric. We also assume the properties $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:assumptionC}
\mathbf C(z)e:e\geq\eta|e|^2,\qquad \mathbf C'(z)e:e\geq 0
\end{aligned}$$ for all $e\in{\mathbb{R}}_\mathrm{sym}^{n\times n}$, $z\in[0,1]$ and a constant $\eta>0$ independent of $e$ and $z$.
Furthermore, we choose the mobility $m\in C({\mathbb{R}}\times[0,1];{\mathbb{R}}^+)$ and suppose that the chemical energy density $\Psi\in {\mathcal}C^1({\mathbb{R}})$ can be decomposed into $$\Psi(c)= \Psi_1(c) + \Psi_2(c) \quad \text{for }c\in{\mathbb{R}},$$ where $\Psi_1,\Psi_2\in{\mathcal}C^1({\mathbb{R}})$ with $\Psi_1$ convex and $\Psi_1\ge 0$. In addition, we assume the following growth conditions:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:assumption_psi}
|\Psi'(c)|&\leq C(1+|c|^{2^\star/2}), \\
\label{eqn:assumption_psi2}
|\Psi_2'(c)|& \le C( |c| +1)
\end{aligned}$$
for all $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, the mobility function should satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:assumption_m}
C_1 \leq m(c,z) &\leq C_2
\end{aligned}$$ for all $c \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $z \in [0,1]$. Here, $C_1,C_2>0$ denote constants independent of $c$ and $z$, and $2^\star$ is the Sobolev critical exponent.
The damage dependent potential $f$ entering equation is assumed to be a function of ${\mathcal}C^1([0,1];{\mathbb{R}}^+)$.
Main results {#section:existence}
============
Notion of weak solutions and existence results {#section:weakNotion}
----------------------------------------------
In what follows we define for $k \ge 1$ the spaces $$\begin{aligned}
W_+^{k,p}(\Omega)&:=\big\{u\in W^{k,p}(\Omega)\,|\,u\geq 0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega\big\},\\
W_-^{k,p}(\Omega)&:=\big\{u\in W^{k,p}(\Omega)\,|\,u\leq 0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega\big\},\\
H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^{k}(\Omega)&:=\big\{u\in H^{k}(\Omega)\,|\,u= 0\text{
on }{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}\text{ in the sense of traces}\big\} .
\end{aligned}$$
Let the following initial-boundary data and volume forces be given: $$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{boundary data:}
&&b\in H^{1}(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)\cap W^{2,1}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
&\textit{initial values:}
&&c^0\in H^1(\Omega),\;u^0\in H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n),\;v^0\in L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n),\\
&&&z^0\in W^{1,p}(\Omega) \text{ with }0\leq z^0\leq 1\text{ a.e. in }\Omega,\\
&\textit{external volume forces:}
&&l\in L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)).
\end{aligned}$$ A weak formulation of system - is given in the following definition.
\[def:weakSolution\] A weak solution of the PDE system - for the data $(l,b,c^0,u^0,v^0,z^0)$ is a 5-tuple $(c,u,z,\mu,\xi)$ satisfying the following properties:
- spaces:
&cL\^(0,T;H\^1())H\^1(0,T;(H\^1())\^\*),\
&uL\^(0,T;H\^1(;\^n))W\^[1,]{}(0,T;L\^2(;\^n))H\^2(0,T;(H\_[\_]{}\^1(;\^n))\^\*)\
&u=b(0,T),u(0)=u\^0,\_t u(0)=v\^0,&\
&zL\^(0,T;W\^[1,p]{}())H\^1(0,T;L\^2())&\
&z(0)=z\^0,z0\_T,\_t z0\_T,&\
&L\^2(0,T;H\^1()),\
&L\^(0,T;L\^1()).&
- for all $\zeta \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$ with $\zeta(T)=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak1}
\int_{\Omega_T}(c-c^0)\partial_t\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=\int_{\Omega_T}m(c,z)\nabla\mu\cdot\nabla\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak2}
\int_{\Omega}\mu \, \zeta{\,\mathrm dx}=\int_{\Omega}\big(\nabla c\cdot\nabla \zeta+W_{,c}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)\zeta+\Psi'(c)\zeta\big){\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak3}
\langle \partial_{tt} u,\zeta\rangle_{H^1}+\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z):{\epsilon}(\zeta){\,\mathrm dx}=\int_\Omega l\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in W_-^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak4}
0\leq\int_\Omega{\left(}|\nabla z|^{p-2}\nabla z\cdot\nabla\zeta+(W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\partial_t z+\xi)\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in L_+^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak5}
0\geq\int_\Omega\xi(\zeta-z){\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- total energy inequality for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak6}
{\mathcal}E(t)+{\mathcal}K(t)+{\mathcal}D(0,t)\leq {\mathcal}E(0)+{\mathcal}K(0)+{\mathcal}W_\mathrm{ext}(0,t)
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{free energy:}
&&{\mathcal}E(t):=\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac 1p|\nabla z(t)|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c(t)|^2+W(c(t),{\epsilon}(u(t)),z(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&&&\qquad\quad+\int_\Omega\big(f(z(t))+\Psi(c(t))\big){\,\mathrm dx},\\
&\textit{kinetic energy:}
&&{\mathcal}K(t):=\int_\Omega\frac 12|\partial_t u(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx},\\
&\textit{dissipation:}
&&{\mathcal}D(0,t):=\int_{\Omega_t}\big(|\partial_t z|^2+m(c,z)|\nabla\mu|^2\big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\\
&\textit{external work:}
&&{\mathcal}W_\mathrm{ext}(0,t):=
\int_{\Omega_t} W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z):{\epsilon}(\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&&&\qquad\qquad\quad\;-\int_{\Omega_t}\partial_{t}u\cdot\partial_{tt} b{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}+\int_{\Omega_t}l\cdot (\partial_t u-\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&&&\qquad\qquad\quad\;-\int_\Omega v^0\cdot \partial_t b^0{\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega \partial_t u(t)\cdot \partial_t b(t){\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $(c,u,z,\mu,\xi)$ be a weak solution. Furthermore, if additionally $$\begin{aligned}
&c\in H^1(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\quad u\in H^1(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\quad
z\in H^1(0,T;W^{1,p}(\Omega)),
\end{aligned}$$ then for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\qquad z_t&-\Delta_p z+W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\xi+\varphi=0\text{ in }{\left(}W^{1,p}(\Omega){\right)}^*,\\
\qquad \xi&\in\partial I_{W_+^{1,p}(\Omega)}(z),\\
\qquad \varphi&\in\partial I_{W_-^{1,p}(\Omega)}(\partial_t z).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the energy inequality becomes an energy balance.
The main aim of this work is to prove existence of weak solutions in the sense above.
\[theorem:mainResult\] Let the assumptions in Section \[section:assumptions\] be satisfied. To the given data $l$, $b$, $c^0$, $u^0$, $v^0$, $z^0$, there exists a weak solution of system - in the sense of Definition \[def:weakSolution\].
Notion of weak solutions for a regularized system and existence results {#section:H2reg}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We will first study a regularized version of our phase separation-damage model. The passage to the limit is performed in Section \[section:limit\]. The regularization is needed in the existence proof in the first instance to pass from the time-discrete to the time-continuous system.
The regularized PDE system for $\delta>0$ is given by
c\_t&=(m(c,z)),\
&=-c+W\_[,c]{}(c,(u),z)+’(c)+c\_t,\
u\_[tt]{}&-[(]{}W\_[,e]{}(c,(u),z)[)]{}+Au=l,&\
z\_t&-\_p z+W\_[,z]{}(c,(u),z)+f’(z)++=0,&\
&I\_[\[0,)]{}(z),&\
&I\_[(-,0\]]{}(z\_t),&
where the linear operator $A:H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)\to (H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*$ is defined as $$\langle Au,v\rangle_{H^2}
:=\int_\Omega\langle\nabla(\nabla u),\nabla(\nabla v)\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n}}{\,\mathrm dx}:=
\sum_{1\leq i,j,k\leq n}\int_\Omega \frac{\mathrm d^2 u_k}{\mathrm dx_i\mathrm d x_j}\frac{\mathrm d^2 v_k}{\mathrm dx_i\mathrm d x_j}{\,\mathrm dx}.$$ A weak formulation of the regularized system such as in Definition \[def:weakSolution\] can be obtained with the corresponding modifications including the $\delta$-terms.
\[def:regWeakSolution\] A weak solution of the regularized PDE system for the data $(l,b,c^0,u^0,v^0,z^0)$ is a 5-tuple $(c,u,z,\mu,\xi)$ satisfying the following properties:
- spaces:
&cL\^(0,T;H\^1())H\^1(0,T;L\^2()),\
&c(0)=c\^0,\
&uL\^(0,T;H\^2(;\^n))W\^[1,]{}(0,T;L\^2(;\^n))H\^2(0,T;(H\_[\_]{}\^2(;\^n))\^\*)\
&u=b(0,T),u(0)=u\^0,\_t u(0)=v\^0,&\
&zL\^(0,T;W\^[1,p]{}())H\^1(0,T;L\^2())&\
&z(0)=z\^0,z0\_T,\_t z0\_T,&\
&L\^2(0,T;H\^1()),\
&L\^(0,T;L\^1()).&
- for all $\zeta\in H^1(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak1_delta}
\int_{\Omega_T}(\partial_t c)\,\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=-\int_{\Omega_T}m(c,z)\nabla\mu\cdot\nabla\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in H^1(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak2_delta}
\int_{\Omega}\mu \, \zeta{\,\mathrm dx}=\int_{\Omega}\big(\nabla c\cdot\nabla \zeta+W_{,c}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)\zeta+\Psi'(c)\zeta
+\delta \,(\partial_t c)\, \zeta \big){\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak3_delta}
\langle \partial_{tt}u,\zeta\rangle_{H^1}+\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z):{\epsilon}(\zeta){\,\mathrm dx}+ \delta \langle Au ,\zeta\rangle_{H^2}=\int_\Omega l\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in W_-^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak4_delta}
0\leq\int_\Omega{\left(}|\nabla z|^{p-2}\nabla z\cdot\nabla\zeta+(W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\partial_t z+\xi)\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in L_+^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak5_delta}
0\geq\int_\Omega\xi(\zeta-z){\,\mathrm dx}\end{aligned}$$
- total energy inequality for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:weak6_delta}
{\mathcal}E(t)+{\mathcal}K(t)+{\mathcal}D(0,t)\leq {\mathcal}E(0)+{\mathcal}K(0)+{\mathcal}W_\mathrm{ext}(0,t)
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{free energy:}
&&{\mathcal}E(t):=\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac 1p|\nabla z(t)|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c(t)|^2+W(c(t),{\epsilon}(u(t)),z(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&&&\qquad\quad+\int_\Omega\big(f(z(t))+\Psi(c(t))\big){\,\mathrm dx}+ \frac{\delta}{2} \langle A u_\tau(t) , u_\tau(t)\rangle_{H^2},\\
&\textit{kinetic energy:}
&&{\mathcal}K(t):=\int_\Omega\frac 12|\partial_t u(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx},\\
&\textit{dissipation:}
&&{\mathcal}D(0,t):=\int_{\Omega_t}\big(|\partial_t z|^2+ \delta|\partial_t c|^2+m(c,z)|\nabla\mu|^2\big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\\
&\textit{external work:}
&&{\mathcal}W_\mathrm{ext}(0,t):=
\int_{\Omega_t} W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z):{\epsilon}(\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&&&\qquad\qquad\quad\;+\delta\int_0^t\langle A u(s),\partial_t b(s)\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&&&\qquad\qquad\quad\;-\int_{\Omega_t}\partial_{t}u\cdot\partial_{tt} b{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}+\int_{\Omega_t}l\cdot (\partial_t u-\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&&&\qquad\qquad\quad\;-\int_\Omega v^0\cdot \partial_t b^0{\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega \partial_t u(t)\cdot \partial_t b(t){\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof of the main result, see Theorem \[theorem:mainResult\], is based on the existence of weak solutions for the regularized system.
\[theorem:mainResult\_delta\] Let the assumptions in Section \[section:assumptions\] be satisfied. To the given data $l$, $b$, $c^0$, $u^0$, $v^0$, $z^0$, there exists a weak solution of the regularized system in the sense of Definition \[def:regWeakSolution\].
Proof of the existence theorems {#section:mainProofs}
===============================
Existence proof for the regularized system
------------------------------------------
For the existence proof of the regularized system, we will use a semi-implicit Euler scheme solved by a recursive minimization procedure.
Let $\tau>0$ denote the discretization fineness and let $M_\tau:=\lfloor T/\tau \rfloor$ be the number of discrete time points. We fix a $k\in{1,\ldots, M_\tau}$ and define the functional ${\mathcal}F_\tau^k:H^1(\Omega)\times H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)\times W^{1,p}(\Omega)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal}F_\tau^k(c,u,z):={}&\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac 1p|\nabla z|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c|^2+W(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f(z)+ \Psi(c)-l(k\tau)\cdot u{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
& +\frac\delta2\langle A^{k-1}u,u\rangle_{H^2}+\frac\tau2\left\|\frac{z-z_\tau^{k-1}}{\tau}\right\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\left\|\frac{u-2u_\tau^{k-1}+u_\tau^{k-2}}{\tau^2}\right\|_{L^2}^2\\
& +\frac{1}{2\tau}\left\|\frac{c-c_\tau^{k-1}}{\tau}\right\|_{V_0}^2
+\frac{\delta}{2\tau}\left\|\frac{c-c_\tau^{k-1}}{\tau}\right\|_{L^2}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $V_0= \{ \zeta \in (H^1(\Omega))^* | \langle \zeta, {\bf 1} \rangle_{(H^1)^* \times H^1}=0 \}$. Note that the inverse operator $A^{k-1,-1}:V_0 \to U_0:=\{ \zeta \in (H^1(\Omega))| \int_\Omega \zeta {\,\mathrm dx}=0 \}$ of the operator $A^{k-1}: U_0 \to V_0$ given by $$u \mapsto \langle \nabla u,
m(c_\tau^{k-1},z_\tau^{k-1})\nabla \cdot \, \rangle_{L^2}$$ is well defined. The space $V_0$ is endowed with the scalar product $$\langle u, v \rangle_{V_0}:= \langle \nabla (A^{-1} u), m(c_\tau^{k-1},z_\tau^{k-1})\nabla (A^{-1}v) \rangle_{L^2}.$$ We refer to [@Gar00] for details.
A minimizer of ${\mathcal}F_\tau^k$ in the subspace $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg\{c\in H^1(\Omega) \;|\; \int_\Omega (c-c^0) {\,\mathrm dx}=0{\,\mathrm dx}\bigg\}\times \Big\{u\in {H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}\;|\;u|_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}=b(\tau k)|_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}\Big\}\\
\times \Big\{z\in {W^{1,p}(\Omega)}\;|\;0\leq z\leq z_\tau^{k-1}\Big\}
\end{gathered}$$ obtained by the direct method in the calculus of variations is denoted by $(c^k_\tau, u_\tau^k,z_\tau^k)$. More precisely, by a recursive minimization procedure starting from the initial values $(c^0,u^0,z^0)$ and $u^{-1}:=u^0-\tau v^0$, we obtain functions $(c_\tau^k, u_\tau^k,z_\tau^k)$ for $k=0,\ldots,M_\tau$. The velocity field $v_\tau^k$ is set to $(u_\tau^k-u_\tau^{k-1})/\tau$ and $b_\tau^k$ and $l_\tau^k$ are given by $b(\tau k)$ and $l(\tau k)$.
Let $w_\tau^k\in\{l_\tau^k,b_\tau^k,c^k_\tau,
u_\tau^k,v_\tau^k,z_\tau^k, \mu_\tau^k \}$, we introduce the piecewise constant interpolations $w_\tau$, $w_\tau^-$ and the linear interpolation $\widehat w_\tau$ with respect to time as $$\begin{aligned}
w_\tau(t)&:=w_\tau^k&&\text{ with }k=\left\lceil t/\tau\right\rceil,\\
w_\tau^-(t)&:=w_\tau^{\max\{0,k-1\}}&&\text{ with }k=\left\lceil t/\tau\right\rceil,\\
\widehat w_\tau(t)&:=\beta w_\tau^k+(1-\beta)w_\tau^{\max\{0,k-1\}}&&\text{ with }
k=\left\lceil t/\tau\right\rceil,\;\beta=\frac{t-(k-1)\tau}{\tau}
\end{aligned}$$ and the piecewise constant functions $t_\tau$ and $t_\tau^-$ as $$\begin{aligned}
t_\tau&:=\left\lceil t/\tau\right\rceil\tau=\min\{k\tau\,|\,k\in\mathbb N_0\text{ and }k\tau\geq t\},\\
t_\tau^-&:=\max\{0,t_\tau-\tau\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We would like to remark that, by definition, $w_\tau(t)=w_\tau(t_\tau)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \widehat v_\tau(t)=\frac{u_\tau^k-2u_\tau^{k-1}+u_\tau^{k-2}}{\tau^2}
\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in \left\lceil t/\tau\right\rceil$.
Since the functions $(c^k_\tau, u_\tau^k,z_\tau^k)$ are minimizers, we obtain the following necessary conditions (Euler-Lagrange equations) by direct methods in the calculus of variations, cf. [@WIAS1520; @WIASxxxx; @HK13_1]:
\[lemma:time\_discrete\] There exists a time-discrete weak solution in the following sense:
- spaces: $$\begin{aligned}
&c_\tau,c_\tau^-\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),&&\widehat c_\tau\in W^{1,\infty}(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
&u_\tau,v_\tau\in L^\infty(0,T;{H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}),&&\widehat u_\tau,\widehat v_\tau\in W^{1,\infty}(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
&z_\tau,z_\tau^-\in L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}),&&\widehat z_\tau\in W^{1,\infty}(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}),\\
&\mu_\tau\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&c_\tau(0)=c^0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega,\;u_\tau(0)=u^0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega,\;z_\tau(0)=z^0\text{ in }\Omega,\;v_\tau(0)=v^0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega,\\
&u_\tau=b_\tau\text{ on }{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}\times(0,T),\;z_\tau\geq 0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega_T,\;\partial_t \widehat z_\tau\leq 0\text{ a.e. in }\Omega_T,
\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:discrPde1}
\int_{\Omega_T}(\partial_t \widehat c_\tau)\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=-\int_{\Omega_T} m(c_\tau^-,z_\tau^-)\nabla\mu_\tau\cdot\nabla\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt},
\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in H^1(\Omega)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:discrPde2}
\int_{\Omega}\mu_\tau\zeta{\,\mathrm dx}= \int_{\Omega}\big(\nabla c_\tau\cdot\nabla \zeta+W_{,c}(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau)\zeta+\Psi'(c_\tau)\zeta
+\delta(\partial_t \widehat c_\tau)\zeta\big){\,\mathrm dx},
\end{aligned}$$
- for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:discrPde3}
\int_\Omega\partial_t\widehat v_\tau\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau):{\epsilon}(\zeta){\,\mathrm dx}+\delta \langle Au_\tau,\zeta\rangle_{H^2}
=\int_\Omega l_\tau\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx},
\end{aligned}$$
- for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$ and for all $\zeta\in {W^{1,p}(\Omega)}$ with $0\leq\zeta+z_\tau(t)\leq z_\tau^-(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:discrPde4}
0\leq\int_\Omega{\left(}|\nabla z_\tau|^{p-2}\nabla z_\tau\cdot\nabla\zeta+(W_{,z}(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau)+f'(z_\tau)+\partial_t\widehat z_\tau)\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:apriori\_tau\] There exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $\delta$ such that
- $\|\nabla c_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))} <C, \quad \|\partial_t \widehat c_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}<C,$
- $\| u_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C$, $\|v_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C,$\
$ \|\widehat u_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C$,\
$ \|\widehat v_\tau\|_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap H^1(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*)}<C$,
- $\|\nabla z_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^p(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C,\quad \|\partial_t \widehat z_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}<C,$
- $\|\nabla\mu_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C, \quad \|
m(c^-_\tau, z^-_\tau)^{1/2} \nabla\mu_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C.$
We split the proof into two steps. We first prove the a priori estimates (i), (ii) and (iv) and then we deduce estimate (iii).\
*First a priori estimates.* Testing with $\tau\mu_\tau$, testing with $c_\tau-c_\tau^-$, testing with $u_\tau-u_\tau^--(b_\tau-b_\tau^-)$, and adding everything, yield $$\begin{aligned}
T_1(t)+T_2(t)+T_3(t)+T_4(t)+T_5(t)\leq 0
\end{aligned}$$ with [$$\begin{aligned}
&T_1(t):=\int_\Omega \nabla c_\tau(t)\cdot\nabla(c_\tau(t)-c_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega \delta\langle\nabla(\nabla u_\tau(t)),\nabla(\nabla(u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t)))\rangle{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\qquad+\int_\Omega \partial_t \widehat v_\tau(t)\cdot(u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx},\\
&T_2(t):=\tau \int_\Omega m(c_\tau(t),z_\tau(t))|\nabla\mu_\tau(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx}+\tau\int_\Omega \delta|\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx},\\
&T_3(t):=\int_\Omega W_{,c}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))(c_\tau(t)-c_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\qquad+\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t)):{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&T_4(t):=\tau\int_\Omega \Psi'(c_\tau(t))\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}-\tau\int_\Omega l_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t\widehat u_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&T_5(t):=-\tau\int_\Omega\Big(\partial_t\widehat v_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t)
+W_{,e}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t)):{\epsilon}(\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t))\Big){\,\mathrm dx},\\
&\qquad\qquad-\tau\int_\Omega\Big(\delta\langle\nabla(\nabla u_\tau(t)),\nabla(\nabla(\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t)))\rangle_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n}}
-l_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t)\Big){\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$]{}These terms are estimated in the following.
- Convexity estimates yield $$\begin{aligned}
T_1(t)\geq{}& \frac12\|\nabla c_\tau(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2-\frac12\|\nabla c_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\\
&+\frac\delta2\|\nabla (\nabla u_\tau(t))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n})}^2
-\frac\delta2\|\nabla (\nabla u_\tau^-(t))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n})}^2\\
&+\frac12\|v_\tau(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2-\frac12\|v_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
- We obtain for small $\eta>0$: $$\begin{aligned}
T_2(t)\geq{}& \eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\|\nabla\mu_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2+ \delta \|\partial_t\widehat
c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$
- By the convexity argument and by $z_\tau\leq z_\tau^-$, we gain $$\begin{aligned}
&W_{,e}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t)):{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t))\\
&\qquad\geq W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau(t))\\
&\qquad\geq W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))\\
&\qquad\quad+\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}W_{,c}(\widehat c_\tau(s),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(s)),z_\tau(s))\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(s){\,\mathrm ds},
\end{aligned}$$ and conclude ($\eta>0$ is chosen as small as necessary) $$\begin{aligned}
&T_3(t)\geq\int_\Omega \big(W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))\big){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\quad+\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega W_{,c}(c_\tau(s),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(s)),z_\tau(s))\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(s){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\qquad+\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega W_{,c}(\widehat c_\tau(s),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(s)),z_\tau(s))\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(s){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\geq
\int_\Omega \big(W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))\big){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\quad-C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\|W_{,c}(c_\tau(s),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(s)),z_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\quad-C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\|W_{,c}(\widehat c_\tau(s),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(s)),z_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\quad-\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\|\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\geq\int_\Omega \big(W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))\big){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\quad-\widehat C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\big(\|c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|c_\tau^-(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|{\epsilon}(u_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\quad-\widehat C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\|{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2{\,\mathrm ds}-\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\|\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2{\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$
- Convexity of $\Psi_1$ combined with growth condition and Young’s inequality show $$\begin{aligned}
T_4(t)\geq{}&\int_\Omega\Psi_1(c_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega\Psi_1(c_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}$$$$\begin{aligned}
&-\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\|\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|l_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\|\Psi_{2}'(c_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2
+\|v_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2 \Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
\geq{}&\int_\Omega\Psi_1(c_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega\Psi_1(c_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&-\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\|\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|l_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-C_\eta\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\|c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\|v_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2
\Big){\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$
- By using the discrete integration by parts formula, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\int_{\Omega}\partial_t \widehat v_\tau\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}={}&\int_\Omega v_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega v_\tau^-(t)\cdot\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(t-\tau){\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega v_\tau^-(s)\cdot\frac{\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s-\tau)}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},
\label{eqn:discrIntegrByParts}
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_5(t)\geq{}&-\int_\Omega v_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega v_\tau^-(t)\cdot\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(t-\tau){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\eta\|v_\tau^-(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2
+C_\eta\Big\|\frac{\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s-\tau)}{\tau}\Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\eta\|c_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2+\eta\|{\epsilon}(u_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}C_\eta\|{\epsilon}(\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})}^2{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\eta\|\nabla(\nabla u_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n})}^2
+C_\eta\|\nabla(\nabla \partial_t \widehat b_\tau(s))\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n\times n})}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}\\
&-\int_{t_\tau^-}^{t_\tau}\Big(\eta\|l_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2+C_\eta\|\partial_t\widehat
b_\tau(s)\|_{L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^2\Big){\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$
Summing over the discrete time points $t_\tau=0,\tau,\ldots, k\tau$ for an arbitrary but fixed chosen $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we can apply Gronwall’s inequality and obtain the following boundedness properties: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla c_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C, \\
\|\partial_t \widehat c_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}&<C, \\
\|\nabla(\nabla u_\tau)\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times
n\times n}))}&<C, \label{eqn:aux1}\\
\|{\epsilon}(u_\tau)\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}))}&<C, \label{eqn:aux2}\\
\|v_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C, \label{eqn:aux3}\\
\|\nabla\mu_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C,
\end{aligned}$$ where $C>0$ is independent of $\tau$. Combining estimates - with Korn’s inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C.
\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, by noticing $v_\tau=\partial_t\widehat u_\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widehat u_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C.
\end{aligned}$$ A comparison argument in also gives $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widehat v_\tau\|_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap H^1(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*)}&<C.
\end{aligned}$$
*Second a priori estimates.* Testing with $z_\tau^--z_\tau$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_\Omega |\nabla z_\tau(t)|^{p-2}\nabla z_\tau(t)\cdot\nabla (z_\tau(t)-z_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}+\frac 12\tau\|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\\
&\qquad\qquad\leq - \tau\int_\Omega{\left(}W_{,z}(c(\tau(t)),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)+f'(z_\tau(t))\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we apply a convexity estimate and get $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac 1p\|\nabla z_\tau(t)\|_{L^p(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^p-\frac 1p\|\nabla z_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^p(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}^p
+\frac 12\tau\|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\\
&\qquad\qquad\leq\tau\eta\|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2
+\tau C_\eta\big(1+\|c_\tau(t)\|_{L^4(\Omega)}^4+\|{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t))\|_{L^4(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})}^4\big).
\end{aligned}$$ We end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla z_\tau\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^p(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}&<C,\\
\|\partial_t \widehat z_\tau\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}&<C,
\end{aligned}$$ where $C>0$ is independent of $\tau$.
By applying Poincar[é]{}’s inequality, standard weak and weakly-star compactness results to the above a priori estimates, we obtain the following convergence properties.
There exist functions $$\begin{aligned}
&c\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
&u\in L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{2,\infty}(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*),\\
&z\in L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
&\mu\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))
\end{aligned}$$ and subsequences (omitting the subscript) such that for all $r\geq 1$ and $s<2^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:conv0}
c_{\tau},c_{\tau}^-&\to c&&\text{ weakly-star in }L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv1}
&&&\text{ strongly in }L^r(0,T;L^s(\Omega)),\text{ a.e.~in }\Omega_T,\\
\label{eqn:conv2}
\widehat c_{\tau}&\to c&&\text{ weakly-star in }
\\ && & \hspace{0.3cm}L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv3_0}
u_{\tau},u_{\tau}^-&\to u&&\text{ weakly-star in }
L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
\label{eqn:conv3}
&&&\text{ strongly in }L^r(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\text{ a.e.~in }\Omega_T,\\
\label{eqn:conv4}
\widehat u_{\tau}&\to u&&\text{ weakly-star in }\notag
\\&& & \hspace{0.3cm}
L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
\label{eqn:conv5}
v_{\tau},v_{\tau}^-&\to \partial_t u&&\text{ weakly-star in }L^{\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),$$$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:conv6}
\widehat v_{\tau}&\to \partial_t u&&\text{ weakly-star
in }
\\&& & \hspace{0.3cm}
L^{\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap H^1(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*),\\
z_{\tau},z_{\tau}^-&\to z&&\text{ weakly-star in }L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}),\notag\\
\label{eqn:conv7}
&&&\text{ strongly in }L^r(0,T;L^r(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\text{ a.e.~in }\Omega_T,\\
\label{eqn:conv8}
\widehat z_{\tau}&\to z&&\text{ weakly-star in }
\\&& & \hspace{0.3cm}
L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv9}
\mu_{\tau}&\to \mu&&\text{ weakly in } L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv10}
m(c_\tau^-, z_\tau^-)^{\frac{1}{2}} \nabla \mu_{\tau} &\to m(c, z)^{\frac{1}{2}} \nabla \mu&&\text{ weakly in } L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega; {\mathbb{R}}^n))
\end{aligned}$$ as $\tau\searrow 0$.
Strong convergence of a subsequence of $\{\nabla z_{\tau}\}$ in $L^p(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ can be shown as in [@HK13_1] by a tricky approximation argument.
\[lemma:strongConvZ\] There exists a sequence $\{ \tau_k \}_{ k \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ such that $z_{\tau_k}\to z$ in $L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}(\Omega))$ as $\tau_k \searrow 0$.
For a time discrete solution of the regularized system, we can prove the validity of an energy inequality of type except the additional discretization error terms $e_\tau^1,\ldots,e_\tau^4$ which will turn out to converge to $0$ in a certain sense as $\tau\searrow 0$.
[**(Discrete energy inequality)**]{} \[lemma:energy\_time\_discrete\] Let a time-discrete weak solution be given as in Lemma \[lemma:time\_discrete\]. Then the following energy estimate is satisfied for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal}E_\tau(t)+{\mathcal}K_\tau(t)+{\mathcal}D_\tau(0,t)+\int_0^{t_\tau}{\left(}e_\tau^1(s)+e_\tau^2(s)+e_\tau^3(s)+e_\tau^4(s){\right)}{\,\mathrm ds}\notag\\
\label{eqn:discrEI}
&\qquad\leq {\mathcal}E_\tau(0)+{\mathcal}K_\tau(0)+{\mathcal}W_{\tau,\mathrm{ext}}(0,t)
\end{aligned}$$ with the discrete energies $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal}E_\tau(t):=\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac 1p|\nabla z_\tau(t)|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c_\tau(t)|^2+W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))
+f(z_\tau(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\hspace*{4em} + \int_\Omega\Psi(c_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}+\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau(t),u_\tau(t)\rangle_{H^2},\\
&{\mathcal}K_\tau(t):=\int_\Omega\frac12|v_\tau(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx},\\
&{\mathcal}D_\tau(0,t):=\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega\big(|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau|^2+\delta|\partial_t\widehat c_\tau|^2 +
m(c_\tau^-,z_\tau^-)\nabla\mu_\tau\cdot\nabla\mu_\tau\big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\\
&{\mathcal}W_{\tau,\mathrm{ext}}(0,t):=\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau):{\epsilon}(\partial_t\widehat b_\tau){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad+\delta\int_0^{t_\tau}\langle A u_\tau(s),\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad +\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega l_\tau\cdot{\left(}\partial_t\widehat u_\tau-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}-\int_\Omega v^0\cdot\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(0){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad +\int_\Omega v_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}-\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega v_\tau^-(s)\cdot\frac{\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s-\tau)}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\end{aligned}$$ and the error terms $$\begin{aligned}
e_\tau^1(t):={}&\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac{ W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))-W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau(t))}{\tau}{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
& \qquad +\int_\Omega W_{,z}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))\,\partial_t \widehat z_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx},\\
e_\tau^2(t):={}&\int_\Omega {\left(}\frac{W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))-W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))}{\tau}{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
& \qquad+\int_\Omega W_{,c}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))\,\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx},\\
e_\tau^3(t):={}&\int_\Omega\frac{\Psi(c^-_\tau(t))-\Psi(c_\tau(t))}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx}+
\int_\Omega \Psi'(c_\tau(t))\,\partial_t \widehat c_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx},\\
e_\tau^4(t):={}&\int_\Omega\frac{f(z^-_\tau(t))-f(z_\tau(t))}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx}+ \int_\Omega f'(z_\tau(t))\,\partial_t \widehat z_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$
We compute by using convexity of $W$ with respect to $e$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau, {\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau)
& :{\epsilon}(u_\tau-u_\tau^-){\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
& \geq\int_\Omega {\left(}W(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau)-W(c_\tau^-,{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z_\tau^-){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&\qquad\quad+\int_\Omega{\left(}W(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z_\tau^-)-W(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z_\tau){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag \\
&\qquad\quad+\int_\Omega {\left(}W(c_\tau^-,{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z_\tau^-)-W(c_\tau,{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z_\tau^-){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}. \label{eqn:W_c_est1}
\end{aligned}$$ We test with $u_\tau-u_\tau^--(b_\tau-b_\tau^-)$, apply , use further convexity arguments and end up with $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac12\left\|v_\tau(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2-\frac12\left\|v_\tau^-(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau(t),u_\tau(t)\rangle_{H^2}-\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau^-(t),u_\tau^-(t)\rangle_{H^2}\notag\\
&+\int_\Omega{\left(}W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c^-_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&-\int_\Omega\partial_t \widehat v_\tau(t)\cdot{\left(}b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&+ \int_\Omega{\left(}W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))-W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag \\
& +\int_\Omega {\left(}W(c_\tau^-(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t))-W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&\qquad\leq \int_\Omega l_\tau(t)\cdot{\left(}u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t)-(b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&\qquad\quad+\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t)):{\epsilon}(b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\notag\\
&\qquad\quad+\delta\langle A u_\tau(t),b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)\rangle_{H^2}.
\label{eqn:testEq21}
\end{aligned}$$ Using the convexity estimate $$\int_\Omega |\nabla z_\tau|^{p-2}\nabla z_\tau\cdot\nabla(z_\tau-z_\tau^-){\,\mathrm dx}\geq\frac 1p\|\nabla z_\tau\|_{L^p}^p-\frac1p\|\nabla z_\tau^-\|_{L^p}^p$$ and testing with $z_\tau^--z_\tau$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac 1p\|\nabla z_\tau(t)\|_{L^p}^p-\frac1p\|\nabla z_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^p}^p +\tau\left\|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2\notag\\
\label{eqn:testEq2}
&\qquad\leq \int_\Omega{\left(}W_{,z}({\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))+f'(z_\tau(t)){\right)}(z_\tau^-(t)-z_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}.
\end{aligned}$$
Next we test equation with $\tau\mu_\tau$ and with $ (c_\tau - c_\tau^-)$ and add the two derived equations. We obtain by means of the convexity property $$\int_\Omega \nabla c_\tau \cdot \nabla(c_\tau-c_\tau^-){\,\mathrm dx}\geq\frac 12 \|\nabla c_\tau\|_{L^2}^2-\frac1 2\|\nabla c_\tau^-\|_{L^2}^2$$ the estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:testEq3}
\frac 12\|\nabla c_\tau(t)\|_{L^2}^2-\frac12\|\nabla c_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^2}^2
+\int_\Omega \Big( W_{,c}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))(c_\tau(t)-c_\tau^-(t))+ \\
\Psi'(c_\tau(t))(c_\tau(t)-c_\tau^-(t)) +\tau \, m(c_\tau^-(t),z_\tau^-(t))\nabla\mu_\tau(t)\cdot \nabla\mu_\tau(t) \Big){\,\mathrm dx}+\delta \, \tau \| \partial_t \widehat c_\tau(t)\|^2_{L^2} \le 0 .
\end{gathered}$$ Adding the estimates –, we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac12\left\|v_\tau(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2-\frac12\left\|v_\tau^-(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau(t),u_\tau(t)\rangle_{H^2}-\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau^-(t),u_\tau^-(t)\rangle_{H^2}\\
&\quad + \frac 12\|\nabla c_\tau(t)\|_{L^2}^2-\frac12\|\nabla c_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^2}^2
+\frac 1p\|\nabla z_\tau(t)\|_{L^p}^p-\frac1p\|\nabla z_\tau^-(t)\|_{L^p}^p\\
&\quad +\tau\Big(
\left\|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2
+ \delta\left\|\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(t)\right\|_{L^2}^2 \
+\int_\Omega m(c_\tau^-(t),z_\tau^-(t))\nabla\mu_\tau(t)\cdot \nabla\mu_\tau(t) {\,\mathrm dx}\Big)\\
& \quad -\int_\Omega\partial_t \widehat v_\tau(t)\cdot{\left(}b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\ & \qquad \quad
+\int_\Omega{\left(}W(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))-W(c^-_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau^-(t)),z_\tau^-(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad+\int_\Omega f(z_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega f(z_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}+ \int_\Omega \Psi(c_\tau(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad-\int_\Omega
\Psi(c_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}+ \tau \big( e_\tau^1(t)+ e_\tau^2(t) + e_\tau^3(t)+ e_\tau^4(t) \big)\\
&\qquad\leq \int_\Omega l_\tau(t)\cdot{\left(}u_\tau(t)-u_\tau^-(t)-(b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad\quad
+ \int_\Omega
W_{,e}(c_\tau(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t)):{\epsilon}(b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)){\,\mathrm dx}\\ & \qquad \quad
+\delta\langle A u_\tau(t),b_\tau(t)-b_\tau^-(t)\rangle_{H^2}
\end{aligned}$$ with the error terms $e_\tau^1(t)$, $e_\tau^2(t)$, $e_\tau^3(t)$ and $e_\tau^4(t)$. Summing over the discrete time points and taking into account the discrete integration by parts formula , we finally obtain the claim. $\phantom{w}$
[*[Proof of Theorem \[theorem:mainResult\_delta\].]{}*]{} We are going to establish the equalities and inequalities of the weak formulation -.
- (Cahn-Hilliard equation)\
Because of the convergence properties , , and we may pass to the limit in and obtain .
To establish , we first integrate over time from $t=0$ to $t=T$. The growth condition and the convergence properties , , , , and allow us to pass to the limit in the integrated version of which shows .
- (Balance equation of forces)\
By using the canonical embedding $L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)\hookrightarrow (H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*$, it follows for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ $$\int_\Omega\partial_t\widehat v_\tau(t)\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx}=\langle\partial_t\widehat v_\tau(t),\zeta\rangle_{H^2}.$$ Keeping this identity in mind, integrating from $t=0$ to $t=T$ and passing to the limit $\tau\searrow0$ by using and , , and , we obtain .
- (Variational inequality for $z$)\
To obtain the variational inequalities and , we can proceed as in [@HK13_1]. In particular, is valid for the subgradient $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:xiDef}
\xi=-\chi_{\{z=0\}}\mathrm{max}\Big\{0,W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)\Big\}, \end{aligned}$$ which satisfies , where $\chi_{\{z=0\}}$ is the characteristic function of the set $\{z=0\}$.
- (Energy inequality)\
To treat the energy inequality , we set $$\begin{aligned}
&A_\tau(t):={}\\
&\quad\int_\Omega\Big(\frac 1p|\nabla z_\tau(t)|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c_\tau(t)|^2+W(c(t),{\epsilon}(u_\tau(t)),z_\tau(t))+f(z_\tau(t))+ \Psi(c_\tau(t))\Big){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad-\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac1p|\nabla z^0|^p + \frac 12 |\nabla c^0|^2+W(c^0,{\epsilon}(u^0),z^0)+f(z^0)+ \Psi(c^0){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad+\int_\Omega\frac12|v_\tau(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega\frac12|v^0|^2{\,\mathrm dx}+\frac\delta2 \langle A u_\tau(t),u_\tau(t)\rangle_{H^2}-\frac\delta2 \langle A u^0,u^0\rangle_{H^2}\\
&\quad-\int_\Omega v_\tau(t)\cdot\partial_t \widehat b_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega v^0\cdot\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(0){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&B_\tau(t):={}\\
&\quad\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega \Big(|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau|^2 + \delta |\partial_t\widehat c_\tau|^2
+m(c_\tau,z_\tau)\nabla\mu_\tau\cdot \nabla\mu_\tau \Big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\quad-\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega l_\tau\cdot{\left(}\partial_t\widehat u_\tau-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\quad-\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega W_{,e}(c_\tau, {\epsilon}(u_\tau),z_\tau):{\epsilon}(\partial_t\widehat b_\tau){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}-\delta\int_0^{t_\tau}\langle A u_\tau(s),\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\quad+\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega v_\tau^-(s)\cdot\frac{\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s)-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(s-\tau)}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\\
&E_\tau^1(t):={}\int_0^{t_\tau}e_\tau^1(s){\,\mathrm ds},\quad E_\tau^2(t):={}\int_0^{t_\tau}e_\tau^2(s){\,\mathrm ds}, \\
&E_\tau^3(t):={}\int_0^{t_\tau}e_\tau^3(s){\,\mathrm ds},\quad E_\tau^4(t):={}\int_0^{t_\tau}e_\tau^4(s){\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:EIterms}
A_\tau(t)+B_\tau(t)+E_\tau^1(t)+E_\tau^2(t) +E_\tau^3(t)+E_\tau^4(t)\leq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by the a priori estimates, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:bddness}
|A_\tau(t)|+|B_\tau(t)|+|E_\tau^1(t)|+|E_\tau^2(t)|+E_\tau^3(t)|+|E_\tau^4(t)|<C
\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and for all $\tau>0$ (along a subsequence $\tau_k$). Next, we consider the $\liminf_{\tau\searrow 0}$ of each term in separately.
- By the already proven convergence properties and by lower semi-continuity arguments, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Aconv}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow 0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} A_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2} A(t){\,\mathrm dt}\text{ for all }0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T,
\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is defined as $A_\tau$ but $c_\tau$, $u_\tau$, $z_\tau$, $v_\tau$ and $\widehat b_\tau$ are substituted by their continuous limits. Note that this $\liminf$–estimate does not necessarily hold pointwise a.e. in $t$ because, for instance, we do not know $v_\tau(t)\to v(t)$ weakly in $L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for a.e. $t$ (see ).
- Let $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$ be arbitrary. By Fatou’s lemma, by and by a lower semi-continuity argument, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(s)|^2{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}&\geq\int_{t_1}^{t_2}{\left(}\liminf_{\tau\searrow 0}\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega|\partial_t\widehat z_\tau(s)|^2{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\right)}{\,\mathrm dt}\notag\\
\label{eqn:Fatou1}
&\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t}\int_\Omega|\partial_t z(s)|^2{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Fatou2}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega
\delta |\partial_t\widehat c_\tau(s)|^2{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t}\int_\Omega\delta|\partial_t c(s)|^2{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$ and, by , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:Fatou3}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega m(c_\tau^-(s),z_\tau^-(s))\nabla\mu_\tau(s)\cdot \nabla\mu_\tau(s) {\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}\\
\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\int_0^{t}\int_\Omega m(c(s),z(s))\nabla\mu(s)\cdot \nabla\mu(s) {\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}{\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{gathered}$$ Taking also and the already known convergence properties into account, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Bconv}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} B_\tau(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2} B(t){\,\mathrm dt},
\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is defined as $B_\tau$ but $c_\tau$, $\widehat c _\tau$, $u_\tau$, $\widehat u_\tau$, $v_\tau^-$, $z_\tau$, $\widehat
z_\tau$, $\widehat \mu_\tau$ and $\widehat b_\tau$ are substituted by their continuous counterparts and $\frac{\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(t)-\partial_t\widehat b_\tau(t-\tau)}{\tau}$ by $\partial_{tt} b(t)$.
- Due to the differentiability of $\mathbf C$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:diff}
\mathbf C(z_\tau^-) = \mathbf C(z_\tau)+\mathbf C'(z_\tau)(z_\tau^--z_\tau)+r(z_\tau^--z_\tau),\;\frac{r(\eta)}{\eta}\to 0\text{ as }\eta\to 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^{t}\int_\Omega\frac12\frac{\mathbf C(z_\tau^-)-\mathbf C(z_\tau)}{\tau}\big( {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-) - e^*(c) \big) :
\big( {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-) - e^*(c) \big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\notag\\
&\qquad=\int_0^{t}\int_{\{z_\tau^-(s)\neq z_\tau(s)\}}\frac 12{\left(}\mathbf C'(z_\tau)\frac{z_\tau^--z_\tau}{\tau}
+\frac{r(z_\tau^--z_\tau)}{z_\tau^--z_\tau}\frac{z_\tau^--z_\tau}{\tau}{\right)}\big( {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-) - e^*(c) \big)\notag\\
\label{eqn:energyTerm}
&\hspace{5cm}:\big( {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-) - e^*(c) \big){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\end{aligned}$$ Because of $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\|\frac{r(z_\tau^--z_\tau)}{z_\tau^--z_\tau}\right\|_{L^\infty(\{z_\tau^-\neq z_\tau\})}
\leq{}\left\|\frac{\mathbf C(z_\tau^-)-\mathbf
C(z_\tau)}{z_\tau^--z_\tau}\right\|_{L^\infty(\{z_\tau^-\neq
z_\tau\})} \hspace{3.3cm}\\
\quad+\left\|\mathbf C'(z_\tau)\frac{z_\tau^--z_\tau}{z_\tau^--z_\tau}\right\|_{L^\infty(\{z_\tau^-\neq z_\tau\})}<C,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ and $\frac{r(z_\tau^--z_\tau)}{|z_\tau^--z_\tau|}\to 0$ a.e. in $\Omega_T$ as $\tau\searrow0$ we conclude by Lebesgue’s generalized convergence theorem $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\|\frac{r(z_\tau^--z_\tau)}{z_\tau^--z_\tau}\right\|_{L^q(\{z_\tau^-\neq z_\tau\})}\to0\text{ for every }q\geq1.
\end{aligned}$$ Using this and the already known convergence properties, we end up with $$\begin{aligned}
\textit{left hand side of \eqref{eqn:energyTerm}} \to \int_{\Omega_t}W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)\partial_t z{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\end{aligned}$$ and, consequently, $E_\tau^1(t)\to0$ as $\tau\searrow0$. Together with the uniform boundedness , this implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Econv}
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} E_\tau^1(t){\,\mathrm dt}\to 0\text{ as }\tau\searrow0 \text{ for all }0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T.
\end{aligned}$$ The convergence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:EEconv}
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} E_\tau^4(t){\,\mathrm ds}\to 0\text{ as }\tau\searrow0\text{ for all }0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T,
\end{aligned}$$ can be shown as above.
- Noticing the linearity of $e^*$, a short calculation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega\frac{W(c^-_\tau, {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z^-_\tau) - W(c_\tau, {\epsilon}(u_\tau^-),z^-_\tau)}{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\qquad=\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_\Omega \mathbf C(z^-_\tau)\Big({\epsilon}(u_\tau^-)-e^*\Big(\frac{c_\tau^-+c_\tau}{2}\Big)\Big):e^*(\partial_t\widehat c_\tau){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Due to the already known convergence properties, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{t_\tau}\int_{\Omega}\frac{W(c^-,{\epsilon}(u^-),z^-)-W(c,{\epsilon}(u^-),z^-) }{\tau}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\to -\int_{\Omega_t}W_{,c}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)\partial_t c{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\end{aligned}$$ and, consequently, $E_\tau^2(t)\to0$ as $\tau\searrow0$. Together with the uniform boundedness , this implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Econv2}
\int_{t_1}^{t_2} E_\tau^2(t){\,\mathrm dt}\to 0\text{ as }\tau\searrow0 \text{ for all }0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T.
\end{aligned}$$
- The claim $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:EEconv2}
\liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} E_\tau^3(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq 0\text{ for all }0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T
\end{aligned}$$ can be shown by the following arguments: On the one hand, convexity of $\Psi_1$ yields $$\frac{\Psi_1(c^-_\tau)-\Psi_1(c_\tau)}{\tau}+\Psi_1'(c_\tau)\partial_t\widehat c_\tau\geq 0.$$ On the other hand, by using the differentiability property of $\Psi_2$, we obtain (cf. ) $$\frac{\Psi_2(c^-_\tau) -\Psi_2(c_\tau)}{\tau}+\Psi_2'(c_\tau)\partial_t\widehat c_\tau
=\frac{r(c_\tau^--c_\tau)}{\tau}
\text{ with }\frac{r(\eta)}{\eta}\to 0\text{ as }\eta\to 0.$$ In the non-trivial case $c_\tau^--c_\tau\neq 0$, we can argue as follows. Since $\frac{r(c_\tau^--c_\tau)}{\tau}=\frac{r(c_\tau^--c_\tau)}{c_\tau^--c_\tau}\frac{c_\tau^--c_\tau}{\tau}$ and since $\frac{c_\tau^--c_\tau}{\tau}$ is bounded in $L^2(\Omega_T)$, it remains to show $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:rConv}
\frac{r(c_\tau^--c_\tau)}{c_\tau^--c_\tau}\to 0\text{ in }L^2(\Omega_T)\text{ as }\tau\searrow0.
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, it converges pointwise to $0$ a.e. in $\Omega_T$ and applying the mean value theorem yields (here $\xi\in[\min\{c_\tau^-,c_\tau\},\max\{c_\tau^-,c_\tau\}]$) $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{r(c_\tau^--c_\tau)}{c_\tau^--c_\tau}\right|
&=\left|\frac{\Psi_2(c^-_\tau) -\Psi_2(c_\tau)}{c_\tau^--c_\tau}-\Psi'_2(c_\tau)\right|\\
&\leq|\Psi_2'(\xi)|+|\Psi'_2(c_\tau)|\\
&\leq C(1+|\xi|+|c_\tau|)\\
&\leq C(1+|c_\tau^-|+2|c_\tau|).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the left hand side is bounded in $L^\infty(0,T;L^{2^*}(\Omega))$. Lebesgue’s generalized convergence theorem yields . We end up with $\liminf_{\tau\searrow0} E_\tau^3(t)\geq 0$ as $\tau\searrow0$. Fatou’s lemma shows the claim.
If we combine , , , , and , we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0&\geq \liminf_{\tau\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}{\left(}A_\tau(t)+B_\tau(t)+E_\tau^1(t)+E_\tau^2(t) + E_\tau^3(t)+E_\tau^4(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dt}\\
&\geq \int_{t_1}^{t_2}{\left(}A(t)+B(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ for all $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$. Thus, $A(t)+B(t)\leq 0$ for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$ which is the desired energy inequality .
Hence, we obtain existence of weak solutions in the sense of Definition \[def:regWeakSolution\].
Existence proof for the limit system {#section:limit}
------------------------------------
We now study the limit $\delta\searrow0$. For each $\delta>0$, we obtain a weak solution $(c_\delta, u_\delta, z_\delta, \mu_\delta, \xi_\delta)$ in the sense of Definition \[def:regWeakSolution\].
\[lemma:apriori\_delta\] There exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $\delta$ such that
- $\|c_\delta\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega))} < C$, $\sqrt{\delta}\| \partial_t c_\delta\|_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}<C$,\
$\| \partial_t c_\delta\|_{L^2(0,T;(H^1(\Omega))^*)} < C,$
- $\|u_\delta\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C$, $\sqrt{\delta}\|u_\delta\|_{L^\infty(0,T;H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C$,\
$\|u_\delta\|_{H^2(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*)}<C$,
- $\|z_\delta\|_{L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}<C$,
- $\|\mu_\delta\|_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}<C$, $\|m(c_\delta, z_\delta)^{1/2} \nabla \mu_\delta\|_{L^2(0,T; L^2(\Omega; {\mathbb{R}}^n))}<C.$
From the energy inequality , we infer the second inequality of $(i)$, the first two inequalities of $(ii)$, $(iii)$ and the second inequality of $(iv)$. By considering , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \partial_{tt} u_\delta(t),\zeta\rangle_{H^2}\leq{}
& C\Big(\|{\epsilon}(u_\delta(t))\|_{L^2} +\|c_\delta(t)\|_{L^2}\Big)\|{\epsilon}(\zeta)\|_{L^2}\\
&+\delta\|\nabla{\left(}\nabla u_\delta(t){\right)}\|_{L^2}\|\nabla{\left(}\nabla \zeta{\right)}\|_{L^2}
+\|l\|_{L^2}\|\zeta\|_{L^2}
\end{aligned}$$ and, therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_\delta\|_{H^2(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*)}&<C.
\end{aligned}$$ Due to $\int_\Omega c_\delta(t) {\,\mathrm dx}= const.$ and the boundedness of $\| \nabla c_\delta(t) \|_{L^2(\Omega)}$, we derive by Poincar[é]{}’s inequality the first inequality of $(i)$.
From and we obtain boundedness of $\int_\Omega \mu_\delta(t) {\,\mathrm dx}$. Since $\| \nabla \mu_\delta (t) \|_{L^2(\Omega_T)}$ is also bounded, Poincar[é]{}’s inequality yields the first inequality of $(iv)$.
Finally, we know from the boundedness of $\{ \nabla \mu_\delta \}$ in $L^2(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ that $\{ \partial_t c_\delta \}$ is also bounded in $L^2(0,T;(H^1(\Omega))^*) $ with respect to $\delta$ by applying equation . Hence, the third inequality of (i) is satisfied.
There exist functions $$\begin{aligned}
&c\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;(H^1(\Omega))^*),\\
&u\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap H^2(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*),\\\
&z\in L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
&\mu\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))
\end{aligned}$$ and subsequences (omitting the subscript) such that for all $r\geq 1$ and $s<2^*$: $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\delta} &\to c&&\text{ weakly-star in }\notag\\
\label{eqn:conv1a_delta}
&&&\quad L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;(H^1(\Omega))^*),\\
\label{eqn:conv1b_delta}
&&&\text{ strongly in }L^2(\Omega_T),\text{ a.e. in }\Omega_T,\\
\label{eqn:conv3a_delta}
u_{\delta} &\to u&&\text{ weakly-star in }L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
&&&\text{ weakly-star in } \label{eqn:conv3b_delta}
W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)), \\
\label{eqn:conv7a_delta}
z_{\delta}&\to z&&\text{ weakly-star in }
\\ && &\quad
L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv7b_delta}
&&&\text{ strongly in }L^r(0,T;L^r(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
&&&\text{ a.e. in }\Omega_T,\\
\label{eqn:conv7c_delta}
&&&\text{ strongly in } L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
\label{eqn:conv7d_delta}
&&&\text{ strongly in } C(\overline{\Omega_T}),\\
\label{eqn:conv9_delta}
\mu_{\delta}&\to \mu&&\text{ weakly in } L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
\label{eqn:conv10_delta}
m(c_\delta,z_\delta)^{1/2} \nabla \mu_{\delta}&\to m(c,z)^{1/2} \nabla \mu&&\text{ weakly in }L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^n))
\end{aligned}$$ as $\delta\searrow 0$.
Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] reveals the existence of functions $$\begin{aligned}
&c\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega)) \\
&u\in L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap H^2(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*),\\
&z\in L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)),\\
&\mu \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega)) , \\
& m(c,z)^{1/2} \nabla \mu \in L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^n))
\end{aligned}$$ and subsequences indexed by $\delta_k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\delta_k}&\to c&&\text{ weakly-star in } L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
u_{\delta_k}&\to u&&\text{ weakly-star in }
\\ && & \hspace{3mm}
L^\infty(0,T;H^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))\cap W^{1,\infty}(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)),\\
z_{\delta_k}&\to z&&\text{ weakly-star in }L^\infty(0,T;{W^{1,p}(\Omega)})\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega)), \\
\mu_{\delta_k}&\to \mu&&\text{ weakly in }L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega)),\\
m(c_{\delta_k},z_{\delta_k})^{1/2} \nabla \mu_{\delta_k}&\to w&&\text{ weakly in } L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)).
\end{aligned}$$ Due to the strong convergence properties of $\{c_{\delta_k}\}$, $\{z_{\delta_k}\}$ and the growth assumptions on the mobility function $m$, we infer $$w=m(c,z)^{1/2} \nabla \mu.$$ In the following, we omit the subscript $k$. Furthermore, property (i) of Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] shows that $\{c_\delta\}$ converges strongly to an element $c$ in $L^2(\Omega_T)$ as $\delta \searrow 0$ for a subsequence by a compactness result due to Aubin and Lions ([@Simon]). By choosing a further subsequence we also obtain pointwise almost everywhere convergence. By applying the same technique as for Lemma \[lemma:strongConvZ\], strong convergence of $\nabla z_{\delta}$ in $L^p(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ can be obtained. Note that we need the assumption $\mathbf C'(\cdot)\geq 0$, see . We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&z_{\delta}\to z&&\text{ strongly in } L^p(0,T;W^{1,p}(\Omega)).\hspace*{15.2em}
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] (iii), we find $$\begin{aligned}
&z_{\delta}\to z&&\text{ strongly in } {\mathcal}C({\overline}{\Omega_T})\hspace*{20.4em}
\end{aligned}$$ for a subsequence by an Aubin-Lions type compactness result (cf. [@Simon]).
Next, we will proof our main result. [*[Proof of Theorem \[theorem:mainResult\].]{}*]{}
- (Cahn-Hilliard equation)\
Writing in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega_T}(c_\delta-c^0)\partial_t\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=\int_{\Omega_T}m(c_\delta,z_\delta)\nabla\mu_\delta\cdot\nabla\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt},
\end{aligned}$$ by only allowing test-functions $\zeta \in L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))\cap H^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$ with $\zeta(T)=0$ we may pass to the limit by means of the convergence properties , and and receive .
Equation can be obtained by integrating over time and taking advantage of the convergence properties , , , , and Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] (i).
- (Balance equation of forces)\
Integrating from $0$ to $T$ and using , , and the convergence $\int_0^T\delta\langle A u_\delta,\zeta\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm dt}$ $\to 0$ due to Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] (ii) we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:balanceIdentity}
\int_0^T\langle \partial_{tt} u,\zeta\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm dt}+\int_{\Omega_T} W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z):{\epsilon}(\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=\int_{\Omega_T} l\cdot\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$ for all $\zeta\in L^\infty(0,T;H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))$. Therefore, is true for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;\break{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and a.e. $t\in(0,T)$. Using the density of the set $H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ in $H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ (here we need the assumption that the boundary parts $\Gamma_\mathrm{D}$ and $\Gamma_\mathrm{N}$ have finitely many path-connected components, see [@Ber11]), we can identify $\partial_{tt}u(t)\in (H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*$ and is true for all $\zeta\in H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and a.e. $t\in(0,T)$. Furthermore, $\partial_{tt}u\in L^\infty(0,T;(H_{\Gamma_\mathrm{D}}^1(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n))^*)$.
- (Variational inequality for $z$)\
The variational inequality can be shown as in [@HK13_1]. We choose the following cluster points with respect to a subsequence: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\delta:=\chi_{\{z_\delta>0\}}
&\to\chi&&\text{weakly-star in }L^\infty(\Omega_T),\\
\eta_\delta:=\chi_{\{z_\delta=0\}\cap\{W_{,z}(c_\delta, {\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta)+f'(z_\delta)\leq 0\}}
&\to\eta&&\text{weakly-star in }L^\infty(\Omega_T),\\
\label{eqn:weakConv15}
F_\delta:=\chi_{\{z_\delta>0\}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z_\delta)}{2}}({\epsilon}(u_\delta)-e^*(c_\delta))&\to F&&\text{weakly in }L^2(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}),\\
G_\delta:=\chi_{\{z_\delta=0\}\cap\{W_{,z}(c_\delta,{\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta)+f'(z_\delta)\leq 0\}}\times\\
\qquad\times\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z_\delta)}{2}}({\epsilon}(u_\delta)-e^*(c_\delta))
&\to G&&\text{weakly in }L^2(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $\mathbf C'(\cdot)$ is symmetric and positive definite matrix, its square root exists. By and , we obtain for a.e. $x\in\{z>0\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:limitProp}
\chi(x)=1,\quad \eta(x)=0,\quad F(x)=\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z(x))}{2}}({\epsilon}(u)(x)-e^*(c(x))),\quad G(x)=0
\end{aligned}$$ because of the following arguments:
Let $\zeta\in L^2(\Omega_T;{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})$ with $\mathrm{supp}(\zeta)\subseteq\{z>0\}$. Then, by , we obtain $\mathrm{supp}(\zeta)\subseteq\{z_\delta>0\}$ for all sufficiently small $\delta>0$. By , we find $$\int_{\Omega_T}F_\delta:\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\to\int_{\Omega_T}F:\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}.$$ On the other hand, by , (note that $\delta$ can be chosen arbitrarily small) $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega_T}F_\delta:\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}&=\int_{\Omega_T}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z_\delta)}{2}}({\epsilon}(u_\delta)-e^*(c_\delta)):\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&\to\int_{\Omega_T}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z)}{2}}({\epsilon}(u)-e^*(c)):\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\int_{\Omega_T}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf C'(z)}{2}}({\epsilon}(u)-e^*(c)):\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}=\int_{\Omega_T}F:\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}$$ The other identities in follow analogously.
Now let $\zeta\in L^\infty(0,T;W_-^{1,p}(\Omega))$. Taking into account, inequality becomes by integration over time $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq{}&\int_{\Omega_T}{\left(}|\nabla z_\delta|^{p-2}\nabla z_\delta\cdot\nabla\zeta+\partial_t z_\delta\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\int_{\{z_\delta>0\}}{\left(}W_{,z}(c_\delta,{\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta)+f'(z_\delta){\right)}\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\int_{\{z_\delta=0\}\cap \{W_{,z}(c_\delta,{\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta)+f'(z_\delta)\leq 0\}}{\left(}W_{,z}(c_\delta,{\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta)+f'(z_\delta){\right)}\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying $\limsup_{\delta\searrow0}$ on both sides and multiplying by $-1$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
0\geq{}&\lim_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{\Omega_T}{\left(}|\nabla z_\delta|^{p-2}\nabla z_\delta\cdot\nabla(-\zeta)+\partial_t z_\delta(-\zeta){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{\Omega_T}(F_\delta)^2(-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}+\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{\Omega_T}\chi_\delta\,f'(z_\delta)(-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\ &+\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{\Omega_T}(G_\delta)^2(-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}+\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{\Omega_T}\eta_\delta\,f'(z_\delta) (-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ Weakly lower semicontinuous arguments, the uniformly convergence property and the properties listed in give $$\begin{aligned}
0\geq{}&\int_{\Omega_T}{\left(}|\nabla z|^{p-2}\nabla z\cdot\nabla(-\zeta)+\partial_t z(-\zeta){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\int_{\{z>0\}}{\left(}W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z){\right)}(-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\int_{\{z=0\}}{\left(}(F^2+G^2)+(\chi+\eta) f'(z){\right)}(-\zeta){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ This inequality may also be written in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq{}&\int_{\Omega_T}{\left(}|\nabla z|^{p-2}\nabla z\cdot\nabla\zeta+{\left(}W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\partial_t z{\right)}\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\\
&+\int_{\{z=0\}}{\left(}(F^2+G^2)+(\chi+\eta) f'(z)-W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)-f'(z){\right)}\zeta{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq{}&\int_{\Omega_T}{\left(}|\nabla z|^{p-2}\nabla z\cdot\nabla\zeta+{\left(}W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)+f'(z)+\partial_t z+\xi{\right)}\zeta{\right)}{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm dt}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\xi:=\chi_{\{z=0\}}\mathrm{min}\Big\{0,(F^2+G^2)+(\chi+\eta-1) f'(z)-W_{,z}(c,{\epsilon}(u),z)\Big\}.$$ This proves and .
- (Energy inequality)\
To prove the energy inequality , we can proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:mainResult\_delta\]. Integrating with respect to time on $[t_1,t_2]$ yields ($0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:EIlimit}
&\int_{t_1}^{t_2} {\left(}A_\delta(t)+B_\delta(t)+C_\delta(t){\right)}{\,\mathrm dt}\leq 0
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&A_\delta(t):=\\
&\quad\int_\Omega\Big(\frac 1p|\nabla
z_\delta(t)|^p+ \frac 12|\nabla c_\delta(t)|^2+W(c_\delta, {\epsilon}(u_\delta(t)),z_\delta(t))
+f(z_\delta(t)) +\Psi(c_\delta(t))\Big){\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad-\int_\Omega{\left(}\frac 1p|\nabla z^0|^p+\frac 12|\nabla c^0|^2
+W(c^0,{\epsilon}(u^0),z^0)+f(z^0)+ \Psi(c^0){\right)}{\,\mathrm dx}\\
&\quad+\int_\Omega\frac 12|\partial_t u_\delta(t)|^2{\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega\frac 12|v^0|^2{\,\mathrm dx}-\int_\Omega \partial_t u_\delta(t)\cdot \partial_t b(t){\,\mathrm dx}+\int_\Omega v^0\cdot \partial_t b^0{\,\mathrm dx},\\
&B_\delta(t):=
\int_{\Omega_t} \big(|\partial_t z_\delta|^2 + \delta|\partial_t c_\delta|^2
+ m(c_\delta,z_\delta) \nabla \mu_\delta \cdot \nabla \mu_\delta \big) {\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\qquad-\int_{\Omega_t} W_{,e}(c_\delta, {\epsilon}(u_\delta),z_\delta):{\epsilon}(\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}+\int_{\Omega_t}\partial_{t}u_\delta\cdot\partial_{tt} b{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
&\qquad\qquad-\int_{\Omega_t}l\cdot (\partial_t u_\delta-\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds},\\
&C_\delta(t):=\frac\delta2\langle A u_\delta(t),u_\delta(t)\rangle_{H^2}-\frac\delta2\langle Au^0,u^0\rangle_{H^2}
-\delta\int_0^t \langle Au_\delta(t),\partial_t b(t)\rangle_{H^2}{\,\mathrm dt}.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $A$ be the corresponding integral expression to $A_\delta$, where $c_\delta$, $u_\delta$ and $z_\delta$ are replaced by $c$, $u$ and $z$, respectively. Furthermore, let $$\begin{aligned}
B(t):={}&\int_{\Omega_t} \big(|\partial_t z|^2 + m(c,z ) \nabla \mu \cdot \nabla \mu \big) {\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}-\int_{\Omega_t} W_{,e}(c,{\epsilon}(u ),z ):{\epsilon}(\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}\\
& +\int_{\Omega_t}\partial_{t}u \cdot\partial_{tt} b{\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}-\int_{\Omega_t}l\cdot (\partial_t u -\partial_t b){\,\mathrm dx\,\mathrm ds}.
\end{aligned}$$ The limit passage in can be performed as follows.
- Weakly lower semi-continuity arguments show $$\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} A_\delta(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq\int_{t_1}^{t_2} A(t){\,\mathrm dt}.$$
- Fatou’s lemma and weakly lower semicontinuous arguments for $\nabla \mu_\delta$ as well as the convergence property for $c_\delta$, $u_\delta$, $z_\delta$ (see , , , , ) show (cf. -) $$\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} B_\delta(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq\int_{t_1}^{t_2} B(t){\,\mathrm dt}.$$
- We have $$C_\delta(t)\geq -\frac\delta2\langle Au^0,u^0\rangle_{H^2}
-\delta\|u_\delta(t)\|_{H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}\|\partial_t b(t)\|_{H^2(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}}^n)}.$$ By Lemma \[lemma:apriori\_delta\] (ii), we obtain $$\liminf_{\delta\searrow0}\int_{t_1}^{t_2} C_\delta(t){\,\mathrm dt}\geq 0.$$
We end up with $\int_{t_1}^{t_2} A(t)+B(t){\,\mathrm dt}\leq 0$ for all $0\leq t_1\leq t_2\leq T$. This proves .
Putting all steps together, Theorem \[theorem:mainResult\] is proven.
[^1]: This project is supported by ECMath in Berlin (Germany).
[^2]: Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics (WIAS), Mohrenstr. 39, 10117 Berlin\
E-mail: `[email protected]` and `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Binarized Neural Networks, a recently discovered class of neural networks with minimal memory requirements and no reliance on multiplication, are a fantastic opportunity for the realization of compact and energy efficient inference hardware. However, such neural networks are generally not entirely binarized: their first layer remains with fixed point input. In this work, we propose a stochastic computing version of Binarized Neural Networks, where the input is also binarized. Simulations [on the example of the Fashion-MNIST and CIFAR-10]{} datasets show that such networks can approach the performance of conventional Binarized Neural Networks. We evidence that the training procedure should be adapted for use with stochastic computing. Finally, the ASIC implementation of our scheme is investigated, in a system that closely associates logic and memory, implemented by Spin Torque Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory. This analysis shows that the stochastic computing approach can allow considerable savings with regards to conventional Binarized Neural networks in terms of area ([$62\%$]{} area reduction on the Fashion-MNIST task). It can also allow important savings in terms of energy consumption, if we accept reasonable reduction of accuracy: for example a factor [$2.1$]{} can be saved, with the cost of [$1.4\%$]{} in Fashion-MNIST test accuracy. These results highlight the high potential of Binarized Neural Networks for hardware implementation, and that adapting them to hardware constrains can provide important benefits.'
address:
- 'Centre de Nanosciences et de Nanotechnologies, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, France'
- 'Institut Matériaux Microélectronique Nanosciences de Provence, Univ. Aix-Marseille et Toulon, CNRS, France'
author:
- |
, , , , ,\
and
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Stochastic Computing for Hardware Implementation of Binarized Neural Networks
---
Binarized Neural Network, Stochastic Computing, Embedded System, MRAM, In Memory Computing
=-15pt
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
advances in deep learning have transformed the field of machine learning, with numerous achievements in image or speech recognition, machine translation and others. However, a considerable challenge of deep neural network remains their energy consumption, which limits their use within embedded systems [@editorial_big_2018]. The hardware implementation of deep neural networks is a widely investigated approach to increase their energy efficiency. A particularly exciting opportunity is to rely on in-memory or near-memory computing implementations [@yu2018neuro; @ielmini2018memory; @querlioz2015bioinspired; @burr2017neuromorphic; @giacomin2018robust], which are highly energy efficient as they avoid the von Neumann bottleneck entirely. This idea takes special meaning today, in particular with the emergence of novel memories such Resistive and Magnetoresistive Random Access Memories (RRAMs and MRAMs). Such memories are fast and compact non volatile memories, which can be embedded at the core of CMOS processes, and therefore provide an ideal technology for realizing in-memory neural networks [@yu2018neuro; @ielmini2018memory; @burr2017neuromorphic].
A considerable challenge of this approach is that modern neural networks require important amounts of memory [@canziani2016analysis], which is not necessarily compatible with hardware in-memory computing approaches. [Multiple roads have been explored to reduce the precision and memory requirements of neural networks. The quantization of the weights used for inference is the most natural route [@hubara2017quantized]. Architectural optimization can result in considerable reduction in terms of number of parameters and arithmetic operations, with only modest reduction in accuracy [@sandler2018mobilenetv2]. Network pruning [@reagen2016minerva] or network compression [@chen2015compressing; @han2015deep] techniques, sometimes combining different methods, can allow implementing hardware neural networks with reduced memory access and therefore higher energy efficiency.]{}
[ Binarized Neural Networks (BNNs) have recently appeared as one of the most extreme vision of low precision neural networks, as they go further than these approaches [@courbariaux2016binarized; @rastegari2016xnor].]{} In these simple deep neural networks, synaptic weights as well as neuron activations assume Boolean values. These models can nevertheless achieve state-of-the-art performance on image recognition, while being multiplier-less, and relying only on simple binary logic functions. First hardware implementations have already been investigated and have shown highly promising results [@bocquet2018memory; @nurvitadhi2016accelerating; @yu2018neuro; @giacomin2018robust].
However, BNNs are not entirely binarized: the first layer input is usually coded as a fixed point real number. This fact is not a significant issue for operating BNNs on graphical processor units (GPUs) [@courbariaux2016binarized], as they feature extensive arithmetic units. Research aimed at implementing binarized neural network on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) [@zhao2017accelerating] has also not specifically investigated the question of the non-binarized first layer: these works usually use the Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) of the FPGA to process the associated operations. However, in an application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC) implementation, the non-binarization of the first layer [implies that]{} this layer needs a specific design, which is more energy consuming and uses more area than the design used for the purely binary layers.
For this reason, in this work, we introduce a stochastic computing implementation of BNNs, which allows implementing them in an entirely binarized fashion. The network functions by presenting several stochastically binarized versions of the images to the BNN, in a way reminiscent to the historic concept of stochastic computing [@gaines1969stochastic]. [ After presenting the background of the work (section \[sec:background\]), the paper describes the following contributions.]{}
- [We show that this stochastic computing implementation of BNNs allows achieving high network performance in terms of recognition rate on the Fashion-MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets. Stochastic BNN quickly approaches standard BNN performance when several stochastic binarized images are presented to the network. We also evidence that strategy for training stochastic computing BNNs should differ from the one used for conventional BNNs (section \[sec:network\]).]{}
- [We design a full hardware ASIC in-memory BNN, which allows showing that the stochastic computing BNN strategy can save important area ($62\%$ on Fashion-MNIST) and energy (factor $2.1$ on Fashion-MNIST with an accuract reduction of $1.4\%$ with regards to a standard BNN (section \[sec:hardware\]). These numbers are discussed with regards to different alternative implementations.]{}
Background of the Work {#sec:background}
======================
Binarized Neural Networks
-------------------------
In this section, we first introduce the general principles of Binarized Neural Networks, an approach to considerably reduce the computation cost of inference in neural networks [@courbariaux2016binarized; @rastegari2016xnor]. In a conventional neural network with $L$ layers, the activation values of the neurons of layer $k$, $a^{[k]}_i$, are obtained by applying a non-linear activation function $f$ to the matrix product between real-valued synaptic weight matrix $W^{[k]}$ and the real-valued activations of the previous layer of neurons $a^{[k-1]}$:
$$a^{[k]}_i = f \left( \sum_{j}{W^{[k]}_{ij} \cdot a^{[k-1]}_j} \right).
\label{eq:activation}$$
[In a BNN, excluding the first layer,]{} neuron activation values as well as synaptic weights assume binary values, meaning $+1$ and $-1$. The products between weights and neuron activation values in Eq. (\[eq:activation\]) then simply become [ logic XNOR operation.]{} The sum in Eq. (\[eq:activation\]) is replaced by the $\operatorname*{popcount}$ operation, the basic function that counts the number of ones in a data vector. The resulting value is then converted to a binary value by comparing it to a trained threshold value $\mu^{[k]}_i$. Eq. (\[eq:activation\]) therefore becomes:
$$a^{[k]}_i = \operatorname{sign}\left( \operatorname*{popcount}_j \left( \operatorname{XNOR}\left( W^{[k]}_{ij}, a^{[k-1]}_j \right) \right) - \mu^{[k]}_i \right),
\label{eq:activation_binarized}$$
where $\operatorname{sign}$ is the sign function.
Ordinarily, in binarized neural network, the first layer input $X$ is not binarized. The implementation of operations for computing the first layer activations $a^{[1]}$ is therefore more complex than the basic $\operatorname{XNOR}$ and $\operatorname*{popcount}$ operations:
$$a^{[1]}_i = \operatorname{sign}\left( \sum_{j}{W^{[1]}_{ij} \cdot X_j} - \mu^{[1]}_i \right).
\label{eq:activation_layer1}$$
Additionally, the thresholding operation is not performed on the last layer of the neural network. Instead, for the last layer, we identify the neuron with the maximum $\operatorname*{popcount}$ value (i.e. the $\operatorname{argmax}$ of the last layer neurons), which gives the output of the neural network. The whole inference process of a conventional BNN is described with vectorized notations in Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1\].
The performance of BNNs is quite impressive. [ A fully-connected BNN with two hidden layers of 1024 neurons, and the use of dropout during training [@srivastava2014dropout] obtains a $1.8\%$ error rate on the test dataset of the canonical MNIST handwritten digits task [@lecun1998gradient], with 300 epochs. In comparison, a conventional neural network with no binarization and $\tanh$ activation function, and the same architecture and number of neurons, obtains a $1.5\%$ test error rate after 300 epochs.]{} Similarly, on more complex datasets such as CIFAR-10 or ImageNet, near-equivalent performed is obtained by BNNs and conventional neural networks [@courbariaux2016binarized; @rastegari2016xnor; @lin2017towards]. The low memory requirements of BNNs (one bit by synapse), as well as the fact that they do not require any multiplication, makes them extremely adapted for inference hardware [@nurvitadhi2016accelerating; @sun2018xnor; @tang2017binary; @yu2018neuro].
The training process of BNNs is reminded in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_training\]. Unlike inference, the training process requires real valued weights and real arithmetic: [training BNNs is not easier than in a conventional neural network]{}. Therefore, a natural vision is to train BNNs on standard GPUs, and to use specialized ultra-efficient hardware only for inference.
$z^{[1]} \leftarrow W^{[1]} \cdot X$ $a^{[1]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}(z^{[1]} - \mu^{[1]})$ $z^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W^{[k]}, a^{[k-1]}))$ $a^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}(z^{[k]} - \mu^{[k]})$ $z^{[L]} \leftarrow \operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W^{[L]}, a^{[L-1]}))$ $output \leftarrow \operatorname{argmax}(z^{[L]} - \mu^{[L]}) $
In this work, we investigate how the first layer can be approximated by a stochastic input to decrease computing resources. This approach could also allow processing stochastic data for near sensor computing, which is a way to reduce considerably data transfer between sensors and data process. In addition, due to the possibility of implementing binarization from the first layer, the model can be completely generic with exactly the same architecture over the layers and allows reducing chip area.
Stochastic Computing
--------------------
Stochastic computing is an approximate computing paradigm, known since the early days of computing [@gaines1969stochastic; @alaghi2013survey]. [Nevertheless, hardware engineers have not exploited this computing scheme for processor design,as it requires applications that can be easily mapped with approximate computing. ]{} The principle is based on encoding [all data]{} as probabilities, represented as a temporal stochastic bitstreams: the number of ones among the bitstream represents the encoded probability. The main advantage of this [encoding scheme]{} is that mathematical functions can be easily approximated with simple logic gates. For instance a product is then implemented with a single AND gate, and a weighted adder can be implemented with a multiplexer gate [@alaghi2013survey]. Many arithmetic operations are therefore easy to implement with low power and small footprint characteristic. Despite these benefits, stochastic computing holds drawbacks: its limitation to low precision arithmetics, and the need to generate random bits. Random number generation can be a major part of the energy consumption, and, moreover, the generated random bits need to be uncorrelated.
Random bits have also found applications in the field of neural networks. The most widely used neural networks that intrinsically exploit stochasticity are the restricted Boltzmann machine, where each neuron is binary valued with a probability that depends on the previous layer neurons states [@hinton2006fast]. An alternative technique to exploit stochasticity in neural networks is to approximate standard neural network architecture with stochastic computing. This approach as been proposed as early as the 1990’s [@bade1994fpga], and is currently being revisited in modern deep neural networks [@ardakani2017vlsi; @ren2017sc; @canals2016new]. These works have shown promising results in terms of area and energy consumption. Typically, the largest challenge is the implementation of the non-linear activation function within the stochastic computing framework.
In this article, we suggest that stochastic computing is particularly adapted to the case of binarized neural network, as they work so naturally with bitstreams, and as the activation function is replaced by a simple thresholding operation.
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.25\][stock.png]{} [(a) In a conventional BNN, the first layer is not binarized. Grayscale input images are presented to the neural network. [ (b) In a stochastic computing-based BNN, binarized images are generated stochastically based on a grayscale image.]{} Several binarized versions of the same original image can be presented sequentially to the neural network, following the basic principle of stochastic computing. \[fig:stochprinciple\]]{}
Stochastic Computing-Based Binarized Neural Network {#sec:network}
===================================================
To evaluate [the stochastic computing approach]{}, we use the Fashion-MNIST dataset, which [has]{} the same format as MNIST, but presents grayscale images of fashion items [@xiao2017fashion], and constitutes a harder task. The canonical MNIST dataset would not be appropriate for this study, as it consists in images that are mostly black and white. As in the MNIST dataset, each image in Fashion-MNIST has 28x28 pixels, and can be classified within ten classes. The dataset contains $60,000$ training examples, $10,000$ test examples. Conventional BNNs (non-binarized first layer and no use of stochastic computing), perform very well on this task. With a fully connected BNN with first layer coded with eight bit fixed point real numbers, with two hidden layers of 1024 neurons each and dropout, [ a classification accuracy of $90\%$ can be obtained after 300 epochs]{}. This result is comparable with the test accuracy of $91\%$ obtained by a conventional real-valued neural network with the same architecture.
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][sto.png]{} [Accuracy on the Fashion MINIST classification task as function of the number of stochastic image presented for the two training methods. Navy blue curve: training of the neural network with grayscale images. Light blue curve: training with presentation of stochastic binarized images. Dashed black line: accuracy when training with a black and white image (i.e. pixels with a value greater than 0.5 are white and pixels that are smaller are black). [ Dashed red line: best accuracy when the binarized neural network is trained on Fashion-MNIST classification task with grayscale images]{}. 300 training epochs were used. \[fig:accuracy\]]{}
Stochastic Computing with Regular Training Procedure {#subsec:firstalyer}
----------------------------------------------------
$z^{[1]} \leftarrow 0$ $z^{[1]} \leftarrow z^{[1]} + \operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W^{[1]}, X_t))$ $a^{[1]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}(z^{[1]} - T \mu^{[1]})$ $z^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W^{[k]}, a^{[k-1]}))$ $a^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}(z^{[k]} - \mu^{[k]})$ $z^{[L]} \leftarrow \operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W^{[L]}, a^{[L-1]}))$ $output \leftarrow \operatorname{argmax}(z^{[L]} - \mu^{[L]}) $
[ A first approach to design a stochastic computing BNN is to reuse the synaptic weights of a conventional BNN, trained with grayscale picture.]{} However, in the inference phase, we approximate the computation of the first layer by using stochastic images presentation instead of grayscale images. The full inference algorithm is presented, in vectorized form, in Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1binary\]. An input $X$ is transformed into binarized stochastic inputs $X_t$ by taking the value of each grayscale pixel (between zero and one) as the probability for the corresponding pixel in the stochastic input to be one. Then, [the networks computes]{} $\operatorname*{popcount}( XNOR( W^{[1]}, X_t)) - \mu^{[1]}$, and sums the result of this computation over a number $T$ of stochastic versions of the input $X_t$. Finally, the output of the layer is thresholded to obtain a binary value, and the rest of the neural network is computed in one pass in a fully binarized fashion.
The quality of the results depends on the number of image presentation $T$. In Fig. \[fig:accuracy\], the navy blue curve shows the network test error as a function of $T$. We can see that after 100 stochastic image presentation, the accuracy is nearly equivalent to the use of grayscale images. With eight image presentation, the test accuracy is reduced to $88\%$ instead of $90.1\%$. With a single presentation, the test accuracy is only $76\%$
Adapted Training Procedure {#sec:adaptedtrainig}
--------------------------
We now try a second strategy, where we train the neural network with binarized stochastic image presentation instead of grayscale images. To do this, during training, we use the conventional BNN training technique of Appendix \[sec:appendix\_training\], but instead of using the normal grayscale Fashion-MNIST images, we use stochastic binarized ones, with the same number of presentation $T$ as will be used during inference. The inference technique then remains identical to the one described in section \[subsec:firstalyer\]. In Fig. \[fig:accuracy\], in cyan color, we plotted the test error rate as a function of the number of presentation of the same image with this scheme. We see that the test accuracy is equivalent to the one obtained with grayscale images for high numbers of image presentation. On the other hand, with few stochastic presentation (one to five), the adapted input training technique allows reaching a quite high accuracy. If a single presentation is used at inference time, the network test accuracy is $86\%$. This test accuracy is equivalent to the one obtained when training a BNN with non-stochastic black and white versions of the Fashion-MNIST dataset (dashed black line in Fig. \[fig:accuracy\]). If three image presentation are used, the network test accuracy increases to [$88.7\%$]{}.
These results show that when using the stochastic computing version of BNN, the adapted training procedure should be used.
Choice of the Accumulation Layer for Stochastic Samples {#subsec:accumul}
-------------------------------------------------------
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][acc.png]{} [Accuracy on the Fashion MINIST classification task as function of the number of stochastic image presentation presented [ when the popcount value ias accumulated at different level of the network. The training was done with grayscale images and ]{}300 training epochs were used. \[fig:accumulation\] ]{}
Until now, at inference time, we have accumulated the outputs of the first layer over several presentations of the same image, then propagated the binarized output of the first layer to the other layers. An alternative strategy can be to perform the accumulation over the realizations of the input images at another layer. If the accumulation is done at the last layer, this procedure corresponds to using stochastic computing in the whole depth of the neural network.
Fig. \[fig:accumulation\] presents the test accuracy of the neural network on the Fashion-MNIST dataset, as a function of the number of presented realizations of the input images, for the different accumulation strategy, in networks trained with the adapted training strategy. [This Figure shows that that the different accumulation strategy lead to equivalent accuracy, consistently with the principles of stochastic computing. ]{} [The strategy of accumulation at the first layer is retained for the rest of the paper, as it allows for the minimum energy consumption.]{}
[Extension to the CIFAR-10 Dataset]{} {#subsec:CIFAR10}
---------------------------------------
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][cifar10\_noEB.png]{} [[Accuracy on the CIFAR-10 classification task as function of the number of stochastic image presented for the two training methods. Navy blue curve: training of the neural network with color images. Light blue curve: training with presentation of stochastic binarized images. Dashed black line: accuracy when training with a binarized color image (i.e. RGB values with a value greater than 0.5 are white and pixels that are smaller are black). Dashed red line: best accuracy when the binarized neural network is trained on CIFAR-10 classification task with full color images. 2000 training epochs were used. ]{} \[fig:accuracy\_cifar\_bin\]]{}
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][cifar10\_sto\_classifier.png]{} [[Accuracy on the CIFAR-10 classification task, but the stochastic computing approach is implemented at the end of the convolutional layers. Navy blue curve: training of the neural network in a conventional fashion. Light blue curve: classifier part of the neural network retrained with stochastic versions of the output of the convolutional layers. Dashed red line: best accuracy when the binarized neural network is trained on CIFAR-10 classification task with full color images. 2000 training epochs were used.]{} \[fig:accuracy\_cifar\_bin\_classifier\]]{}
[ We now apply this strategy to the more advanced CIFAR-10 dataset. We use a convolutional neural network with six convolutional layers, with kernel size of three by three and a stride of one (number of filters 384, 384, 384, 768, 768 and 1536) and three fully connected layers (number of neurons 1024, 1024 and 10). Training is done in the same conditions as the Fashion-MNIST case, using dropout and Adam optimizer, and the pytorch deep learning framework. In the stochastic computing BNN, CIFAR-10 images are presented with binarized channel: each RGB channel pixel presents a value of zero or one. This value is chosen randomly with a probability equal to the RGB value of the corresponding pixel of the image. Accumulation of stochastic realization is realized at the first layer, as described in section \[subsec:accumul\]. ]{}
[ Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_cifar\_bin\] shows that the results on CIFAR-10 are very similar to the ones on Fashion-MNIST (Fig. \[fig:accuracy\]). It present results obtained using the weights trained with full color images, and weights obtained with the adapted training approach. In both cases, the stochastic BNN results approach regular BNN results when the number of presentation $T$ of stochastic images is increased. The adapted training nevertheless gives highly superior results and should be preferred. This highlights that the stochastic BNN approach can be applicable to more complicated tasks than Fashion-MNIST. ]{}
[ We now consider a variation of this scheme, a partially binarized neural network. Fully connected layers of neural networks are particularly adapted for in-memory BNN implementation [@yu2018neuro; @bocquet2018memory], as these layers involve large quantities of memories. Convolutional layers are less memory intensive, and thus benefit less from binarization, while requiring increasing the number of channels when binarized [@courbariaux2016binarized]. In a hardware implementation, it can therefore be attractive to binarize only the classifier (fully connected) layers. In that case, the input of the classifier is real, and is processed with the stochastic BNN approach. This is also of special interest as the first fully connected layer in a convolutional neural network is usually the layer that involves the highest number of additions, and can therefore benefit significantly in a hardware to be implemented with the stochastic approach. ]{}
[ We consider a neural network with the same architecture as the fully binarized one, a reduced number of filters (128, 128, 128, 256, 256 and 512) and the same number of neurons in the fully connected layers (1024, 1024 and 10). Without the stochastic approach, this neural network has the same CIFAR-10 recognition rate than the fully binarized one ($90\%$). Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_cifar\_bin\_classifier\] shows the results of the stochastic BNN with this approach. If the same weights are used than in a non stochastic BNN, the results look similar to the fully binarized approach of Fig. \[fig:accuracy\_cifar\_bin\]. On the other hand, if the classifier weights are retrained with the stochastic binarized inputs to the classifier, the stochastic results are very impressive. Even with a single image presentation $T$, the network approaches the performance of the non stochastic network. The stochastic BNN approach therefore appears especially effective in this situation. ]{}
Hardware Implementation of Stochastic Computing-Based Binarized Neural Network {#sec:hardware}
==============================================================================
In order to investigate the potential of the stochastic BNN approach, we designed a digital ASIC version of it using standard integrated circuit design tools. The architecture, presented in Fig. \[fig:archi\], allows performing the inference of a fully connected binary neural network of any size (up to 1024 neurons for each layer). The only parameter constrained by the hardware design is the number of weights that can be stored.
Design of the Architecture
--------------------------
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.17\][archi.png]{} [Design of an MRAM based fully connected binarized neural network, computing both parallel and serial. (a) Full architecture with $32 \times 32$ repeated cells. Each cell (b-c) behaves as a neuron if the input is sequential, or each column behaves as a neuron if the input is parallel. \[fig:archi\]]{}
Our architecture is inspired by the works of [@ando2017brein], with Static RAMs replaced by Spin Torque MRAM [@shum2017cmos], and adaptation to stochastic computing. This architecture aims at performing inference on binarized neuronal networks with minimal energy consumption. To achieve this goal, it brings memory and computation as close as possible, to limit energy consumption related to data transfer. Such an architecture takes special interest with the emergence of new non-volatile memory components such as Spin Torque MRAM, which can be integrated within the CMOS manufacturing process, and which we consider here.
The architecture is described in detail in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_system\], and [can compute following a parallel or a sequential structure]{}. [The full design is made by a basic cell repeated 32x32 times (Fig. \[fig:archi\] (b-c)) that can perform both sequential or parallel calculation. It includes a 2 kbits memory array to stores weights, as well as XNOR gates and popcount logic.]{}
We designed this system using the design kit of a commercial 28 nanometer technology. [Digital circuits were described in synthesizable SystemVerilog description.]{} MRAM memory arrays are modeled in a behavioral fashion, and their characteristics (area, energy consumption) are inspired by [@chun2013scaling]. The system was synthesized to estimate its area and energy consumption. For energy consumption, we employed Value Change Dumps extracted from a Fashion-MNIST inference task, and estimated it using the Cadence Encounter tool.
Energy Consumption and Area Results
-----------------------------------
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][merged\_cell.png]{} [(a) Area of the basic cell (Fig. \[fig:archi\] (b-c)) of our ASIC architecture, implemented in a 28 nm CMOS technology, as function of the number of operating bit for a fixed point binary architecture. One-bit corresponds to our stochastic fully binarized architecture. (b) Corresponding energy consumption, per clock cycle. \[fig:area\]]{}
Fig. \[fig:area\](a) shows the area of a basic cell of our architecture (Fig. \[fig:archi\](b-c)), in the case of binary input (one operating bit), and in situations where the input is coded in Fixed Point representation (two, four and eight operating bit), as is required in the first layer of a conventional BNN. [ This Figure separates the area used by registers, logic and MRAM. A cell with binary input uses six times less area than a cell designed for eight bit input. ]{} Interestingly, the difference is mostly due to the $\operatorname*{popcount}$ circuits, which need more depth when the input is non-binary. Similarly, as seen in Fig. \[fig:area\](b), a cell with binary input uses $4.5$ times less energy per cycle than the corresponding one with eight bits input. Again, the difference is mostly due to the $\operatorname*{popcount}$ circuits.
(topskip=0pt, botskip=0pt, midskip=0pt) \[scale = 0.35\][full\_consum.png]{} [Energy consumption of the full Fashion-MNIST classifier systems, for the classification of one image. Light blue: stochastic fully binarized binary architecture. Navy blue: Conventional BNN with non binary (8 bit fixed point) first layers. The neural networks have two layers with 1024 neurons each. The light blue area indicate the regime where the non-binary first layer is more energy efficient thant the fully binarized system.\[fig:energy\] ]{}
[The savings in terms of area transfer directly at the system level. We now consider the whole neural network used for Fashion-MNIST classification throughout section \[sec:network\].]{} Using our architecture, a full BNN with eight bit first layer occupies $1.95\ mm^2$, while the BNN with stochastic binarized first layer occupies $0.73\ mm^2$, a $62\%$ saving in area. These area values were extracted from a system designed for a $T$ value of eight.
Fig. \[fig:energy\] plots the energy consumption for recognizing an image with our ASIC architecture, as a function of the number of presented stochastic images. This is compared with the energy cost of the same architecture, but using a non stochastic first layer, with eight bit input. We see that the system with stochastic first layer is more energy efficient than the system with non-binary first layer if less than eight presentation are used.
The previous curves do not include the cost of random bit generation. If we use a simple eight-bit Linear Feedback Shift Register (LFSR) pseudo random number generator, the added energy is $0.52nJ/cycle$, and the added area is $48,000\ \mu m^2$. Both are therefore negligible. It has also been shown that Spin Torque MRAM technology can be adapted to provide very low energy true random numbers [@vodenicarevic2017low]. If such a technology was used, based on the numbers of [@vodenicarevic2017low], the energy cost of random bit generation would be $0.125nJ/cycle$, and the area much smaller than LFSR. The energy cost of random number generation is therefore negligible with regards to the consumption of the system seen in Fig. \[fig:energy\].
[These energy numbers are very attractive with regards to non binarized implementations at equivalent recognition rate. Non binarized neural networks require less neurons and synapses than BNNs to achieve equivalent recognition rate. For example, to match the performance obtained in Fig. \[fig:accuracy\] on Fashion-MNIST with three image presentations ($T=3$), one only needs a non-binarized neural network with eight-bit synapses with two layers of 500 neurons, while the BNN needs 1024 neurons per layer. However, in an ASIC, the non binarized neural network requires energy-hungry 8-bits multiplications and addition ($0.3~pJ$ and $0.04~pJ$ per operation in our $28~nm$ technology). Taking into account only these arithmetic operations, the energy consumption is $220~nJ$ for recognizing a Fashion-MNIST image with the same accuracy as the stochastic BNN with three image presentations. This stochastic BNN requires only $90~nJ$ (Fig. \[fig:energy\]), taking into account the whole system. ]{}
[ As a conclusion, this works highlights that the stochastic computing approach is attractive in terms of area occupancy.]{} In terms of energy efficiency, it is very attractive if a relatively small number of presentation is used ($T<8$). Therefore, it appears preferable to rely on the stochastic training approach seen in section \[sec:adaptedtrainig\], and to use few stochastic image presentation for inference. For example, if three image presentation are used, a factor $2.1$ can be saved on the energy consumption on Fashion-MNIST, with a reduction of [$1.4\%$]{} of test accuracy with regards to the best accuracy obtained by a BNN (dashed red line in Fig. \[fig:accuracy\]). It should be noticed that the benefits of stochastic computing would be reduced on very deep neural networks, where the first layer plays a smaller role. Our approach is therefore the most promising for Internet-of-Things or sensor networks applications, where relatively small neural networks can provide sufficient intelligence, but circuit cost and energy consumption are the most critical issues. [On deep neural networks, nevertheless, the approach of implementing only the classifier with a stochastic BNN, as mentioned in section \[subsec:CIFAR10\], can be of high interest.]{}
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we presented a stochastic computing approach to Binarized Neural Networks. This allows implementing them in an entirely binarized fashion, whereas in conventional BNNs, the first layer is not binary. We showed that the stochastic computing approach can reach recognition results similar to the conventional approach. We identified that for highest accuracy, the neural network should not be trained with [regular]{} images as conventional BNNs: it it is more beneficial to train stochastic BNNs with stochastic binarized images, using the same number of image presentation as will be used during inference. [ The design of a full BNN ASIC relying on in-memory computing, then highlighted the benefits of BNNs in terms of area and energy consumption.]{} Stochastic BNNs allow using the same compact architecture for all layers, which leads to strong benefits in terms of area ($62\%$ reduction in the case of Fashion-MNIST classification). In terms of energy, the benefits can be very strong if we accept a slight reduction in classification accuracy. For example, on Fashion-MNIST classification, we can reduce the energy consumption by a factor [$2.1$]{}, with a decrease of [$1.4\%$]{} in classification accuracy.
These results highlight the high potential of BNNs for implementing compact and energy efficient in-memory neural networks, and the potential of stochastic approaches for hardware artificial intelligence. [Future works should focus on the physical implementation of the proposed scheme, as well as the extension of the approach to other tasks than vision, such as medical tasks, where energy efficiency can be a particularly important concern.]{}
Training Algorithm {#sec:appendix_training}
==================
Throughout the paper, neural networks are trained with the algorithm proposed by Courbariaux et al in [@courbariaux2016binarized]. This algorithm relies on two fundamental principles. First, the function $\operatorname{Clip}(x, -1,1)$ is used instead of the $\operatorname{sign}$ function in the backpropagation phase, as it can be differentiated. Second, the binarized weights $W$ are not directly modified during the back propagation: their modification is done indirectly through the modification of the real weight $W_a$ associated with each synapse.
[Our design includes two modifications with regards to the work of [@courbariaux2016binarized].]{} In the original paper, the multi-layer perceptron trained on MNIST consisted of hidden layers of binarized units, topped by L2-SVM output layer. Here, we used a $\operatorname{softmax}$ output layer. Second, the parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$ used for the batch normalization were not trained, and we used $\gamma=1$ and $\beta=0$ instead. The complete algorithm that we used is presented in Algorithm \[alg:algorithmtrain\].
**1. Forward propagation** $W^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}( W^{[k]}_a )$ $z^{[k]} \leftarrow W^{[k]} \cdot a^{[k-1]}$ $\widehat{z}^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{BatchNorm}(z^{[k]},\mu^{[k]},\sigma^{[k]})$ $a^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{sign}(\widehat{z}^{[k]})$ $a^{[k]} \leftarrow \operatorname{softmax}(\widehat{z}^{[k]})$ Compute gradient of softmax cross entropy loss : $${} g_{a^{[L]}} = \dfrac{\partial C}{\partial a^{[L]}} = a^{[L]} - y$$ **2. Backward propagation** $g_{a^{[k]}} \leftarrow g_{a^{[k-1]}}\ \circ \ 1_{|a_{k<1}|} $ $ g_{\widehat{z}^{[k]}} \leftarrow \operatorname{BackBatchNorm}(g_{a^{[k]}},\widehat{z}^{[k]},\mu^{[k]},\sigma^{[k]}) $ $ g_{z^{[k]}} \leftarrow W^{[k]\ T}g_{\widehat{z}^{[k]}} $ $ g_{W_b^{[k]}} \leftarrow g_{\widehat{z}^{[k]}} \ a^T_{k-1}$ **3. Update parameters** $W^{[k]}_{a,t+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{Clip}(\operatorname{UpdateAdam}(W_{a,t+1}^{[k]},g_{W_b^{[k]}}),-1,1) $ $(\mu^{[k]},\sigma^{[k]})_{t+1} \leftarrow \operatorname{MovingAverage}(\mu_B^{[k]},\sigma_B^{[k]})_{t} $
Description of the ASIC BNN Architecture {#sec:appendix_system}
=========================================
[ The architecture for hardware implementation of BNN inference is presented in Fig. \[fig:archi\].]{} The basic function of a BNN is to compute $\operatorname*{popcount}( \operatorname{XNOR}( W, X)) - \mu$. To perform this function, first, the system needs to perform the XNOR between the inputs $X$ and the weights $W$, stored in the Spin Torque MRAM memory blocks. Second, it needs to perform the $\operatorname*{popcount}$ function, and then compare this value with a threshold.
To achieve this goal, the architecture is made of basic cells (cell Fig. \[fig:archi\] (b-c)), composed of a 2 kbits memory array that store weights, 32 XNOR logic gates that perform the XNOR between the 32 bits weights and the 32 bits received data, a 32 bits to 5 bits popcount module compound of basic tree adders. The basic cell is repeated 32x32 times.
The architecture can be operated with a “parallel to sequential” structure, or a “sequential to parallel” structure. The sequential to parallel structure allows dealing with long input sequence data, and outputs a limited parallel output data. By contrast, the parallel to sequential structure allows dealing with limited parallel input data, and outputs long sequence data. The basic cells of Fig. \[fig:archi\] (b-c) can perform both, sequential or parallel calculation. The output of the popcount can be given to the sequential part of the cell or to the parallel part of the system that will perform the popcount through the whole column, with a “popcount tree” module shared with all the cells of the column. The sequential section of the cell that receive the popcount output will perform the full popcount operation sequentially by summing the popcount output using a register.
[ To perform the activation function of the neuron, the system adds in each cell the threshold values $\mu$ in a memory array. ]{} The signed bit of the difference between the popcount value saved in the register and $\mu$ gave the activation value. The same operation is made with the output of the popcount tree shared along the column.
[Tifenn Hirtzlin]{} is a PhD student in Electrical Engineering at Université Paris-Sud. He received the M.S. degree in Nanosciences and Electronics from the University Paris-Sud, France, in 2017. His work focuses on designing intelligent memory-chip for low energy hardware data processing using bio-inspired concepts as probabilistic approach to brain function or more classical neural network approaches.
[Bogdan Penkovsky]{} is a postdoctoral CNRS researcher at Paris-Sud University. He received his M.S. degree in Applied Mathematics from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine, in 2013 and the Ph.D. degree in optics and photonics applied to neuromorphic computing from the University of Burgundy - Franche-Comté, France, in 2017. His work is on intelligent, low energy hardware design for biomedical applications.
[Marc Bocquet]{} is an Associate Professor in the Institute of Materials, Microelectronics and Nano-sciences of Provence, IM2NP at Univerisity of Aix-Marseille. He received the M.S. in electrical engineering degree in 2006 and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering in 2009, both from the University of Grenoble, France. His research interests include memory model, memory design, characterization and reliability.
[Jacques-Olivier Klein]{} (M’90) received the Ph.D. degree from Univ. Paris-Sud, France, in 1995. He is currently Full Professor at Univ. Paris-Sud, where he focuses on the architecture of circuits and systems based on emerging nanodevices in the field of nanomagnetism and bio-inspired nanoelectronics. In addition, he is lecturer at the Institut Universitaire de Technologie (IUT) of Cachan. He is author of more than one hundred technical papers.
[Jean-Michel Portal]{} (M’87) is a Full Professor in the Institute of Materials, Microelectronics and Nano-sciences of Provence, IM2NP at Univeristé of Aix-Marseille. He received the Ph.D. degree in 1999 from University of Montpellier 2, France. From 1999 to 2000, he was temporary researcher at University of Montpellier 2 in the field of FPGA design and test. From 2000 to 2008, he was assistant professor at the Univ. of Provence, Polytech Marseille, and conducted research activities in L2MP in the field of Memory testing and diagnosis, test structure design and design for manufacturing. In this position he participated to industrial project on non-volatile memory testing and diagnosis with ST Microelectronics. In 2008, he became Full Professor at Aix-Marseille Univ. and since 2009 he heads the “Memories Team” of the IM2NP. His research fields covers design for manufacturing and memory design, test and reliability.
[Damien Querlioz]{} (M’08) is a CNRS Research Scientist at Univeristé Paris-Sud. He received his predoctoral education at Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris and his PhD from Université Paris-Sud in 2008. After postdoctoral appointments at Stanford University and CEA, he became a permanent researcher at the Centre for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology of Université Paris-Sud. He focuses on novel usages of emerging non-volatile memory, in particular relying on inspirations from biology and machine learning. Damien Querlioz coordinates the INTEGNANO interdisciplinary research group. In 2016, he was the recipient of an European Research Council Starting Grant to develop the concept of natively intelligent memory. In 2017, he received the CNRS Bronze medal.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a one-dimensional SU(N) Hubbard model with an attractive on-site interaction and $N>2$ at half-filling on the bipartite lattice using density-matrix renormalization-group method and a perturbation theory. We find that the ground state of the SU(N) Hubbard model is a charge density wave state with two-fold degeneracy. All the excitations are found to be gapful, resulting in an insulating ground state, on contrary to that in the SU(2) case. Moreover, the charge gap is equal to the Cooperon gap, which behaves as $-2Nt^2/(N-1)U$ in the strong coupling regime. However, the spin gap $\Delta_{s}$ and the quasiparticle gap $\Delta_{1}$ as well open exponentially in the weak coupling region, while in the strong coupling region, they linearly depend on $U$ such that $\Delta_{s}\sim -U(N-1)$ and $\Delta_{1}\sim -U(N-1)/2$.'
author:
- Jize Zhao and Kazuo Ueda
- Xiaoqun Wang
title: 'Insulating charge density wave for a half-filled SU(N) Hubbard model with an attractive on-site interaction in one dimension'
---
@twocolumnfalse
INTRODUCTION
============
Correlation effects in electronic systems have been of long-term interest in the condensed matter physics. In recent years, important progress has been made experimentally in ultra-cold atomic systems where strong correlation leads to some novel physical phenomena. In particular, interacting fermionic atoms can be trapped in an optical lattice[@kohl05; @matrin]. More interestingly, the interaction in the ultra-cold atomic systems is tunable through the Feshbach resonance, which allows for a full exploration of various fundamental properties of strongly correlated models. Moreover, the nuclear spin of the atoms can be larger than the electronic spin. One could expect richer physics induced by the degree of freedom of higher spins[@HO1; @WU1; @WU2; @TU1]. Therefore, one would like naturally to generalize the Hubbard model with two spin components to the one with $N$-components.
In this paper, we investigate low energy properties of a one-dimensional half-filled SU(N) Hubbard model[@AFFLECK1] with an attractive on-site interaction and $N>2$. This is a generalization of our previous work in which we have focused on the SU(4) case [@ZHAO1]. The Hamiltonian of the one-dimensional SU(N) Hubbard model is represented by $$\mathcal{H}=-t\sum_{i=1}^{L}\sum_{\sigma}(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}\hat{c}_{i+1\sigma}+h.c.)+\\
\frac{U}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{L}\sum_{\sigma\ne\sigma^{'}}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}},
\label{HAM}$$ where $t>0$ is the hopping matrix set as the energy unit, $U<0$ the coupling constant of the attractive on-site interaction, $L$ the number of lattice sites, $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{'}$ the spin indices, which take the values $(N-1)/2$, $(N-1)/2-1$, $\cdots$, $1-(N-1)/2$, $-(N-1)/2$, respectively. $\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}$ and $\hat{c}_{i\sigma}$ denote the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for a particle with spin $\sigma$ at the site $i$ and $\hat{n}_{i\sigma}=\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} \hat{c}_{i\sigma}$ indicates the operator of the particle number. The Hamiltonian (1) has U(1)$\otimes$SU(N) symmetry[@ASSARAF1]. The generator for the U(1) symmetry is $\mathcal{N}=\sum_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}$ and the U(1) symmetry implies that the particle number $\mathcal{N}$ is conserved. The generator for the SU(N) symmetry is $S^{A}=\sum_{i\sigma\sigma^{'}}
\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}\mathcal{T}^{A}_{\sigma\sigma^{'}}\hat{c}_{i\sigma^{'}}$, where $\mathcal{T}^{A}$ are the generators of the SU(N) group in its fundamental representation. These symmetries are useful for simplifying numerical calculations and classifying excitations for the present system.
Although this model is exactly solvable for $N=2$[@LIEB1], it seems that physical features obtained for $N=2$ are not immediately applicable to more general cases with $N>2$[@CHOY1]. Recently, this model with $N>2$ and $U>0$ has been studied by using several analytic as well as numerical approaches. At half-filling, a renormalization-group analysis [@AFFLECK1] shows that both the charge and spin coupling constants are renormalized to a large value, resulting in gaps in both sectors. An analytic perturbative renormalization group treatment in the fermionic representation alternatively gives rise to a gapful spectrum for all $N>2$ and $U>0$[@SZIRMAI1]. Moreover, by employing bosonization method and quantum Monte Carlo simulations, Assaraf et al found for a $1/N$ filling that the spin excitation is gapless for any positive $U$, whereas the charge excitation is gapful only for $U>U_c$ where $U_c\neq 0$. However, Buchta et al obtained gapless spin as well as gapful charge excitations from accurate density-matrix renormalization group(DMRG) calculations with $N=3, 4$ and $5$ for any $U>0$.
For the attractive interaction, on the other hand, it is known that the one-dimensional attractive half-filled SU(2) Hubbard model is described by a Luther-Emery liquid model, in which the charge excitation is gapless, whereas the spin excitation is gapful. By the hidden SU(2) transformation, the SU(2) Hubbard model with $U$ can be mapped to the one with $-U$. However, for the SU(N) Hubbard model with $N>2$ such a mapping does not exist so that one cannot obtain any insight into the low-energy properties for the attractive case through the mapping from the repulsive case. In this paper, we will show that the SU(N) Hubbard model at half filling with an attractive interaction belongs to a different universality class from the SU(2) one and all the excitations are gapful. We expect that our findings are not only of fundamental interest, but also useful for experimentalists, since the attractive SU(N) Hubbard model may be possibly realized by experiments in ultra-cold atomic systems.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we analyze low-energy properties of the Hamiltonian (\[HAM\]) in the strong coupling limit $(N-1)|U|\gg t$ first and then in the weak coupling limit $(N-1)|U|\ll t$ by the perturbation treatments. Particularly we discuss the dependence of charge gap, Cooperon gap, spin gap and quasiparticle gap on $U$ in both regimes. In Sec. III, we present our numerical results which are obtained from the DMRG calculations and compare them with analytic behavior in both weak and strong coupling regime. A summary is finally given in Sec. IV.
PERTURBATION CALCULATIONS
=========================
In this section, we study the low-energy properties of the Hamiltonian (\[HAM\]) by a perturbation theory. For this purpose, we rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_t+\mathcal{H}_u,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}_t=-t\sum_{i\sigma}(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}\hat{c}_{i+1\sigma}+h.c.)$ is the hopping term and $\mathcal{H}_{u}=(U/2)\sum_{i\sigma\ne\sigma^{'}}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}$ the on-site interaction. We start with the on-site interaction part $\mathcal{H}_{u}$. Since the on-site interaction is attractive, $N$ particles with different $\sigma$ tend to stay on one site and form a SU(N) singlet. The energy of the SU(N) singlet is $UN(N-1)/2$. In the half-filling case where $N/2$ particles per site, the ground states of $\mathcal{H}_u$ are highly degenerate, involving half of the lattice sites occupied by the SU(N) singlets and the other half being empty. In the strong coupling region, i.e. $|U|(N-1)\gg t$, $\mathcal{H}_{u}$ is taken as the zeroth order Hamiltonian, while $\mathcal{H}_t$, being the order of $Nt$, is regarded as a perturbation. Up to the second order, we obtain the first order effective Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{(1)}=P\mathcal{H}_tP=0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is a projection operator which restricts the effective Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by the ground states of $\mathcal{H}_{u}$. The second order effective Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{eff}^{(2)} & = & P\mathcal{H}_{t}\frac{1}{E_0-\mathcal{H}_u}(1-P)\mathcal{H}_tP \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{2t^2}{(N-1)U}P\sum_{i}\hat{n}_{i}P\nonumber\\
& & - \frac{2t^2}{N(N-1)U}P\sum_{i}\hat{n}_{i}\hat{n}_{i+1}P,
\label{HEFF}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{n}_{i}=\sum_{\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}$ the number operator at the site $i$. The degeneracy of the ground state of $\mathcal{H}_u$ is thus lifted by $\mathcal{H}_t$. At half filling, one can easily obtain the ground state energy correction per site which is given as $Nt^2/(N-1)U$ by the first term of Eq. (\[HEFF\]). Since the second term introduces an effective repulsion interaction between the particles at nearest neighbor(NN) sites, it results in a charge density wave (CDW) state in which the SU(N) singlet and the empty site occur alternatively to exhibit a long range order resulting from translational symmetry breaking. It turns out that the ground state is two-fold degenerate. The configuration of the ground state is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig0\](a).
![Schematic illustrations of the configurations, and the empty circle here represents one SU(N) singlet formed by $N$ particles with different $\sigma$. (a) For the CDW ground state. Shifting all the circles by one site, one can obtain the other one of two-fold degenerate ground states. (b) For the charge excitation: the SU(N) singlet at site $i+2$ shifts to the site $i+1$. (c) For the Cooperon excitation: one SU(N) singlet is added to the site i+1.[]{data-label="fig0"}](C-CO-Excitation.eps){width="7.8cm"}
It is well-known that both the charge and Cooperon excitations for the attractive SU(2) Hubbard model are gapless. However for the SU(4) case, it has been shown[@ZHAO1] that the charge and Cooperon excitations are gapful and equal to each other at half-filling. In the following, one can see that this conclusion is also valid for other attractive SU(N) Hubbard models with $N>2$. In particular, the charge gap and Cooperon gap can be easily derived from the effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]). The charge gap $\Delta_c$ is defined as the lowest excitation in the SU(N) singlet subspace as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_c=E_1(L,NL/2,0)-E_0(L,NL/2,0), \label{DELTAC}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_0(L,M,S)$ is the ground state energy in the spin-$S$ channel with $L$ sites and $M$ particles, and $E_n(L,M,S)$ the $n$-th excitation energy. The gap for Cooperon excitations for the SU(N) Hubbard model is given from the energy difference between states by adding $N$ particles or $N$ holes to the system, which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_N & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[E_0(L,\frac{NL}{2}+N,0)
+E_0(L,\frac{NL}{2}-N,0)\right]\nonumber\\
& & -E_0(L,\frac{NL}{2},0).\end{aligned}$$ The charge gap $\Delta_c$ is given by shifting one of SU(N) singlets in the ground state configuration to its nearest neighbor site as shown in Fig. \[fig0\](b). Then one has $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_c=-\frac{2Nt^2}{(N-1)U}. \label{DCHARGE}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, one obtains the SU(N) Cooperon gap $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_N=-\frac{2Nt^2}{(N-1)U}.\end{aligned}$$ which is shown in Fig. \[fig0\](c). One can see that $\Delta_c=\Delta_N$ for all $N>2$, which was previous shown for the $N=4$ case[@ZHAO1]. In the large-$N$ limit, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_c=\Delta_N=-\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{2Nt^2}{(N-1)U}=-\frac{2t^2}{U}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the difference for the low-lying excitations between $N=2$ and $N>2$ results from the effective interaction between the singlets at the NN sites as involved in effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]). For the $N=2$ case, one has the effective Hamiltonian[@EMERY1] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{(2)}_{eff,su(2)} & = &
\frac{2t^2}{U}P\sum_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}P \label{HEFFSU2}\\
& & - \frac{t^2}{U}P\sum_{\langle{ij}\rangle\sigma}
(\hat{n}_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{j\sigma}-\hat{c}^{+}_{i\sigma}\hat{c}^{+}_{i\bar{\sigma}}
\hat{c}_{j\bar{\sigma}}\hat{c}_{j\sigma})P. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Compared to the effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]), one has additionally a pair hopping term, which involves the same amplitude as the NN repulsion term and eventually destroys the CDW long range order for $N=2$. On the other hand, for $N>2$ cases, although a similar hopping term emerges at the $N$-th order perturbation, it has a smaller amplitude than the NN repulsion term so that one can has a stable CDW ground state.
Now we turn to study the spin and quasiparticle excitations. The spin gap is defined in correspondence to the lowest excitation with different spin quantum number from the ground state. The quasiparticle gap is defined as a energy change by adding one particle or hole to the system. Since the ground state is CDW, in order to obtain these two gaps, we resort to the following Hartree-Fock(HF) approximation.
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{n}_{i\sigma}\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}\simeq n_{i\sigma}\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}}\rangle+
\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma}}\rangle\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}-\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma}}\rangle
\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where $\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma}}\rangle=n_0 +(-1)^{i}\delta{n}$, and $\delta{n}$ is the order parameter, $\langle\cdots\rangle$ is the average over the ground state. The HF Hamiltonian then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{HF}&=&-t\sum_{i\sigma}(\hat{c}_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{i+1\sigma}+h.c.)
+\frac{U}{2}\sum_{i\sigma\ne\sigma^{'}}(\hat{n}_{i\sigma}\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}}\rangle\nonumber\\
&+&
\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma}}\rangle\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}-\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma}}\rangle
\langle{\hat{n}_{i\sigma^{'}}}\rangle). \label{HHF}\end{aligned}$$ At half-filling, one has $n_0=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\sum_{l\sigma}\hat{n}_{l\sigma}=\frac{LN}{2}$. Eq. (\[HHF\]) can be further simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{HF}&=&-t\sum_{i\sigma}(\hat{c}^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}\hat{c}_{i+1\sigma}+h.c.)\nonumber\\
&+&U(N-1)\delta{n}\sum_{i\sigma}(-1)^{i}\hat{n}_{i\sigma}+{\rm
const}.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing $\hat{a}_{l\sigma}=\hat{c}_{2l\sigma}$, $\hat{b}_{l\sigma}=\hat{c}_{2l+1\sigma}$ and taking a Fourier transformation $\hat{a}_{l\sigma}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}\sum_{k}\hat{a}_{k\sigma}e^{ikl}$, $\hat{b}_{l\sigma}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}\sum_{k}\hat{b}_{k\sigma}e^{ikl}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{HF}&=&-t\sum_{k\sigma}((1+e^{-ik})\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{k\sigma}\hat{b}_{k\sigma}+h.c.)\\
&+&U(N-1)\delta
n\sum_{k\sigma}(\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{k\sigma}\hat{a}_{k\sigma}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{k\sigma}\hat{b}_{k\sigma})+{\rm
const}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Diagonalizing this HF Hamiltonian, we can obtain two bands for each spin species with the following dispersion $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{k\sigma}=\pm \sqrt{\Delta_{1}^{2}+4t^2\cos^{2}{\frac{k}{2}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{1}=-(N-1)U\delta n$ is the quasiparticle gap. Under the HF approximation, one has that $\Delta_{c}=\Delta_{s}=2\Delta_{1}$. By solving the self-consistent equation for $\delta n=\langle
\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{l\sigma}\hat{a}_{l\sigma}-\hat{b}^{\dagger}_{l\sigma}\hat{b}_{l\sigma}\rangle$ one can determine the order parameter $\delta n$. In the weak coupling limit $t\ll |U|(N-1)$, we can solve it approximately and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{1}\simeq 2\pi te^{\frac{2\pi t}{U(N-1)}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the strong coupling limit, one can put $\delta{n}\simeq 0.5$, and then obtain the quasiparticle gap $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{1}\simeq -U(N-1)/2 ,
\label{D1}\end{aligned}$$ and the spin gap $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{s}\simeq -U(N-1) .
\label{DS}\end{aligned}$$
In the HF approximation, since $\Delta_c=2\Delta_1$, one obtains $\Delta_c\simeq -U(N-1)$ which is inconsistent with the results Eq. (\[DCHARGE\]) obtained from the strong coupling perturbation theory. This is because in the presence of the strong attractive on-site interaction between particles, the single particle picture is not valid for the charge excitations, in which $N$ particles forming a SU(N) singlet shift as a whole to the NN site, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig0\](b). However, we would expect that the HF results are still qualitatively correct for weak coupling limit.
NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS
======================
In this section, we present our numerical results for $N=3, 4, 5$ and $6$ cases and compare them with those analytic predictions from the perturbation theories and the HF approximation. Our numerical results are obtained from a large scale DMRG computation.[@WHITE1; @PESCHEL1; @SCHOLLWOCK1] It is well known that DMRG method is the most powerful numerical tool for accurate exploration on low-energy properties of one dimensional systems at zero temperature. However, it is nontrivial to apply this method to the SU(N) Hubbard model. On one hand, there is a large number of degrees of freedom per site. For instance, the degree of freedom per site is 32 when $N=5$. On the other hand, although a open boundary condition (OBC) in DMRG calculations may lead to more accurate results than a periodic boundary condition (PBC), while the emergence of edge states under the OBC makes the calculation of various excitations practically more difficult.
For these reasons, we have made some additional considerations to the standard DMRG algorithm as follows. When $N=3$, i.e. SU(3) case, one has 8 degrees of freedom per site. In this case, we use the PBC with keeping about $2000\sim 3500$ optimal states in the DMRG procedure and two sites are added in order to enlarge the chain length at each DMRG step. The maximal truncation error is of the order $10^{-5}$. Similarly, the charge gap for $N=4$ is calculated with at most 1600 states kept. The other excitations are calculated with the OBC. At each step we add one lattice site to the chain, breaking the lattice site into two pseudo sites. To obtain accurate results, we preselect some specific chain lengths, and perform sweeping at these preselected lengths, the final results are got by extrapolating the results at the preselected lengths to the thermodynamic limit. To avoid cumbersome edge excitations when the OBC is employed, the preselected lengths are odd instead of even. Correspondingly the definitions of the excitations are changed. For example, the Cooperon gap for $N=4$ is redefined as $\Delta_{N}=E_0(L,2L+6,0)-E_0(L,2L+2,0)-6U$, where the particle-hole symmetry is taken into account and odd $L$ are used.
Energy correction and degeneracy of the ground states
-----------------------------------------------------
The analysis based on the strong coupling perturbation theory in the above section shows that the hopping term, lifting the degeneracy of $\mathcal{H}_u$, results in an energy correction per site $Nt^{2}/(N-1)U$. To verify this prediction, we calculate the energy corrections for $N=3, 4$ and $5$ using DMRG method. Both numerical and analytic results are shown in Fig. \[fig1\].
![Ground state energy correction per site obtained from both the DMRG calculation and the strong coupling perturbation theory $\mathcal{H}^{(2)}_{eff}$ for N=3, N=4 and N=5 are shown as a function of $U$. []{data-label="fig1"}](gs-energycorrection.eps){width="7.0cm"}
One can see that the energy correction is negative and decreases monotonically with respect to increasing of $U$. In the strong coupling region, the results given by the perturbation theory agree well with the DMRG data. For $N=3$, the deviation between analytic and numerical results is within the numerical accuracy for $U<-2$. With increasing of $N$, the deviation becomes smaller and smaller. This implies that the perturbation theory gives rise to better results for larger $N$ for the strong coupling regime. In the weak coupling region, the analytic results from the effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]) severely deviates from the DMRG results. This is reasonable since in the weak coupling region, $\mathcal{H}_t$ is no longer a small perturbation. Nevertheless, when $N$ increases, the valid region of the strong coupling perturbation theory increases simultaneously.
![Two lowest excitation gaps in the SU(N) singlet subspace for $N=3$ case with two different values of $U$. In the thermodynamic limit, the first excitation energy becomes degenerate with the ground state, while the energy difference between the second excitation and the ground state remains finite, indicating a gapful excitation.[]{data-label="fig2"}](N3-u-1.0-u-4.0.eps){width="7.0cm"}
We have examined the symmetry properties of the ground state. In the thermodynamic limit, the ground state is two-fold degeneracy. For a finite $L$, the ground state is a SU(N) singlet, and there is another SU(N) singlet state just above the ground state. When the chain length $L$ is increased, the energy difference between these two states decreases and eventually vanishes in the large-$L$ limit. This is consistent with the prediction from the effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]). Moreover, for a given chain length $L$, we find that the energy difference between two states for the Hamiltonian (\[HAM\]) decrease rapidly with increasing $|U|$, since the effective Hamiltonian Eq. (\[HEFF\]) becomes more accurate for larger $|U|$. In Fig. \[fig2\] and \[fig3\], we demonstrate this feature with two different values of $U$ under OBC for $N=3$ and $4$, respectively. Note that the energy difference for the second excitation, which is finite in the large-$L$ limit, corresponds to edge excitations rather than bulk excitations.
![Two lowest excitation gaps in the SU(N) singlet subspace for $N=4$ case with two different values of $U$. In the thermodynamic limit, the first excitation energy becomes degenerate with the ground state, while the energy difference between the second excitation and the ground states remains finite, indicating a gapful excitation.[]{data-label="fig3"}](N4-u-0.8-u-2.0.eps){width="7.0cm"}
Charge gaps and Cooperon gaps
-----------------------------
The prediction that the charge gap $\Delta_c$ is equal to the Cooperon gap $\Delta_N$ is confirmed numerically for N=4[@ZHAO1]. However, the strong coupling perturbation theory gives rise to $\Delta_c=\Delta_N$ for general $N$, it is still interesting to examine numerically whether this equation is valid for both even and odd N and all regimes of the coupling constant $U$[@BUCHTA1]. Fig. \[fig4\] demonstrates the charge and Cooperon gaps for $N=3$ as comparison to $N=4$ as a function of $U$.
![The Cooperon and charge gaps are shown for $N=3$ and $4$. The asymptotic behavior from the effective Hamiltonian(\[HEFF\]) (curves) are also shown for comparison.[]{data-label="fig4"}](charge-cooperon-N3-4.eps){width="7.0cm"}
One can see that both charge and Cooperon gaps for both $N=3$ and $N=4$ are finite for all $U<0$. When $|U|$ is increased, these gaps increase first in the weak coupling region. After they reach their maxima, they decrease following the asymptotic behavior $-\frac{2Nt^2}{(N-1)U}$ resulting from the strong coupling perturbation theory. We would mention that even beyond the valid range of the perturbation theory, our numerical data still show that the charge gaps are equal to the corresponding Cooperon gaps for both odd $N (=3)$ and even $N (=4)$. Therefore, one may conclude that $\Delta_c=\Delta_N$ for all $N$ and $U<0$.
Moreover we calculate the Cooperon gaps for $N=5$ and $6$ in order to explore the large-$N$ behavior of the charge as well as Cooperon gaps. The results of the Cooperon gap for $N=5$ and $6$ are shown in Fig. \[fig6\].
![The Cooperon gaps and the corresponding asymptotic behaviors as a function of $U$ for N=5 and 6 are shown.[]{data-label="fig6"}](N5-N6-cooperon.eps){width="7.0cm"}
Comparing Fig. \[fig4\] and \[fig6\], one can see that the larger $N$ is, the closer Cooperon gaps to that derived from the effective Hamiltonian (\[HEFF\]). For $N=3$ as shown in Fig. \[fig4\], the deviation of the asymptotic behavior from the DMRG data is visible even at $U=-10$, while for $N=4$ case, the deviation is within the numerical accuracy up to $U\simeq -5$. For $N=5$ and $6$, the good agreement can be seen up to $U\simeq -3$ and $U\simeq -2$, respectively. Furthermore, as $N$ increases, the height of the peak of the Cooperon gaps increases and the position of the peak shifts toward $U=0$. These features can be easily understood since the criteria for the strong coupling perturbation $t\ll |U|(N-1)$ depends on $|U|(N-1)$ rather than $U$ only. The DMRG results here also verify that the charge and Cooperon gap behaves asymptotically as $-\frac{2t^2}{U}$ in the large-$N$ limit.
Quasiparticle gap and spin gap
------------------------------
In the following, we discuss the quasiparticle and spin gaps. In order to improve numerical efficiency, we need to carry out DMRG calculations in a subspace which can be obtained by decomposing the irreducible representations of SU(N) into the irreducible representation of SO(3)[@HAMERMESH1; @YAMASHITA1]. Numerically, one can determine the irreducible representations for short chains by varying $z$-component. Table \[TABLE1\] shows the decomposition of some irreducible representations of SU(3) to SO(3).
$SU(3)$ $SO(3)$ $\nu$
---------------- -------------- -------------- --
$[1^3]$ $0$ 1
$[2^{1}1^{1}]$ $2\oplus{1}$ 8
$[3^1]$ $3\oplus{1}$ 10
$[1^1]$ $1$ 3
$[2^2]$ $2\oplus{0}$ 6 \[TABLE1\]
: Decomposition of some irreducible representations of SU(3) to SO(3).
$SU(4)$ $SO(3)$ $\nu$
---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- --
$[1^4]$ $0$ 1
$[2^2]$ $4\oplus{2}\oplus{2}\oplus{0}$ 20
$[2^{1}1^{2}]$ $3\oplus{2}\oplus{1}$ 15
$[4^1]$ $0\oplus{2}\oplus{3}\oplus{4}\oplus{6}$ 35
$[3^{1}1^{1}]$ $1\oplus{1}\oplus{2}\oplus{3}\oplus{3}\oplus{4}\oplus{5}$ 45
$[1^1]$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 4
$[2^{2}1^{1}]$ $\frac{7}{2}\oplus\frac{5}{2}\oplus\frac{3}{2}\oplus\frac{1}{2}$ 20
$[3^{1}1^{2}]$ $\frac{9}{2}\oplus\frac{7}{2}\oplus\frac{5}{2}\oplus\frac{5}{2}\oplus\frac{3}{2}\oplus\frac{1}{2}$ 36 \[TABLE2\]
: Decomposition of some irreducible representations of SU(4) to SO(3).
For $N=3$ that the spin excitation belongs to the representation $[2^{1}1^{1}]$ and it is 8-fold degenerate, while the quasiparticle excitation belongs to the representation $[1^{1}]$ and it is 3-fold degenerate. Table \[TABLE2\] shows the decomposition of some irreducible representations of SU(4) to SO(3). In this case, the spin excitation belongs to the representation $[2^{1}1^{2}]$ and its degeneracy is 15-fold, whereas the quasiparticle excitation belongs to the representation $[1^1]$ and its degeneracy 4-fold. Fig. \[fig7\] shows the quasiparticle and spin gaps for $N=3$ and $4$ as well.
![The quasiparticle gap and spin gap for N=3, 4 are shown in the figure. For N=3, the quasiparticle gap($\small{\bigcirc}$) and spin gap($\square$) are shown by the black symbols. For N=4, the quasiparticle gap($\triangle$) and spin gap($\times$) are shown by red symbols.[]{data-label="fig7"}](N3-N4-sp-spin-gap.eps){width="7.0cm"}
In weak coupling region, one can see that both the quasiparticle and spin gaps open exponentially, as predicted by the HF approximation, although we cannot determine precise critical behavior for the opening of the gaps from our numerical data due to limited numerical accuracy. In the strong coupling region, both the quasiparticle gap and spin gap depend linearly on $U$ as seen in the inset. This is also consistent with the HF results. Moreover, one also see that the ratio $\Delta_{1}/|U|$ approaches 1 for $N=3$ asymptotically, while it approaches 1.5 for $N=4$. These asymptotic behaviors qualitatively coincide with Eq. (\[D1\]) and (\[DS\]) and the relation $\Delta_s=2\Delta_1$ derived from the HF approximation. For finite $U$, however, the relation is just approximately valid since there remains residual interaction between quasiparticles.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
In this paper, we have investigated low-energy properties of the SU(N)(N$>$2) Hubbard model with attractive on-site interaction at half-filling. By using the perturbation theory and DMRG method, we show that the ground state is a CDW state with two-fold degeneracy. The CDW long range order reflects the broken translational symmetry. On one hand, the strong coupling perturbation theory predicts that both the charge excitations and Cooperon excitations are gapful and equal to each other with the asymptotic behavior $-2Nt^{2}/(N-1)U$. Combining this with numerical results for $N=3, 4, 5$ and $6$, we conclude that the charge gap is equal to the Cooperon gap for all $U<0$ and $N>2$. In the large N limit, both the charge and Cooperon gaps behaves as $-2t^{2}/U$. Considering the CDW ground state, we obtain qualitatively correct behavior for the spin and quasiparticle gaps from HF approximation, which are confirmed by our numerical data. In the weak coupling region, they open exponentially, whereas in the strong coupling region, they depend linearly on $U$ with the spin gap $\Delta_{s}\sim -(N-1)U$ and quasiparticle gap $\Delta_{1}\sim -(N-1)U/2$.
Our findings indicate that at half filling, the SU(N)(N$>$2) Hubbard model belongs to a different universality class from the SU(2) case. This can be easily understood by observing the difference between the effective Hamiltonians for the SU(N)(N$>$2) and the SU(2) cases. In particular, the effective Hamiltonian which for the SU(2) case involves an effective hopping term has the same order as the effective repulsion interaction for particles between nearest-neighbor sites. The hopping term destroys the CDW order. For $N>2$, the repulsive interaction dominates over the effective hopping term.
J. Zhao would thank H. Tsunetsugu for helpful discussion. X.Q. Wang is supported in part by NFC2005CB32170X, and NSFC10425417 $\&$ C10674142.
M. Köhl, H. Moritz, T. Stöferle, K. Günter, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett [**94**]{}, 080403 (2005). M.W. Zwierlein, C.H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek and W. Ketterle, Nature (London) [**442**]{}, 54 (2006). Tin-Lun Ho and Sungkit Yip, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 247 (1999). Congjun Wu, Jiang-ping Hu, and Shou-cheng Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 186402 (2003). Congjun Wu, Mod. Phys. Lett. B [**20**]{}, 1707 (2006) Hong-Hao Tu, Guang-Ming Zhang, and Lu Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 174404 (2006) I. Affleck and J.B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 3774 (1988); J.B. Marston and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 11538 (1989). J.Z. Zhao, K. Ueda and X.Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 233102 (2006). R. Assaraf, P. Azaria, M. Caffarel, and P. Lecheminant, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 2299 (1999). E.H. Lieb and F.Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 1445 (1968). T.C. Choy, Phys. Lett. [**80A**]{}, 49 (1980); F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. A [**80A**]{}, 281 (1980); T.C. Choy and F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. [**90A**]{}, 83 (1982). E. Szirmai and J. Sólyom, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 205108 (2005). K. Buchta, $\ddot{O}$. Legeza, E. Szirmai, J. S$\acute{o}$lyom, cond-mat/0607374. V.J. Emery, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 2989 (1976). S.R. White, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 10345 (1993). I. Peschel, X. Wang, M. Kaulke and K. Hallberg, [*Density Matrix Renormalization*]{}, LNP[**528**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1999. U. Schollw$\ddot{o}$ck, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 259 (2005) M. Hamermesh, Group Theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1962). Y. Yamashita, N. Shibata and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 9114(1998)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Status Update on Selective SUSY GUT Inspired Models** ]{}
[ M. Adeel Ajaib$^{a,}$[^1], Ilia Gogoladze$^{b,}$[^2], ]{}
*$^a$ Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics,\
Qatar University, Doha, Qatar\
$^b$Bartol Research Institute, Department of Physics and Astronomy,\
University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA*
We perform a status analysis of selective supersymmetric GUT models in light of recent constraints from collider and dark matter detection experiments. We find that a significant region of the parameter space of these models is still accessible to these experiments. Amongst the models we analyze, the split family model provides solutions that can explain the observed deviation in anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Furthermore, there is a notable region of the parameter space of each model which yields the desired relic abundance for neutralino dark matter. We also present the prediction of spin independent and spin dependent neutralino cross sections in these models and find that there is parameter space which can be probed at future experiments searching for dark matter. Our analysis serves as a motivation to continue the search for supersymmetry at various experimental fronts.
Introduction
============
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is under the spotlight due to lack of evidence from extensive experimental searches at the Large Hadron Collider. Supersymmetry, however, still stands its place as one of the most intriguing theories for physics beyond the Standard Model. [Supersymmetry, particularly in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with R-parity conservation, leads to gauge coupling unification and provides a viable candidate for cold dark matter (neutralino as the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)) [@Jungman:1995df].]{} The discovery of a 125 GeV Higgs boson and the recent limits on the masses of various supersymmetric particles have resulted in severe constraints on the parameter space of SUSY. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at 13 TeV LHC (36 fb$^{-1}$) have recently reported updated bounds on some sparticle masses. For instance, the reported limit on the first/second generation squark masses from LHC is $m_{\tilde{q}} \simeq 1.6$ TeV [@lhc-squark]. The current limits on the gluino mass is $m_{\tilde{g}} \simeq 1.9$ TeV and the stop mass is $m_{\tilde{t}} \simeq 1$ TeV [@lhc-stop]. [ In addition, current searches for the charginos have not resulted in any signals and a recent search implies a mass limit of $m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm} \simeq 430$ GeV [@lhc-chargino].]{} The High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) is expected to improve these limits if no SUSY signals are found [@upgrade; @gershtein; @atlaswiki; @Baer:2017pba].
With these rather severe constraints on the masses of SUSY particles and therefore its parameter space it is crucial to analyze the impact of these searches on popular SUSY models. [In this paper we intend to provide a status update of some selective models of SUSY by analyzing the impact of current constraints on the parameter space of these models. We focus on SUSY GUT models which will be described briefly in the following section. Several recent studies have performed such analyses [@Baer:2017pba]. ]{} For all the models we analyze, we find that there is still a considerable region of the parameter space that is still accessible to collider as well as direct detection experiments. In other words, it appears to be too early to give up on SUSY. We also analyze the status of dark matter in these models and find that there are regions of the parameter space of these models that yield the desired relic abundance. Another motivation of our study is the observed deviation in the muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_{\mu}=(g-2)_{\mu}/2$ (muon $g-2$) from its SM prediction [@Hagiwara:2011af] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gg-22}
\Delta a_{\mu}\equiv a_{\mu}({\rm exp})-a_{\mu}({\rm SM})= (28.6 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10}.\end{aligned}$$ In our analysis we show that the split family models allow for the ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$ within the above deviation [@Ajaib:2014ana].
[ The paper is organized as follows: In section \[sec:parameter\] we summarize the scanning procedure, the constraints we implement and the parameter space of the models we study. Section \[g-2\] is dedicated to a brief description of the SUSY contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the MSSM. In section \[sec:results\], we display and discuss the results of our parameter space scan. We conclude in section \[sec:conclude\]]{}
Phenomenological constraints and Scanning Procedure {#sec:parameter}
===================================================
[We employ Isajet 7.84 [@ISAJET] interfaced with Micromegas 2.4 [@Belanger:2008sj] to perform random scans over the parameter space.]{} The function RNORMX [@Leva] is employed to generate a Gaussian distribution around random points in the parameter space. We use Micromegas to calculate the relic density and $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$. Further details regarding our scanning procedure can be found in [@Ajaib:2015ika]. After collecting the data, we impose the following experimental constraints on the parameter space:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- --
$123~{\rm GeV} \leq m_h $ $\leq 127~{\rm GeV}$
$ 0.8 \times 10^{-9} \leq BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) $ $ \leq\, 6.2 \times 10^{-9} \;
(2\sigma)$
$2.99 \times 10^{-4} \leq BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma) $ $ \leq\, 3.87 \times 10^{-4} \;
(2\sigma)$
$0.15 \leq \frac{BR(B_u\rightarrow $ \leq\, 2.41 \;
\tau \nu_{\tau})_{\rm MSSM}}{BR(B_u\rightarrow \tau \nu_{\tau})_{\rm SM}}$ (3\sigma)$
$ 20.6 \times 10^{-10} \leq \Delta a_\mu $ $ \leq 36.6 \times 10^{-10} \,\, (1\sigma)$
$m_{\tilde{g}}$ $ \geq 1.9~{\rm TeV}$
$m_{\tilde{t}}$ $ \geq 1 ~{\rm TeV}$
$m_{\tilde{q}}$ $\geq 1.6 ~{\rm TeV}$
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm} $ $ \geq 430~{\rm GeV}$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- --
\[table\]
The description and ranges of the parameter space of the various models we study are as follows:
### CMSSM {#cmssm .unnumbered}
The Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM) [@Kane:1993td] contains the following five fundamental parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le & m_0 &\le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le &M_{1/2}& \le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
-3 \le &A_0/m_0& \le 3 \nonumber \\
2 \le &\tan\beta& \le 60 \nonumber \\
& \text{sign}(\mu) > 0&. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ [Here $m_0$ is the universal soft supersymmetry breaking (SSB) scalar mass, $m_{1/2}$ is the universal SSB gaugino mass, and $A_0$ is the universal SSB trilinear scalar interaction (with the corresponding Yukawa coupling factored out). The values for these three parameters are prescribed at the GUT scale. $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the VEVs of the two MSSM Higgs doublets and $\mu$ is the supersymmetric bilinear Higgs parameter whose magnitude, but not the $sign$, is determined by the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking condition. On the theoretical side, simplifying assumptions are often made for the form of the soft SUSY breaking Lagrangian, as in the case of CMSSM inspired by minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) [@Chamseddine:1982jx], which are not fully justified on symmetry principles. ]{}
### SU(5) {#su5 .unnumbered}
[In the $SU(5)$ GUT, the SM fermions of each family are allocated to the following representations: $\overline 5 \supset (d^c, L)$ and $10\supset (Q, u^c, e^c)$, where in the brackets, we have employed standard notation for the SM fermions. It seems natural to consider two independent SSB scalar mass terms, at $M_{\rm G}$, $m_{\overline{5}}$ and $m_{10}$, for the matter multiplets. The MSSM Higgs doublets belong to $5 (H_u)$ and $\overline 5 (H_{d})$ representations of $SU(5)$, which can be considered as two independent SSB mass terms $m_{H_u}$ and $m_{H_d}$ [@Profumo:2003ema; @Gogoladze:2008dk]. But here for simplicity we assume that at the GUT scale we have $m_{\overline{5}} = m_{H_u} = m_{H_d}$. Therefore, in the SU(5) scenario the SSB masses at $M_{\rm GUT}$ are as follows:]{} $$\begin{aligned}
&& m_{\tilde{D}^c} = m_{\tilde{L}} = m_{H_u} = m_{H_d} = m_{\bar 5},
\nonumber \\
&& m_{\tilde{Q}} = m_{\tilde{U}^c} = m_{\tilde{E}^c} = m_{10} ,
\label{BC}\end{aligned}$$ while the remaining parameters are the same as in the CMSSM. The parameter ranges for this model are: $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq & m_{\bar 5} & \leq 30\, \textrm{TeV} \nonumber \\
0\leq & m_{10} & \leq 30 \, \textrm{TeV} \nonumber \\
0\leq & M_{1/2} & \leq 2\, \textrm{TeV} \nonumber \\
-3 \le & A_0/m_{\bar 5} & \le 3 \nonumber \nonumber \\
2 \le & \tan\beta & \le 60 \nonumber \\
&\text{sign}(\mu) > 0& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
### NUHM2 {#nuhm2 .unnumbered}
In the Non-Universal Higgs Model 2 (NUHM2) [@Ellis:2002wv], the universality of the scalar masses is relaxed compare to the CMSSM and the Higgs SSB mass terms are assumed to be independent parameters at the GUT scale ($m_{H_u}^2 \neq m_{H_d}^2$). This parameter choice can be realized by combining a grand unified symmetry such as SO(10) with, for instance, a non-Abelian SU(3) flavor symmetry acting on the three families of quarks and leptons [@Babu:2014sga]. The SM Higgs field can be allocated in the 10 and 126 dimensional representation of SO(10) symmetry which naturally leads to the non-universality in Higgs SSB mass terms.
We consider the following ranges of the parameters for the NUHM2 model: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le & m_0 &\le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le &M_{1/2}& \le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
2 \le &\tan\beta& \le 60 \nonumber \\
-3 \le &A_0/m_0& \le 3 \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_u} &\le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_d} &\le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
&\text{sign}(\mu) > 0& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
### NUGM + NUHM2 {#nugm-nuhm2 .unnumbered}
For this model, in addition to employing NUHM2 boundary conditions, we assume the Non-Universal Gaugino Mass (NUGM) boundary conditions as well. [One of the elegant features of SUSY is gauge coupling unification. To retain gauge coupling unification in the presence of non-universal gaugino masses at $M_{\rm GUT}$, one can employ [@Martin:2009ad] non-singlet $F$-terms, compatible with the underlying GUT. Non-universal gauginos can also be generated from an $F$-term which is a linear combination of two distinct fields of different dimensions [@Martin:2013aha]. One can also consider two distinct sources for supersymmetry breaking [@Anandakrishnan:2013cwa]. With many distinct possibilities available for realizing non-universal gaugino masses while keeping universal sfermion mass at $M_{\rm GUT}$, we employ three independent masses for the MSSM gauginos in our study. Note that in the framework of NUGM + NUHM2, the little hierarchy problem can be easily resolved [@Gogoladze:2012yf], but we will not address this realization of natural susy in this paper.]{} Following are the ranges of the parameters for NUGM + NUHM2 model: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le & m_0 &\le {\mathrm {10 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
2 \le &\tan\beta& \le 60 \nonumber \\
-3 \le &A_0/m_0& \le 3 \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_u} &\le {\mathrm {3 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_d} &\le {\mathrm {3 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & M_1 &\le {\mathrm {3 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & M_2 &\le {\mathrm {3 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & M_3 &\le {\mathrm {3 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
&\text{sign}(\mu) > 0& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$, and $M_{3}$ denote the SSB gaugino masses for $U(1)_{Y}$, $SU(2)_{L}$ and $SU(3)_{c}$ respectively.
### SPLIT FAMILY WITH NUHM2 (SF + NUHM2) {#split-family-with-nuhm2-sf-nuhm2 .unnumbered}
[Recently, Ref. [@Babu:2014sga; @Babu:2014lwa] proposed a class of supersymmetric models in the framework of gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking [@Chamseddine:1982jx], in which symmetry considerations alone dictate the form of the SSB mass terms for the sfermions [@Babu:2014sga; @Babu:2014lwa]. It is called flavor symmetry based MSSM (sMSSM), and in this framework the first two family sfermion masses have degenerate masses at $M_{{\rm GUT}}$, while the SSB mass term for third family sfermions is different. It was shown in [@Baer:2004xx] that constraints from flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes, for the case when third generation sfermion masses are split from masses of the first and second generations, are very mild and easily satisfied. This approach therefore allows for significantly lighter first two family sfermions, while keeping the third generation sfermions relatively heavy. In SF+NUHM2 framework we consider the following parameter range for SSB terms:]{} $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le & m_{16_{1,2}} &\le {\mathrm {30 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{16_{3}} &\le {\mathrm {30 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & M_{1/2} &\le 2 {\mathrm {\ TeV} } \nonumber \\
3 \le &\tan\beta& \le 55 \nonumber \\
-3 \le &A_0/m_{16_{3}} & \le 3 \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_u} &\le {\mathrm {30 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{H_d} &\le {\mathrm {30 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
&\text{sign}(\mu) > 0. & \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $ m_{16_{1,2}}$ is the common SSB mass term for the sfermions of the first and second families, whereas the third generation sfermions have a universal SSB mass term $ m_{16_{3}}$.
### SPLIT FAMILY WITH NUGM (SF + NUGM) {#split-family-with-nugm-sf-nugm .unnumbered}
[Here we consider a combination of the scenarios described above, namely, NUGM + NUHM2 and SF + NUHM2.]{} The parameter ranges are as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le & m_{16_{1,2}} &\le {\mathrm {1 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{16_{3}} &\le {\mathrm {5 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
-1 \le & M_1 &\le 0 {\mathrm {\ TeV} } \nonumber \\
-1 \le & M_2 &\le 0 {\mathrm {\ TeV} } \nonumber \\
0 \le & M_3 &\le {\mathrm {5 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
3 \le &\tan\beta& \le 55 \nonumber \\
-3 \le &A_0/m_{16_{3}} & \le 3 \nonumber \\
0 \le & m_{10} &\le {\mathrm {5 \ TeV} } \nonumber \\
&\text{sign}(\mu) < 0& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For all the models above we choose the central value $m_t = 173.1\, {\rm GeV}$ [@:2009ec].
\[g-2\]The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment
=========================================
The leading contribution from low scale supersymmetry to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is given by [@Moroi:1995yh; @Martin:2001st]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gm2}
\Delta a_\mu &=& \frac{\alpha \, m^2_\mu \, \mu\, \tan\beta}{4\pi} {\bigg \{ }
\frac{M_{2}}{ \sin^2\theta_W \, m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2}
\left[ \frac{f_{\chi}(M_{2}^2/m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2)-f_{\chi}(\mu^2/m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2)}{M_2^2-\mu^2} \right]
\nonumber\\
&+&
\frac{M_{1} }{ \cos^2\theta_W \, (m_{\tilde{\mu}_{R}}^2 - m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2)}
\left[\frac{f_{N}(M^2_1/m_{\tilde{\mu}_{R}}^2)}{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{R}}^2} - \frac{f_{N}(M^2_1/m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2)}{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}^2}\right] \, {\bigg \} },\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $m_\mu$ is the muon mass, $\mu$ denotes the bilinear Higgs mixing term, and $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values (VEV) of the MSSM Higgs doublets. $M_1$ and $M_2$ denote the $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)$ gaugino masses respectively, $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle, and $m_{\tilde{\mu}_{L}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\mu}_{R}}$ are the left and right handed smuon masses. The loop functions are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\chi}(x) &=& \frac{x^2 - 4x + 3 + 2\ln x}{(1-x)^3}~,\qquad ~f_{\chi}(1)=-2/3, \\
f_{N}(x) &=& \frac{ x^2 -1- 2x\ln x}{(1-x)^3}\,,\qquad\qquad f_{N}(1) = -1/3 \, .
\label{eq:gm2b}\end{aligned}$$
The first term in equation (\[eq:gm2\]) stands for the dominant contribution coming from one loop diagram with charginos (Higgsinos and Winos), while the second term describes inputs from bino-smuon loop.
Results and Analysis {#sec:results}
====================
In this section, we present our results for the parameter space scan of various models described in section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures are consistent with radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) and neutralino LSP. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass and B-physics constraints described in section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. We choose a wider range for the relic density due to the uncertainties involved in the numerical calculations of various spectrum calculators. Moreover, dedicated scans within the *brown* regions can always yield points compatible with the current WMAP range for relic abundance. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in section \[sec:parameter\].
In Figures \[fig:mhf-m0\], \[fig:mhf-mu\] and \[fig:mhf-tanb\], we plot $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$, $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ and $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ planes. The plots display subset of the ranges described in section \[sec:parameter\]. The color coding of the points is as described above. We can observe that there is a considerable region of the parameter space that satisfies the sparticle mass and B-physics constraints. In addition, there is a notable region of the parameter space that yields the desired dark matter relic abundance (*green* points). The $g-2$ constraint (*orange* points) is only satisfied for the split family models. Except for the NUGM and split family NUGM models, the lower bound on the gaugino mass parameter is $M_{1/2} \gtrsim 1 $ TeV. It can also be noted that there is a lower bound on the third generation scalar masses, $m_{16,3}\gtrsim 8$ TeV, for the SF+NUHM2 model if we impose the $g-2$ constraint (*orange* points).
In our analysis we find that there is a significant region of the parameter space of the SF+NUGM model that satisfies the ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$ constraint (*orange* points). We also found good ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$ solutions in a narrow region of the parameter space of the SF+NUHM2 model. It has been found in earlier studies that there are several factors that can lead to a large SUSY contribution to ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$. These include the case when $M_1$, $M_2$ and $\mu$ have the same sign [@Pokoroski], in which case both of the terms arising from chargino-sneutrino and bino-smuon loops in equation (\[eq:gm2\]) will be positive. Furthermore, the smuons have to be light in order to make a sizable contribution to ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$. For both of these models, as can be seen from Fig \[fig:mch-msmu\], the smuon $\tilde{\mu}_L$ is light. Note that, among other factors discussed above, large values of $\mu\tan\beta$ can lead to large $\Delta a_\mu$ as can be seen from equation (\[eq:gm2\]). This can be seen for the SF+NUHM2 models where $\mu \gtrsim 6$ TeV and $\tan\beta \gtrsim 30$.
In Figure \[fig:msq-mx\] we display our results in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. We can observe that, except for the SF+NUHM2 model, the lower bound on the first/second generation squark mass is $\sim 2$ TeV. The SF+NUHM2 model yields solutions with light squarks which satisfy the relic density and the $g-2$ constraint. For the SF+NUHM2 model the ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$ constraint (*orange* points) prefer relatively light squark masses with an upper bound of $\sim$ 2 TeV. We can see that there is a considerable region of the parameter space that is still testable at the LHC. In recent analyses from the ATLAS and CMS experiments it was found that for some specific cases the lower mass bound for the chargino can go up to 600 GeV or even up to 1 TeV [@Sirunyan:2017lae; @chargino-600]. We can see from Figure \[fig:msq-mx\] that even for the case of 1 TeV lower bound on the chargino mass, it is possible to have a squark sector that can be accessible at the LHC and, in addition, accommodate solutions for the muon $g-2$ anomaly (*orange* points) which will be tested in the upcoming Fermilab experiment.
Figure \[fig:mg-msq\] displays our results in the $M_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. The latest experimental searches for SUSY leads to a lower bound of 1.9 TeV on the gluino mass. In particular, the HL-LHC, with an anticipated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$, will be able to probe gluinos up to 2.3 TeV. We can note from these figures that there is a considerable region of the parameter space that can still be tested at the current and future colliders. [Note that on the “SPLIT FAMILY NUGM" panel there are plenty of solutions that satisfy the $g-2$ constraint (*orange points*) under the brown points. Essentially, for the entire brown region in this panel there are points available to accommodate the muon $g-2$ current discrepancy.]{}
In Figure \[fig:ma-mx\] we display our results in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ and $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ planes. For the CMSSM we can note the presence of the A resonance channel $m_A \backsimeq 2 m_{\chi^0_1}$ to yield the desired relic abundance. There are, however, other coannihilation channels that are clearly contributing in yielding the desired relic abundance. A detailed study of the nature of dark matter in these models will be performed in a follow up paper. We can also note from the figures that the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass can be as light 500 GeV, which is within the reach of the HL-LHC.
In Figure \[fig:mch-msmu\] we display our results in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. The split family models allow for a light ${\tilde{\mu}_L}$ consistent with the desired relic abundance and ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$. For the SF+NUHM2 model we find $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}\gtrsim$ 600 GeV and for the SF+NUGM model it can be as light as $\sim$ 300 GeV. In addition, as described above, we can see from the *orange* points in the figure that the smuons have to be light in order to make a sizable contribution to ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$.
In Figure \[fig:mst-mstau\] we display our results in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. We can see that for each model the stau can be very light. In particular for the NUGM and SF+NUGM models the stau can be as light as 100 GeV. In addition, the light stau is also consistent with acceptable relic abundance and for the SF+NUGM model is also consistent with good ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$.
In Figure \[fig:si-mx\] we examine the prospects of direct detection of neutralino dark matter in our analysis in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. The two anomalous signals DAMA/LIBRA [@Savage:2008er] and CDMS-Si [@Agnese:2013rvf] are shown in the upper left corner of the plot. In addition, we display the XENON100 [@Aprile:2016swn] and the LUX2016 bound [@Akerib:2016vxi] (solid lines). The future projected reaches of XENON1T [@Aprile:2015uzo], LZ (with 1 keV cutoff) [@Akerib:2015cja], XENONnT [@Aprile:2015uzo] and DARWIN [@Aalbers:2016jon] are shown as dashed lines. We can observe that the parameter space of all of these models can be probed by direct detection experiments as well. Except for the SF-NUGM model, a notable region of the parameter space of all the models is already excluded by the LUX experiment whereas a significant region is accessible to the XENON1T, LZ, XENONnT and DARWIN experiments. Most of the parameter space of the SF-NUGM model will be accessible to the XENON1T, LZ, XENONnT and DARWIN experiments. There is also a significant region of the parameter space of all the models (except SF-NUGM) with considerably low cross sections which is not accessible to any of the projected sensitivities.
The spin dependent neutralino cross section is displayed in Figure \[fig:sd-mx\] in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. The recent limits from Antares [@Adrian-Martinez:2016gti] and IceCube [@Aartsen:2016exj] are shown as solid lines. We can see that the parameter space of all the models is barely accessible to these experiments. The dashed lines show the projected reach of the LZ [@Akerib:2015cja], XENON1T [@Aalbers:2016jon], Pico-500 [@ckrauss] and the DARWIN [@Aalbers:2016jon] experiments. We can see that the parameter space of all of these models is accessible to these future experiments. There is, however, a significant region of the parameter space of all the models, with low cross section, which is well beyond the search limit of all of these experiments.
Conclusion {#sec:conclude}
==========
We presented a status update on various models of supersymmetry in light of latest constraints from the LHC and direct detection experiments. We showed that a considerable region of the parameter space of SUSY is still accessible to these experiments and continued experimental search is crucial. We also showed that a notable region of the parameter space of all of the analyzed models yields the desired relic abundance and is accessible to future direct detection experiments. Furthermore, we found solutions in the parameter space of the split family models that are consistent with the ${\ensuremath{(g-2)_{\mu}}}$ constraint.
Acknowledgments
===============
Work of IG is supported in part by Bartol Research Institute.
[99]{} See, for instance, G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. [**267**]{}, 195 (1996).
ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-022; CMS Collaboration, CMS-SUS-16-036. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-039; CMS Collaboration, CMS-16-034. ATLAS Collboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-020; CMS Collboration, CMS-SUS-16-051 and CMS-SUS-16-049.
ATLAS Collboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-017. See, [*e.g.*]{} ATLAS Phys. PUB 2013-011; CMS Note-13-002. Y. Gershtein [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1311.0299 \[hep-ex\].
`https://twiki/cern.ch/bin/view/AtlasPublic/UpgradePhysicsStudies`
See, for instance, A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, 075015 (2017); H. Baer, V. Barger, J. S. Gainer, H. Serce and X. Tata, arXiv:1708.09054 \[hep-ph\]; K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and A. J. Williams, JHEP [**1506**]{}, 020 (2015); C. Han, K. i. Hikasa, L. Wu, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**769**]{}, 470 (2017); W. Ahmed, X. J. Bi, T. Li, J. S. Niu, S. Raza, Q. F. Xiang and P. F. Yin, arXiv:1709.06371 \[hep-ph\]; J. Chakrabortty, A. Choudhury and S. Mondal, JHEP [**1507**]{}, 038 (2015); J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, JHEP [**1708**]{}, 072 (2017); J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 5, 055019 (2016).
M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1515 (2011) \[Erratum-ibid. C [**72**]{}, 1874 (2012)\]; K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, J. Phys. G [**38**]{}, 085003 (2011).
M. A. Ajaib, I. Gogoladze, Q. Shafi and C. S. Un, JHEP [**1405**]{}, 079 (2014). T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 6565 (1996) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**56**]{}, 4424 (1997)\];
S. P. Martin and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 035003 (2001); G. F. Giudice, P. Paradisi and A. Strumia, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 186 (2012). F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata, hep-ph/0312045. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**180**]{}, 747 (2009).
J.L. Leva, Math. Softw. 18 (1992) 449; J.L. Leva, Math. Softw. 18 (1992) 454.
M. Adeel Ajaib, I. Gogoladze and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 9, 095005 (2015).
G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 6173 (1994); J. Ellis, J. L. Evans, A. Mustafayev, N. Nagata and K. A. Olive, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 11, 592 (2016) and references therein.
A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 970 (1982); R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B [**119**]{}, 343 (1982); L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 2359 (1983); N. Ohta, Prog. Theor. Phys. 70 (1983) 542.
S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 015006 (2003); B. Ananthanarayan and P. N. Pandita, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**22**]{}, 3229 (2007). I. Gogoladze, R. Khalid, N. Okada and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 095022 (2009); H. Baer, I. Gogoladze, A. Mustafayev, S. Raza and Q. Shafi, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 047 (2012).
J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, Phys. Lett. B [**539**]{}, 107 (2002); J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, Nucl. Phys. B [**652**]{}, 259 (2003); H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and X. Tata, JHEP [**0507**]{}, 065 (2005).
K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, S. Raza and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 5, 056001 (2014).
B. Ananthanarayan, P. N. Pandita, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A22**]{}, 3229-3259 (2007); S. Bhattacharya, A. Datta and B. Mukhopadhyaya, JHEP [**0710**]{}, 080 (2007); S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. [**D79**]{}, 095019 (2009); J. Chakrabortty and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Lett. B [**673**]{}, 57 (2009); J. Chakrabortty, S. Mohanty and S. Rao, JHEP [**1402**]{}, 074 (2014).
S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 3, 035011 (2014).
A. Anandakrishnan and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 211801 (2013); B. Zhu, R. Ding and T. Li, arXiv:1701.05511 \[hep-ph\]. K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, Q. Shafi and C. S. Un, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 11, 116002 (2014). See, for instance, I. Gogoladze, F. Nasir and Q. Shafi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 1350046 (2013): I. Gogoladze, F. Nasir and Q. Shafi, JHEP [**1311**]{}, 173 (2013); Z. Kang, J. Li and T. Li, JHEP [**1211**]{}, 024 (2012); A. Cici, Z. Kirca and C. S. Un, arXiv:1611.05270 \[hep-ph\]. H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and A. Mustafayev, JHEP [**0406**]{}, 044 (2004).
\[Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF Collaboration and D0 Collab\], arXiv:0903.2503 \[hep-ex\].
M. Badziak, Z. Lalak, M. Lewicki, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP [**1503**]{}, 003 (2015); F. Wang, W. Wang and J. M. Yang, JHEP [**1506**]{}, 079 (2015). A. M. Sirunyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], arXiv:1709.05406 \[hep-ex\]. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-039; CMS Collaboration, CMS-16-034.
\[Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and CDF Collaboration and D0 Collab\], arXiv:0903.2503 \[hep-ex\].
M. Badziak, Z. Lalak, M. Lewicki, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP [**1503**]{}, 003 (2015) \[arXiv:1411.1450 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[XENON100 Collaboration\], arXiv:1609.06154 \[astro-ph.CO\]. C. Savage, G. Gelmini, P. Gondolo and K. Freese, JCAP [**0904**]{}, 010 (2009) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2009/04/010 \[arXiv:0808.3607 \[astro-ph\]\]. R. Agnese [*et al.*]{} \[CDMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, no. 25, 251301 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.251301 \[arXiv:1304.4279 \[hep-ex\]\]. D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1608.07648 \[astro-ph.CO\]. D. S. Akerib [*et al.*]{} \[LZ Collaboration\], arXiv:1509.02910 \[physics.ins-det\].
E. Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[XENON Collaboration\], JCAP [**1604**]{} (2016) no.04, 027 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/027 \[arXiv:1512.07501 \[physics.ins-det\]\].
J. Aalbers [*et al.*]{} \[DARWIN Collaboration\], arXiv:1606.07001 \[astro-ph.IM\]. S. Adrian-Martinez [*et al.*]{} \[ANTARES Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**759**]{} (2016) 69 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.019 \[arXiv:1603.02228 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. G. Aartsen [*et al.*]{} \[IceCube Collaboration\], JCAP [**1604**]{} (2016) no.04, 022 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/022 \[arXiv:1601.00653 \[hep-ph\]\]. Talk by C. Krauss for the Pico collaboration, ICHEP 2016 meeting, Chicago, IL, August 2016.
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-su5/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-nugm/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $m_0$ plane for the models described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Gray* points in all the figures represent raw data. *Green* points form a subset of the *gray* points and satisfy the sparticle mass constraints and B-physics constraints described in Section \[sec:parameter\]. *Brown* points form a subset of the *green* points and satisfy $0.001 \le \Omega h^2 \le 1 $. *Orange* points are subset of the green points and satisfy the muon $g-2$ constraint described in Section \[sec:parameter\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-m0"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mhf-m0.jpg "fig:"){width="7.5cm" height="5.5cm"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-su5/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-nugm/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mhf-mu"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mhf-mu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-su5/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-nugm/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_{1/2}$ vs. $\tan\beta$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\]. []{data-label="fig:mhf-tanb"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mhf-tanb.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-cmssm/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-su5/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-nugm/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{q}}$ vs. $M_{{\widetilde{\chi}}_1^{\pm}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:msq-mx"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-msq-mch.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-su5/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-nugm/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{q}}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mg-msq"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mg-msq.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-cmssm/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-su5/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-nugm/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_A$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:ma-mx"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-ma-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-su5/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-nugm/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-mx"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mch-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-su5/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-nugm/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\mu}_L}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mch-msmu"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mch-msmu.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-cmssm/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-su5/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-nugm/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:mst-mstau"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-mst-mstau.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-cmssm/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-su5/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-nugm/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SI}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:si-mx"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-si-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} CMSSM ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-cmssm/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-nuhm2/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SU(5) ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-su5/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-splitf-nuhm2/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} NUGM+NUHM2 ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-nugm/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.49]{} SPLIT FAMILY NUGM ![Plots in the $\sigma_{SD}$ vs. $M_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ plane. Color coding is the same as in Figure \[fig:mhf-m0\].[]{data-label="fig:sd-mx"}](plots-splitf-nugm/plot-sd-mx.jpg "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]\
On leave of absence from: Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, 0177 Tbilisi, Georgia.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Wang'
- 'D. Han,'
- 'Y. Wang'
bibliography:
- './ref.bib'
title: 'Improving the time resolution of the MRPC detector using deep-learning algorithms'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The multi-gap resistive plate chamber (MRPC) is a gaseous detector with parallel gap structures and has a really good time resolution. Over the years, it has already been used in many large physics experiments [@abelev_performance_2014; @ackermann_star_2003; @salabura_probing_2005; @besiii_collaboration_construction_2009] and mostly as the Time-of-Flight (ToF) system. In the Jefferson National Lab (JLab), the Solenoidal Large Intensity Device (SoLID) plans to use the MRPCs as the ToF to perform the particle identification together with its heavy gas cerenkov detector. Since the beam energy is upgraded to 12 GeV, the $\pi$ and $K$ generated in the experiment are supposed to have momentum up to 7 GeV. Considering the flight distance of these particles, the ToF system should have a time resolution better than 20 ps so as to achieve a 3$\sigma$ separation of $\pi/K$ [@solid_collaboration_solid_2017]. However, the typical time resolution of the MRPC detectors currently used in large physics experiments is over 50 ps [@akindinov_final_2009; @bonner_single_2003], which is far from satisfactory for the SoLID. Therefore improving the time resolution of the detector system is one of the most important goals for its future development.
For the present MRPC detector system, the time uncertainty comes from 3 parts: detector, front-end electronics (FEE) and the readout system. To achieve the goal of 20 ps, we expect the contribution of the time resolution from the detector to be below 15 ps, and the contribution from the FEE and the read out system to be around 10$\sim$15 ps. According to a previous study on the intrinsic time resolution of the MRPC [@wang_detailed_2020], a detector with a time resolution of 15 ps can only be achieved when the gap thickness is below 0.16 mm and the number of gaps exceeds 20. In this work, two identical new thin-gap MRPCs are designed and produced. Each of them has 4 stacks and 8 gaps per stack, while the gap thickness is only 0.104 mm. These two detectors are amplified by a high performance FEE. The output of the electronics is the analog signal waveform of the detector which is then readout by a waveform digitizer. Comparing to the old electronics and the time-to-digital converter (TDC), the new system provides far more information about the induced signal and has a smaller time uncertainty.
Based on the new system, we proposed a time reconstruction algorithm using deep learning and neural networks. A combined long short term memory (ComLSTM) network which is an extension of our previous work [@wang_study_2020; @wang_neural_2019] is designed and implemented to improve the MRPC time resolution from the perspective of the software. The simulation data used to train the network are optimized so that the most useful information is passed into the network and extracted by it. The time resolution of the MRPC given by the ComLSTM is 16.8 ps, which largely improves the timing ability of the MRPC detector and well satisfy the requirement of SoLID. ComLSTM can also be trained with the experiment data. In this work, two sets of the network methods based entirely on the experiment data are presented and their results are also at the scale of 20 ps.
The time reconstruction algorithm and the ComLSTM network {#sec:meth}
=========================================================
Deep neural networks have been proved to be powerful tools for solving highly non-linear pattern recognition problems. These kinds of algorithms have undergone tremendous innovations in the past 10 years and have already received wide attentions from the field of particle physics [@collaboration_neural_2014; @aurisano_convolutional_2016]. Prior work that utilized the simple fully-connected (FC) or long short term memory (LSTM) network to reconstruct MRPC detection time has shown promising results, and therefore they are extended and improved in this work [@wang_study_2020; @wang_neural_2019].
LSTM is a special kind of recurrent neural network (RNN) that can effectively solve long sequential problems. An LSTM structure usually consists of many basic units, which are formed by a cell state, a hidden state and three different gates that control the relationship among the input, two states and the output. More details of the basic LSTM unit can be found in Ref [@wang_study_2020]. The ComLSTM (Combined LSTM) neural network proposed in this work combines the advantages of both the LSTM and FC. Its structure is shown in Figure \[fig:comLSTM\]. The input $[x_1,x_2,...,x_n]$ is transmitted into two separate paths. Path $A$ connects an LSTM-420 and 3 fully connected layers with 128, 32 and 1 nodes respectively, while path $B$ is transmitted firstly into a fully connected layer with 100 nodes, then an LSTM-400 and finally a single FC layer with only 1 node. LSTM-$n$ represents a simple LSTM network, where the number of the time step is consistent with the dimension of its input vector, and at each time step there are $n$ basic units. The outputs of path $A$ and path $B$ are added together and weighted by two different coefficients $r_1$ and $r_2$ to adjust their importance for the final output. The activation functions for all the FC layers in ComLSTM is Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) and the probability of dropout for regularization is 0.8. The loss function is the mean squared error between the true and estimated output of the network.
![\[fig:comLSTM\] The structure of the ComLSTM network.](ComLSTM){width=".8\textwidth"}
In the upgraded system of the SoLID MRPC, signals are readout as waveforms. If the incident particle arrives at the MRPC detector and interacts with the gas at time $t_0$, and the readout signal reaches the peak at $t_m$, then the rising time of the MRPC signal can be defined as $t_r=t_m-t_0$. The ComLSTM network works in the supervised manner. It takes several uniformly distributed points on the leading edge of the sampled signal as the input, and then extracts their embedding features and outputs the corresponding rising time $t_r$. Before feeding the data into the network, a peak searching algorithm should be applied to find $t_m$. The training data of the network is from a Monte Carlo simulation of the detector working in the same condition as the experiment using the framework developed in our group [@wang_standalone_2018], because the true $t_0$ and thus $t_r$ is known in the simulation. The network is tested with the experiment data. If the simulation signals are consistent with the experiment, then the information extracted from the simulation is useful for reconstructing the time for the experiment and thus an accurate estimation of $t_r$ which also means $t_0$ ($=t_r-t_m$) can be obtained.
Results {#sec:res}
=======
Experiment {#sec:exper}
----------
To achieve the goal of 20 ps time resolution and prove the effectiveness of the ComLSTM, two identical MRPCs are produced and tested with the cosmic rays. Each of these MRPCs has 4 stacks and 8 0.104 mm gaps per stack. The resistive plates are made of the floating glass with a thickness of 0.5 mm, and the read out strips on the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) are 7 mm wide (3 mm interval).
![\[fig:setup\] The setup of the cosmic ray experiment.](JLABsetup-english.jpeg){width=".48\textwidth"}
The setup of the cosmic ray experiment is shown in Figure \[fig:setup\]. Two MRPCs are placed one on top of the other, and they are read out from both sides of the PCB strip. The coincident events of two scintillators above and below the MRPCs provide triggers for the system. The induced differential signals of MRPCs are amplified by a high performance front-end electronics (FEE) with a bandwidth of 1.3 GHz and read out by a Lecroy HDO6104A oscilloscope which has a bandwidth of 1 GHz and a sampling rate of up to 10 Gs/s. The rising time of a typical MRPC signal collected in the oscilloscope is around 1 ns and around 10 sample points are recorded on the leading edge.
Data processing {#sec:data}
---------------
Due to the channel limitation of the oscilloscope, only 1 strip (left+right) per MRPC can be recorded. Therefore, events with a signal-to-noise ratio of less than 20 are discarded to ensure that the incident position of the selected particle is in the readout strip area. Vertical selection that controls the signal peak time difference of two MRPCs on the left (right) strip is also made to filter out the non-vertical cosmic rays.
As the neural network is trained with simulation data and tested with the experiment, the consistency of these two datasets is crucial to the success of the algorithm. In the simulation, parameters of the FEE relates much to the shape of the signal and are adjusted according to the experiment. In order to quantitatively evaluate the differences between the simulation and the experiment, the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence which is originally used to describe the differences between two probability distributions $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ is introduced. For discrete variables, it can be defined as: $$\label{eq:dpq}
D(p,q)= \sum_{x\in X}{p(x)\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}}$$
The non-negative KL divergence $D(p,q)$ represents the information lost when using an approximating distribution $q(x)$ to estimate the true distribution $p(x)$. The greater the differences between $p$ and $q$, the greater the $D(p,q)$, and $D(p,q)=0$ if and only if $p(x)=q(x)$. In the case of MRPC, as the signals of both the experiment and simulation are digitized by a digitizer with a sampling rate of 10 Gs/s, then around 10 points are recorded on the leading edge. If the peak point on every signal is defined as point 10, and the points before it is defined in order as points 9,8...,1, then the amplitude distribution of every point along the leading edge is regarded as $p_i(x)$ (i=1,2...10), while the amplitude distribution of the corresponding point on the simulation signal is $q_i(x)$. The detector is simulated over 100 times with different sets of the FEE parameters, and if the $D_i^k(p_i,q_i^k)$ is defined to be the KL divergence for point $i$ in simulation dataset $k$, then the KL divergence between the experiment and this simulation is: $$\label{eq:avedpq}
D^{k}(p,q)= \frac{1}{10}\sum_{i=1}^{10}{D_i^k(p_i,q_i^k)}$$ The ComLSTM neural network is trained separately with these simulation datasets. The input of the network is 10 uniformly distributed points on the leading edge, numbered from 1 to 10. The initial learning rate is 0.001 and decreases during the training. All the networks are converged after about 100-200 epochs, and the models are used to predict the rising time of the waveforms collected on the left and right sides of the upper and lower MRPCs, which are $t_{l1}$, $t_{r1}$, $t_{l2}$, $t_{r2}$. To evaluate the time resolution, the time difference between the two MRPCs is defined as: $$\label{eq:deltat}
\Delta t=\frac{t_{l1}+t_{r1}}{2}-\frac{t_{l2}+t_{r2}}{2}$$ Since two MRPCs are produced and work independently, the time resolution of the detector is: $$\label{eq:sigmat}
\sigma_t=\frac{\sigma(\Delta t)}{\sqrt{2}}$$
Figure \[fig:kl\] shows the relationship between the KL divergence and the time resolution for different simulation datasets when MRPCs work at 156 kV/cm. It is clear that the resolution increases almost linearly with the KL divergence, which means if the correlation between the experiment and the simulation used to trained the network is stronger, the performance of the neural network will become better. KL divergence is a good measurement of the waveform similarity, and therefore the parameters of the simulation with a KL divergence of only 0.39 is chosen to generate the training data for all the network in the following parts.
![\[fig:kl\] The relationship between the time resolution and the KL divergence.](klscatter.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"}
Detector performance {#sec:perform}
--------------------
MRPCs in the experiments are tested at different electric field and their timing performances are analyzed with both the ComLSTM neural network and the traditional threshold based method.
The black markers and curves in Figure \[fig:withE\] shows the results given by the threshold method. The sampled signals collected from the left and right sides of the PCB strips on both MRPCs are fit with a 5th polynominal function separately and discriminated by a fixed threshold of 20 fC. Four threshold crossing time $t_{l1}^c$, $t_{r1}^c$, $t_{l2}^c$ and $t_{r2}^c$ are thus obtained. Slewing correction that eliminates the dependence between threshold crossing time and signal amplitude is made. In this case, the time difference between two MRPCs $\Delta t_c$ is calculated according to Eq.\[eq:deltat\] and corrected with the amplitude of them iteratively. The distribution of $\Delta t_{c}$ after the correction is fit using a gaussian function and the standard deviation over $\sqrt{2}$ is regarded as the time resolution of this method. The time resolution gets improved with respect to the electric field and the best result is around 21.1 ps.
The training data of the ComLSTM is optimized as shown in Section \[sec:data\], and the parameters of the FEE are used to simulate the detector working at different electric fields. The rising time $t_r$ of the left and right signals of both the MRPCs are predicted separately by the converged model and are transformed into the first interaction time $t_0$. According to Eq.\[eq:deltat\], the difference of the first interaction time between two MRPCs $\Delta t$ is calculated and its distribution at $E=156$ kV/cm is shown in Figure \[fig:deltadistri\], where the red curve is a 3$\sigma$ gaussian fit. The time resolution at this condition is $\sigma(\Delta t)/\sqrt{2}=16.84$ ps which well satisfies the requirement of the SoLID experiment. The resolutions given by the ComLSTM at other electric field are shown in Figure \[fig:withE\] with the red markers and curve. The tendency is consistent with the threshold method but the performance is much better.
[0.48]{} ![The time resolution of the MRPC.[]{data-label="fig:timereso"}](V6500dis3TimeResidual30000para161 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.48]{} ![The time resolution of the MRPC.[]{data-label="fig:timereso"}](timereso.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
Discussion {#sec:dis}
==========
The ComLSTM neural networks in the previous sections are trained using Monte Carlo simulation data. The advantage of the simulation is that the real time when the particles arrive at the detector is known, so there is a clear correlation between the input (waveform) and the output (rising time) of the network. Models established in this way can be an effective estimator when the simulation data are highly consistent with the experiment. However, this consistency relies not only on an accurate simulation software, but also on a fine calibration of the electronics parameters, which might be time consuming. To avoid the consistency problem, neural network algorithms that based only on the experiment data are also proposed.
In the experiment data, although the true interaction time of every signal is unknown, the time difference between two MRPCs is always constant for any test configuration and vertical particles, and therefore it is used as the labels of the network. The true value of the time difference is defined in two ways: the time in which a vertical incident particle travels through two MRPC at the speed of light $\Delta t_{et1}$, and the time difference of MRPCs reconstructed by the threshold method $\Delta t_{et2}$. The input of the network for every event is a collection of 4 waveforms (left and right of both MRPCS) and their corresponding reference time. The network has the same structure as Figure \[fig:comLSTM\]. In path $A$ of the ComLSTM, the number of time step of LSTM-420 is 4 which corresponds to 4 different waveforms and the dimension of the input in every time step is 11 which consists of 10 points on the leading edge and a reference time. Path $B$ is the same as Section \[sec:meth\]. Ideally, $\Delta t_{et1}$ and $\Delta t_{et2}$ should be uniformly distributed within a certain range, which means the distance between two MRPCS is uniformly distributed. However, it is hard to achieve in the experiment. The real cosmic ray tests contain 4 different configurations: MRPCs are placed closely together, or with a spacer in between. The height of the spacer is chosen to be 1, 2, and 4 cm.
[0.48]{} ![The distribution of the time difference predicted by ComLSTM networks with labels defined as $\Delta t_{et1}$ (a) and $\Delta t_{et2}$ (b).[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](LSTMmodelsdistance5 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.48]{} ![The distribution of the time difference predicted by ComLSTM networks with labels defined as $\Delta t_{et1}$ (a) and $\Delta t_{et2}$ (b).[]{data-label="fig:exp"}](LSTMmodelsdistance6 "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
The experiment data are divided into 2 parts, one for training and the other for testing. Training data are augmented 3 times using label preserving transformations such as choosing the waveforms from the 0th or 2nd point other than the 1st one. Two ComLSTM networks are trained using different labels $\Delta t_{et1}$ and $\Delta t_{et2}$, and finally both of them converge. The testing data are then feed into the network models, and the predicted distributions of the time difference are shown in Figure \[fig:exp\], where Figure \[fig:exper1\] is $\Delta t_{et1}$ and Figure \[fig:exper2\] is $\Delta t_{et2}$. The distributions are also fit with gaussian functions and according to Eq.\[eq:sigmat\], the time resolutions of these two networks are 19.71 ps and 23.62 ps respectively. Both of the results are worse than the simulation based one, because their labels are not as accurate as the simulation. The accuracy of $\Delta t_{et1}$ depends partly on the selection of the vertical incidents, while $\Delta t_{et2}$ largely depends on the accuracy of the threshold method, which means the correlations between the network input (waveforms) and output (time difference) in these two algorithms are less relevant and the features extracted are thus less effective. However, despite of these problems, their resolutions are still at the scale of 20 ps.
Conclusion {#sec:con}
==========
A set of ComLSTM neural networks are proposed and applied to reconstruct the detection time of the MRPC detectors. ComLSTM combines the LSTM and FC neural network and is capable of extracting detailed information from the MRPC signal waveform. The network can be trained with the data from both the Monte carlo simulation and the cosmic ray experiment, while all the results are given using the experiment data. The best time resolution achieved with a thin-gap MRPC which has 4 stacks and 8 gaps per stack is 16.84 ps, much better than the present MRPCs. This result well satisfies the requirements of SoLID experiment and proves the effectiveness and stability of the deep neural network algorithms.
The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11420101004, 11461141011, 11275108, 11735009. This work is also supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant No. 2015CB856905, 2016 YFA0400100.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study possible crossing of the phantom divided barrier in a Lorentz invariance violating dark energy model. Lorentz invariance violation which is achieved by introducing a vector field in the action, incorporates directly in the dynamics of the scalar field and equation of state. This interesting feature allows us to study phantom divided barrier crossing in the context of Lorentz invariance violation. We show that for suitable choice of parameter space, equation of state can cross phantom divided barrier just by one scalar field and Lorentz violating vector field controls this crossing.\
[**PACS**]{}: 95.36.+x; 98.80.Cq; 98.80.-k\
[**Key Words**]{}: Dark Energy Models, Scaler-Vector-Tensor Theories, Phantom Divided Barrier
---
0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 0 mm 160 mm .65 cm
\
and\
Motivation
==========
Recently, Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) has been studied in the context of scalar-vector-tensor theories\[1\]. It has been shown that Lorentz violating vector fields affect the dynamics of the inflationary models. One of the interesting feature of this scenario is that the exact Lorentz violating inflationary solutions are related to the absence of the inflaton potential. In this case, the inflation is completely associated with the Lorentz violation and depends on the value of the coupling parameter\[2\]. Standard cosmology with a pressureless fluid as matter content of the universe, predicts a universe either expanding forever or re-collapsing eventually depending on the spatial geometry. Recent evidences from supernova searches data \[3,4\], cosmic microwave background (CMB) results \[5, 6, 7\] and also Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data \[8, 9\], indicate an accelerating phase of cosmological expansion today and this feature shows that the simple picture of universe consisting of pressureless fluid is not enough; the universe may contain some sort of additional negative-pressure dark energy. Analysis of the three year WMAP data \[10,11,12\] shows that there is no indication for any significant deviations from Gaussianity and adiabaticity of the CMB power spectrum and therefore suggests that the universe is spatially flat to within the limits of observational accuracy. Further, the combined analysis of the three-year WMAP data with the supernova Legacy survey (SNLS)\[10\], constrains the equation of state $w_{de}$, corresponding to almost ${74\%}$ contribution of dark energy in the currently accelerating universe, to be very close to that of the cosmological constant value. Moreover, observations appear to favour a dark energy equation of state, $w_{de}<-1$ \[13\]. Therefore a viable cosmological model should admit a dynamical equation of state that might have crossed the value $w_{de}= -1$, in the recent epoch of cosmological evolution. Various aspects of this crossing has been studied extensively ( see for instance \[14\] and reference therein). However, possible impact between LIV and phantom divided barrier crossing has not been studied yet. Since there are some traces of Lorentz invariance violation in high-energy regime \[15,16\], it is interesting to study possible implication of this symmetry breaking on the dynamics of equation of state and especially crossing of the phantom divide barrier. The purpose of this letter is to take a small step in this direction.
A Lorentz Violating Cosmology
=============================
In this section, following \[1,2\], we summarize the cosmological dynamics of Lorentz invariance violating fields. Our goal is to find a relation between Lorentz Invariance violation parameter and dynamics of scalar field. This relation will affect the equation of state of scalar field which is the central object of subsequent sections.\
We start with the following action for a typical scalar-vector-tensor theory which admits Lorentz invariance violation $$\begin{aligned}
S&=& S_g + S_u + S_{\phi} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the actions for the tensor field $S_g$, the vector field $S_u$, and the scalar field $S_{\phi}$ are defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
S_g &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}~ {1\over 16\pi G}R \ ,
\\
S_u &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[
- \beta_1 \nabla^\mu u^\nu \nabla_\mu u_\nu
-\beta_2 \nabla^\mu u^\nu \nabla_\nu u_\mu -\beta_3 \left( \nabla_\mu u^\mu \right)^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left.
-\beta_4 u^\mu u^\nu \nabla_\mu u^\alpha \nabla_\nu u_\alpha
+ \lambda \left( u^\mu u_\mu +1 \right) \right] \ ,
\label{eq:act-VT} \\
S_{\phi} &=& \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}~ {\cal{L}}_{\phi} \ .
\end{aligned}$$ This action is allowed to contain any non-gravitational degrees of freedom in the framework of Lorentz violating scalar-tensor-vector theory of gravity. As usual, we assume $u^\mu u_\mu = -1$ and that the expectation value of vector field $u^\mu$ is $<0| u^\mu u_\mu
|0> = -1$\[17\]. $\beta_i(\phi)$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are arbitrary parameters with dimension of mass squared and ${\cal{L}}_{\phi}$ is the Lagrangian density for scalar field. Note that $\sqrt{\beta_{i}}$ are mass scale of Lorentz symmetry breakdown\[1,17\]. The detailed cosmological consequences of this action are studied in Ref.\[1\].
Assuming a homogeneous and isotropic universe, we describe the universe with the following metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 = - {\mathcal{N}}^2 (t) dt^2 + e^{2\alpha(t)} \delta_{ij} dx^i
dx^j \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{N}}$ is a lapse function and the scale of the universe is determined by $\alpha$\[1,2\]. By variation of the action with respect to metric and choosing a suitable gauge, one obtains the following field equations $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}g_{\mu\nu}R = 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{\mu\nu} =T_{\mu\nu}^{(u)} + T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi)}$ is the total energy-momentum tensor, $T_{\mu\nu}^{(u)}$ and $T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi)}$ are the energy-momentum tensors of vector and scalar fields, respectively. The time and space components of the total energy-momentum tensor are given by\[2\] $$\begin{aligned}
T^{0}_{0} = - \rho_u -\rho_{\phi} \ , \qquad T^{i}_i = p_u+ p_{\phi} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the energy density and pressure of the vector field are calculated as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&& \rho_u = -3\beta H^2 \ ,
\\
&&p_u = \left(3 + 2{H^{\prime}\over H} + 2{\beta^{\prime}\over \beta} \right)\beta H^2 \ ,
\\
&& \beta \equiv \beta_1 +3 \beta_2 + \beta_3 \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ a prime denotes the derivative of any quantity with respect to $\alpha$ and $H\equiv d\alpha/dt=\dot{\alpha}$ is the Hubble parameter. One can see that $\beta_4$ does not contribute to the background dynamics\[1,2\]. The energy equations for the vector field $u$ and scalar field, $\phi$ are as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}^{\prime}_u + 3({\rho}_u + p_u)=+3H^2 \beta^{\prime} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\rho}^{\prime}_{\phi} + 3({\rho}_{\phi} + p_{\phi})=-3H^2 \beta^{\prime} \
,
\end{aligned}$$ respectively. So, the total energy equation in the presence of both the vector and the scalar fields reads $${\rho}^{\prime} + 3({\rho} + p)=0 \ , \quad (\rho = \rho_u + \rho_{\phi}) .$$ With these preliminaries, dynamics of the model is described by the following Friedmann equations\[1,2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\left( 1 + \frac{1}{8\pi G \beta} \right) H^2={1\over 3\beta} \rho_{\phi} \ ,
\\
\left( 1 + \frac{1}{8\pi G \beta} \right) \left( HH'+H^2\right)=-{1\over 6} \left( {\rho_{\phi}\over \beta} + {3p_{\phi}\over \beta} \right) - H^2 {\beta'\over \beta} \ .
\end{aligned}$$ In the absence of vector field, that is, when all $\beta_i =0$, one recovers the standard equations of dynamics. For the scalar sector of our model we assume the following Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{L}}_{\phi}= -{\eta\over 2}(\nabla \phi)^2 - V(\phi) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $(\nabla
\phi)^2=g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi$. Ordinary scalar fields are correspond to $\eta = 1$ while $\eta = -1$ describes phantom fields. For the homogeneous scalar field, the density $\rho_{\phi}$ and pressure $p_{\phi}$ are given as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho_{\phi} = {\eta\over 2} H^2 \phi^{\prime 2} + V(\phi) \ ,
\\
&&p_{\phi}= {\eta\over 2} H^2 \phi^{\prime 2} - V(\phi) \ .\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding equation of state parameter is $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\phi}={p_{\phi}\over \rho_{\phi}} = - \frac{1- \eta H^2
\phi^{\prime 2}/2V}{1 + \eta H^2 \phi^{\prime 2}/2V} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Now the Friedmann equation takes the following form \[2\] $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 = \frac{1}{3\bar{\beta}} \left[
\frac{\eta}{2} H^2 \phi^{\prime 2} + V(\phi) \right] ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\beta}=\beta+\frac{1}{8\pi G}$. Using this equation we can show that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{\prime} &=&-2\eta \bar{\beta}\left(\frac{H_{,\phi}}{H} +
\frac{\bar{\beta}_{,\phi}}{\bar{\beta}} \right) \ .
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this equation into the Friedmann equation, the potential of the scalar field can be written as\[2\] $$\begin{aligned}
V = 3\bar{\beta} H^2 \left[ 1-{2\over 3}
\eta\bar{\beta}\left({\bar{\beta}_{,\phi}\over \bar{\beta}}
+ {H_{,\phi}\over H}\right)^2 \right] \ .\end{aligned}$$ Note that in the above equations the Hubble parameter $H$ has been expressed as a function of $\phi$, $H=H(\phi(t))$. One can show that the equation of state has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_\phi &=& -1 + {4\over 3}\eta\bar{\beta}\left(\frac{H_{,\phi}}{H} +
\frac{\bar{\beta}_{,\phi}}{\bar{\beta}} \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&=&-1 + {1\over 3}\eta \frac{\phi^{\prime 2}}{\bar{\beta}} \ .
\end{aligned}$$ Equations (21) and (23) are essential in forthcoming discussions. Note that violation of the Lorentz invariance which has been introduced by existence of a vector field in the action, now has incorporated in the dynamics of scalar field and equation of state via existence of $\bar{\beta}$. This interesting feature allows us to study phantom divided barrier crossing in the context of Lorentz invariance violation. We need to solve these two equations, (21) and (23), to find dynamics of scalar field $\phi$ and the equation of state $\omega_\phi$. This will be achieved only if the Hubble parameter $H(\phi)$ and the vector field coupling, ${\bar{\beta}}(\phi)$ are known. In which follows, our strategy is to choose some different cases of the Hubble parameter $H(\phi)$ and the vector field coupling ${\bar{\beta}}(\phi)$ and then investigating possible crossing of phantom divided barrier in this context. We concentrate on suitable domains of parameter space which admit such a crossing.
LIV and Crossing of the Phantom Divided Barrier
===============================================
To investigate phantom divided barrier crossing in this context, we have to solve equations (21) and (23) for four unknowns: $H$, $\omega_\phi$, $\bar{\beta}$, and $V$. This is impossible unless two of these unknowns be specified a priori. A large class of equations of state for scalar field has been studied in \[18\] and \[19\] and some classes of potentials allowing for the scalar field equation of state were described. Also some authors have used vector field models for coincidence of dark energy\[20,21,22,23\]. The main point of these studies which is crucial for our subsequent discussions is the fact that to have a successful model with phantom divided barrier crossing within a minimally coupled scalar field scenario, one should consider both quintessence and phantom fields. However, with non-minimally coupled scalar fields, one can achieve phantom divided barrier crossing just with one of these fields\[14\]. As we will show, in the presence of Lorentz invariance violating fields, it is possible to cross phantom divided barrier just by considering one field, i. e., quintessence field. This may reflect the fact that LIV has something to do with non-minimal coupling of scalar field and gravity. In other words, our basic action defined in equations (1) and (2) are actually minimally coupled, but our results for crossing of phantom divide barrier are very similar to non-minimal model results presented in \[14\]. So, it seems that there is a close relation between LIV and non-minimal scenario in the present context. In which follows, based on above argument, we consider just a quintessence scalar field with $\eta=1$. We study possible crossing of the phantom divided barrier in some model universes with concentration on suitable range of the parameter space.\
Case 1
------
In the first step we consider a model universe with the following simple choices $$H=H_0 \ , \qquad \bar{\beta}(\phi) = m\phi^2,$$ where $H_0$ is a positive constant. With these choices, equations (21) and (23) lead us to the following relations $$\phi(t)=\phi_0 \exp \left[-4\eta mH_0(t-t_0) \right] \ ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_\phi &=& -1 + {16\over 3} m,
\end{aligned}$$
where $\phi(t=t_0)\equiv \phi_0$ is a constant. This model shows that cosmic evolution starts from a constant value of the scale factor and then grows exponentially, $a(t)=a_0 e^{H_0(t-t_0)}$. Equation (26) shows that the equation of state $\omega_\phi$ has no dynamics since it only depends on the value of the vector field coupling parameter $m$. Since an accelerated expansion occurs for $\omega_\phi < -1/3$ \[2\], then we should have $m<1/8$ for a typical quintessence field. However, the present data of the universe seems to tell us that $\omega_\phi$ might be less than $-1$. Thus, the value of $m$ may be chosen to fit with the present observable constraint on the equation of state parameter. If we use the values of $m$ obtained in \[2\], we can calculate $\omega_\phi$ versus $m$. This is shown in figure 1.
This figure shows that for crossing of phantom divided line, $\omega_\phi=-1$, the lower value of $m$ should be negative. However this is impossible since $m$ is related to $\sqrt{\beta_{i}}$ as mass scales of Lorentz symmetry breakdown. So, in this model universe, crossing of phantom divided barrier with one scalar field is impossible. This is not surprising since equation of state in this case has no dynamics and there is no reasonable fine tuning. However it is simple to show that existence of two scalar fields, one quintessence and the other phantom field, as usual can lead to possibility of cosmological constant equation of state crossing. Note that in Ref.\[2\], the authors have found that $m$ should be restricted to interval $1/6<m<3/8$ to provide a suitable inflation model. In summary, this model universe provides no consistent scenario for a dynamical equation of state containing phantom divided barrier crossing.
Case2
-----
As a second case, we suppose $H(\phi)=H_0\phi^\xi$ and $\bar{\beta}(\phi)=m\phi^2$. With these choices, we find the following equation of state $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_\phi = -1 + {4\over 3} m (\xi + 2)^2 \ .
\end{aligned}$$ which evidently has no dynamics. The condition for acceleration of the universe, $H'/H > -1$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
m < {1\over 2\xi (\xi + 2)} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
The scalar field evolve as follows $$\phi(t)=\phi_0\left(1+{H_0\phi_0^\xi\over p}(t-t_0)\right)^{-1/\xi} \ .$$ The variation of $\omega_\phi$ versus $m$ and $\xi$ is shown in figure $2$. This figure shows that only for positive values of $m$ and all possible values of $\xi$, the equation of state satisfies the condition $\omega_{\phi} >-1$. For other positive values of $\xi$ and negative values of $m$, equation of state has a phantom divide line since $\omega_{\phi} < -1$. But we should stress that since $m$ cannot attain negative values, we must restrict $m$ to the interval $0<m<0.166$. As figure shows, with this restriction it is impossible to cross phantom divided line with one scalar field.\
In these two examples, the equation of state has no dynamics. Only with variation of parameters $m$ and $\xi$ one can formally attain a phantom divided barrier crossing. The case with a dynamical equation of state is more reasonable. Now we turn to the situation where the equation of state is dynamical. For this purpose, we generalize the vector field coupling to achieve the value of $\bar{\beta}(\phi)=m\phi^n$, for $n>2$.
Case3
------
To have a dynamical equation of state, we consider a model universe where the vector field coupling parameter is written as a power of the scalar field $$H=H_0 \ , \quad \bar{\beta}(\phi) = m\phi^n \ ,\quad n >2 \ ,$$ where $H_0$ and $n$ are constant positive parameters. Following the above procedure, the scalar field $\phi$, the vector field coupling $\bar{\beta}$ and equation of state $\omega_{\phi}$ have the following dynamics\[2\] $$\phi(t)=\frac{\phi_0}{ \left[1 + 2mnH_0(n-2)\phi_0^{n-2}(t-t_0) \right]^{1\over{n-2}}},$$ $$\bar{\beta}(t)=\frac{m\phi_0^n}{ \left[1 + 2mnH_0(n-2)\phi_0^{n-2}(t-t_0) \right]^{n\over{n-2}}},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\phi}(t) = -1 + \frac{4mn^2\phi_0^{n-2}/3}{1+2 mnH_0(n-2)\phi_0^{n-2}(t-t_0)} \ .
\end{aligned}$$ Remember that $\bar{\beta}(t)$ plays the role of Lorentz invariance violation in this setup. Equation of dynamics for $\bar{\beta}(t)$ implicitly has an important meaning: by a suitable fine tuning one can construct a Lorentz violating cosmology consistent with observational data. In another words, this setup provides an important basis for testing LIV in cosmological context.\
Although many different models can also lead to phantom divided barrier crossing, our model is special in this respect since it contains only one scalar field and the presence of Lorentz violating vector field controls the crossing. In this sense, fine tuning of parameters space based on observational data restricts the value that $\bar{\beta}(t)$ can attain. Any non-vanishing value of $\bar{\beta}$ in our model shows violation of Lorentz symmetry in this cosmological setup. If dynamics of $\bar{\beta}(t)$ which is described by equation (32) can be detected and constraint by observational data, this will be a manifestation of LIV in cosmological context. Lorentz invariance violating inflation models constraint by WMAP and other observational data my provide other test of LIV in cosmological setup. To see possible detection of Lorentz-violating field in cosmology see \[25,28,29\].
In this model, the cosmic evolution starts from a constant value of the scale factor and then grows exponentially, $a(t)=a_0
e^{H_0(t-t_0)}$, while the vector field coupling, $\bar{\beta}$, starts from a constant value of the scalar field, $m\phi_0^n$. The equation of state $\omega_\phi$ is dynamical. Figure $3$ shows the variation of the equation of state versus $m$ and $t$. This figure clearly demonstrates a crossing of the phantom divided line. We stress that such a results are essentially model dependent. In principle, these results should be translated to red-shift language which provides a better framework to compare with observational data. While this is essentially important, the purpose of this letter is to show that LIV may help us to achieve phantom divided line crossing with only one scalar field. In other words in the presence of LIV, just one scalar field is enough to achieve phantom divided barrier crossing and existence of vector field controls the situation.
A more General case
--------------------
In this section we consider a more general case where both the vector field coupling and the Hubble parameter are functions of $\phi$ defined as follows $$H=H_0\phi^{\xi} \ , \quad \bar{\beta}(\phi) = m\phi^n \ ,\quad n >2 $$ Using equation (21), for this case we obtain $$\phi \left( t \right) = \frac{1}{\Big[H_0(t-t_0)(-4\,\xi m+4\,\xi
mn+2\,{\xi}^{2}m-4 \,mn+2\,m{n}^{2})+\phi_0 \Big ] ^{
\left(\frac{1}{ n+\xi-2} \right) }}$$ and using equation (23) we find $$\omega_\phi(t)=-1+\frac{4}{3}m\phi^{n-2}(t)(\xi+n)^2$$ The condition for acceleration of the universe, that is, $H'/H >
-1$, yields $$m^2<\frac{1}{4(-1)^n\phi^{n-2}(t)(\xi+n)^2},~~~~~~ n>2 ,$$ With $\phi$ defined as (35), the equation of state takes the following form $$\omega_\phi(t)=-1+\frac{4}{3}m\frac{(\xi+n)^2}{\Bigg[H_0(t-t_0)(-4\,\xi
m+4\,\xi mn+2\,{\xi}^{2}m-4 \,mn+2\,m{n}^{2})+\phi_0 \Bigg] ^{
\left(\frac{n-2}{ n+\xi-2} \right) }},$$ which explicitly has a dynamical behavior. This model allows us to choose a suitable parameter space to cross phantom divided barrier. This parameter space should be checked by observational data to have a reasonable model. The most important aspect of the present model is the fact that in principle, LIV fields provide situation that one scalar field and another vector field together can lead us to describe phantom divided barrier crossing.
Figure $4$ shows the crossing of phantom divided barrier for a dynamical equation of state. Figure $4$ may be used to explain why we are living in an epoch of $\omega< -1$ since in late time we see that $\omega< -1$. This is the second cosmological coincidence problem. Two point should be stressed here: firstly, as figures $3$ and $4$ show, there are some sudden jumps of the equation of state. In many existing models whose equation of state can cross the phantom divided barrier, $\omega$ undulates around $-1$ randomly (\[24\] and references therein). These jumps are actually a manifestation of this undulation which may be a signature of chaotic behavior of equation of state. Secondly, as these figures show, crossing of the phantom divided barrier can occur at late-time. This fact, as second cosmological coincidence problem, needs additional fine-tuning in model parameters and trigger mechanism, for instance, can be used to alleviate this coincidence.
Conclusions
===========
As a new mechanism for crossing of phantom divided barrier by equation of state, in this paper we have incorporated a possible violation of Lorentz invariance in a cosmological setup. We have shown that by a suitable choice of parameter space, it is possible to have phantom divided barrier crossing in a Lorentz invariance violating context just by a single scalar field. This is an important result since in the absence of LIV, as previous studies have shown, it is impossible to cross phantom divided barrier by just one scalar field minimally coupled to gravity\[14,27\]. In this regard, existence of a Lorentz invariance violating vector field provides a framework for crossing phantom divided barrier with one scalar field. On the other hand, this model provides a possible framework for testing Lorentz invariance violation in a cosmological context. Using observational data and by a suitable fine tuning it is possible to construct a reliable Lorentz violating cosmological model. A similar strategy has been applied for inflation in reference\[2\]. Another aspect of our model is the fact that it contains several crossing of phantom divided barrier, a phenomena which has been seen in other scenarios\[30,31,32\]. As we have shown, the equation of state takes different form in different choices of parameter space.\
In this framework it is possible to use the “trigger mechanism” to explain dynamical equation of state. This means that we assume scalar- vector-tensor theory containing Lorentz invariance violation which acts like the hybrid inflation models. In this situation, vector and scaler field play the roles of inflaton and the “waterfall” field respectively. This conjecture is under investigation\[26\].\
[10]{} S. Kanno and J. Soda, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**74**]{} (2006) 063505 Arianto, Freddy P. Zen, Bobby E. Gunara, Triyanta and Supardi, [*JHEP*]{} [**09**]{} (2007) 048 S. Perlmutter, et al, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**517**]{} (1999) 565 A. G. Riess, et al, [*Astron. J.*]{} [**116**]{} (1998) 1009 A. D. Miller, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**524**]{} (1999) L1 P. de Bernardis, et al, [*Nature*]{} [**404**]{} (2000) 955 S. Hanany, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**545**]{} (2000) L5 D. N. Spergel, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**148**]{} (2003) 175 L. Page, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**148**]{} (2003) 233 D. N. Spergel, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**170**]{} (2007) 377 G. Hinshaw, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**170**]{} (2007) 288 L. Page, et al, [*Astrophys. J. Suppl.*]{} [**170**]{} (2007) 335 A. G. Reiss, et al, [*Astrophys. J*]{} [**607**]{} (2004) 665 ; S. W. Allen, et al, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**353**]{} (2004) 457 S. Nesseris, L. Perivolaropoulos, [*JCAP*]{} [**0701**]{} (2007) 018 G. Amelino-Camelia, et al, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**70**]{}, (2004) 107501 J. Maguijo, L. Smolin, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{} (2002) 190403 V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**39**]{} (1986) 683 P. J. Steinhardt, L. -M. Wang and I. Zlatev, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{} (1999) 123504 I. Zlatev and P. J. Steinhardt, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**459**]{} (1999) 570 H. S. Zhao, [*A. P. J. Letters*]{} [**671**]{} (2007) L1 C. G. Bohmer, [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**50**]{} (2007) 423 M. Chaves, D. Singleton, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**22**]{} (2007) 29 H. Wei, R. -G. Cai, [*JCAP*]{} [**0709**]{} (2007) 015 H. Wei, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**634**]{} (2006) 9 B. Li, D. F. Mota and J. D. Barrow, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**77**]{} (2008) 024032 S. D. Sadatian, K. Nozari, work in progress. A. Vikman, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**71**]{} (2005) 023515 M. Libanov, V. Rubakov, E. Papantonopoulos, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, [*JCAP*]{} [**0708**]{}, (2007) 010 O. Bertolami, R. Lehnert, R. Potting, A. Ribeiro, [*Phys. Rev. D* ]{} [**69**]{} (2004) 083513 B. Feng, X. -L. Wang, X. -M. Zhang, [*Phys. Lett. B* ]{} [**607**]{} (2005) 35 Y. -f. Cai, H. Li, Y. -S. Piao, X. -m. Zhang, [*Phys. Lett. B* ]{} [**646**]{} (2007) 141 P. S. Apostolopoulos and N. Tetradis, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**74**]{} (2006) 064021
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the brain, the structure of a network of neurons defines how these neurons implement the computations that underlie the mind and the behavior of animals and humans. Provided that we can describe the network of neurons as a graph, we can employ methods from graph theory to investigate its structure or use cellular automata to mathematically assess its function. Although, software for the analysis of graphs and cellular automata are widely available. Graph extraction from the image of networks of brain cells remains difficult. Nervous tissue is heterogeneous, and differences in anatomy may reflect relevant differences in function. Here we introduce a deep learning based toolbox to extracts graphs from images of brain tissue. This toolbox provides an easy-to-use framework allowing system neuroscientists to generate graphs based on images of brain tissue by combining methods from image processing, deep learning, and graph theory. The goals are to simplify the training and usage of deep learning methods for computer vision and facilitate its integration into graph extraction pipelines. In this way, the toolbox provides an alternative to the required laborious manual process of tracing, sorting and classifying. We expect to democratize the machine learning methods to a wider community of users beyond the computer vision experts and improve the time-efficiency of graph extraction from large brain image datasets, which may lead to further understanding of the human mind.'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'DeepTEGINN: Deep Learning Based Tools to Extract Graphs from Images of Neural Networks'
---
neural network, deep learning, graph, segmentation, cellular automata, in-painting
Introduction
============
One of the goals of systems neuroscience is to obtain a mechanistic model that describes and explains how network of neurons in the brain implements perception, thought, and behavior. Because structure implements function in biology, an unavoidable step towards these mechanistic models is to describe the structural connectivity of the network of neurons in the brain. Once a connectivity map (i.e., the description of the network) from a network of neurons is obtained, the it can be described as a graph or a cellular automata. This description may then be used as constraint to leverage methods from graph theory[@hassan1987review] to further analyze the network structure, or its functional complexity [@maccione2012multiscale], which could ultimately contribute in three ways. First, by moving further the understanding on how to use biological substrates for computing [@broersma2017computational; @aaser2017towards]. Second, by improving computing methods in AI by supplying biologically derived network structures that can be used as reservoir networks [@nichele2017deep]. Finally by offering an mathematical abstraction of the biological system that can be used to compare cell cultures with genetic diseases with the healthy ones [@sandvig2018neuroplasticity], providing ground for medical advancements.
Nonetheless, obtaining these matrices of structural connections between the nodes of the nervous system is a challenging and cumbersome endeavour. Especially from microscopy images (see Figure \[fig:MEA\]. Although some methods have been recently developed to automatize the process, they still rely on basic image processing steps that demand substantial time to find suitable parameters and curate the results [@dirnberger2015nefi]. Furthermore, these automatic methods are not very robust, and as an effect the gold standard approach still is to trace these connections manually.
Additionally, and unlike other biological substrates from which networks can be extracted, the brain is constituted of billions of neurons, with diversified morphology, and a few orders of magnitude higher number of connections (i.e., synapses) [@kandel2000principles]. This additional complexity implies that different nodes in a graph network should have different properties and represent different cell types or structures in the brain. Because this structural information is critical to understand the brain, it is of utmost importance that automatic tools take them into account, which is not currently available to the best of our knowledge.
Furthermore, experimental constraints (e.g., multi-electrode arrays, patching pipettes) frequently obstruct the view of part of the image (black lines in Figure \[fig:MEA\]), consequently preventing the connection of nodes that otherwise would be connected. Although these gaps can be easily handled through human intervention (i.e., by estimating the edges that connect two nodes), no simple image processing method can properly handle this problem as the data in the obstructed area is missing. To cope with this problem, one must be able to reconstruct the missing data by inferring how it would look like based on the surrounding area and what is typically known about the morphology.
Modern machine learning techniques that leverage the power of convolutional neural networks (ConvNets) may be used to automatize many of the steps mentioned before. In-painting algorithms can be used to estimate missing data caused by image obstruction, object detection algorithms can employed to locate and classify diverse structures in the brain, unsupervised segmentation algorithms can be leveraged to extract skeletonized versions of the image, just to name a few. This would allow for a comprehensive graph extraction from image in neuroscientific settings. The challenge regarding employing ConvNets is that due to its novelty and complexity, deep learning methods are not widely available to non-specialists in computer vision. Additionally, most of these methods require training, which by itself is generally poorly documented, preventing non-expert in computer vision from experimenting and benefiting from ConvNets in their neuroscientific research.
Motivated by the foregoing shortcomings, we present a deep learning based toolbox to extract graphs from images of brain tissue. This toolbox is a framework constituted by an extensible library of methods that can be integrated into a computer vision pipeline. The library is based on a combination of standard image processing algorithms available in OpenCV[@Braski2000Opencv] and SKimage [@van2014scikit], and deep learning based methods for object detection, image/line segmentation, in-painting and style transfer implemented in Pytorch [@paszke2017automatic]. Additionally, the toolbox has a graphical user interface (GUI) that simplifies the steps of assembling the graph extraction pipeline, which includes the training of the supervised machine learning algorithms.
The main contribution of this paper is to democratize deep learning based methods for computer vision to the neuroscientific community through a reusable, flexible and scalable tool. Through this toolbox, we hope to make deep learning methods more widely accessible to neuroscientists.
![Raw image example as acquired from the microscope. The black lines ending in circle are “blind-spots” created by the multi-electrode array.[]{data-label="fig:MEA"}](MEA1.jpg){width="\linewidth"}
Image acquisition
=================
The images were prepared as follows: Human cortical neural networks were differentiated and matured from iPSC-derived NSCs (ax0019, Axol bioscience), and fluorescently labelled using a two-color LIVE/DEAD viability/cytotoxicity kit (MP03224, Invitrogen). 0.8ul Ethidium homodimer-1 (2mM in DMSO/H2O 1:4) and 0,4ul Calcein AM (4mM in anhydrous DMSO) was diluted in 2ml PBS and applied to the neural networks for 15 minutes in 37C. The former produces an intense red fluorescence in dead or dying cells, while the latter produces an green fluorescence in live cells. The fluorescently labelled neural networks were imaged with a 10X objective using a automated EVOS 2 fluorescence microscope.
Each multi-electrode array (MEA) cell culture chamber was briefly sterilized using ethanol, washed with water, UV-treated over-night, and hydrophilized by application of foetal bovine serum for 30-60 minutes at room temperature. The surface was subsequently double-coated using poly-L-ornithine (0,01%) and laminin. The appropriate neuronal cell culture media were heated to 37C and used to create a single-cell suspension, from which 100.000 cells were seeded directly onto the electrode area of each MEA in a dropwise manner. For some cultures, a feeder-layer of astrocytes (5000 per MEA) was first established, upon which 50 000 neuronal cells were seeded onto. The MEA neuronal cultures were kept in a standard humidified air incubator (5% CO2, 20%O2, 37C), and 50% of the media were changed every 2-3 days. Phase contrast images were acquired at various stages of neuronal differentiation and maturation on the MEAs using the laboratory light microscope Carl Zeiss Axiovert 25 with 5 and 10X objectives.
The pipeline
============
The kernel of the toolbox is the graph extraction pipeline. It enables visualization, correction and analysis of the structures depicted in the input image. This pipeline, is constituted by an ordered sequence of methods, which will output a graph representation of the network from the input image. Additionally, some of the steps of the pipeline sequence require preparation (i.e. training). The obtained graph provides weights, edge lengths and node type, which should reflect anatomical structure.
The default pipeline combines the following steps: pre-processing, structure detection, segmentation, thinning, graph extraction, graph pruning, and training. What follows is a high-level description of the steps.
Pre-processing
--------------
Pre-processing involves doing image transformations that allows the subsequent algorithms to perform more robustly. There is a set of image processing steps that may be employed interchangeably. Most of them are standard image transformations like color space change and filtering (including sharpening and blurring), widely available through OpenCV and SKimage libraries. Additionally, deep learning based algorithms were included, namely: style transfer [@gatys2015neural] and in-painting[@liu2018image]. These two methods rely on VGG16 networks pre-trained on ImageNet dataset[@simonyan2014very] and must be further fine-tuned to properly work with the dataset from the experiments (see training). The addition of in-painting(Figure \[fig:pipeline\] D) and style transfer (Figure \[fig:pipeline\] E) enables coping with data lost caused by obstruction of the field of view during experiments, and differences in imaging settings respectively (See black marks in Figure \[fig:MEA\]).
{width="\textwidth"}
Structure detection
-------------------
In order to detect nodes that belong to different cell types, the object detection algorithm, yolov3 (You Only Look Once, version 3.0) [@redmon2018yolov3], was included in the pipeline. This method operates by detecting combinations of spatial features in the image, locating their position and area, and classifying them under a predefined category (namely: astrocytes, neurons and clusters of neurons; see Figure \[fig:pipeline\] F) with an explicit probability. This algorithm requires training, and substantial amount of data to be trained (see training). The center of these detected areas is used by later steps in the pipeline to discriminate synaptic nodes from cell body nodes.
Segmentation
------------
We provide two interchangeable avenues for segmentation. Guided watershed [@osma2007improved] and W-Net [@xia2017w]. We noticed that depending on the characteristics of input image these algorithms perform the best. The main goal of this step is to separate the structures that compose the network from everything else and compose a mask.
Thinning
--------
The next step is to skeletonize the mask so no pixel in the mask has two or more neighbor pixels that belongs to the mask and are neighbor to each other (see Figure \[fig:pipeline\] H, yellow lines). To do that, we implemented the improved Zhang-Suen Thinning algorithm [@chen2012improved]. This method was chosen because it produced less artifacts in the intersection of lines (blobs and missing pixels).
Graph extraction
----------------
Once obtained the skeletonized image we then detect the positions of nodes and the edges that connect them so we can create a graph. The graph is generated through the NetworkX [@hagberg2008exploring] library. To detect the nodes, we filter the image with series of 3x3 filters. Each filter represent one possible scenario for a node where the center pixel belongs to the filter and 1 or at least 3 other neighbours also belong to it and are not neighbours to each other. This guarantees that intersection nodes and end-of-the-line nodes are contemplated, but that points that belongs to lines are ignored.
Edges between nodes are detected by the following steps. Firstly, the skeleton is segmented in edges by removing the node pixels from the skeletonized mask, each one of these edges has its own label automatically defined as 1 to the number of available edges. Secondly, these segmented edges are dilated. Thirdly, the edges that overlap with two nodes are added to the graph as a bidirectional edge. Finally, the overlapping segmented edge is removed from the set of possible edges. The process repeats until no edges are left (see Figure \[fig:pipeline\] H blue lines).
If the Structure Detection step has been executed successfully, the nodes which are closest to the center of the regions of interest generated by the object detection algorithm will acquire the category of the identified object (eg., neuron, cluster).
This type of representation of the network in graph is analogous to a connectivity estimation, which is highly relevant in neuroscience to infer functionality. Hence the graph extraction method can contribute to connectivity analysis as performed by Maccione et al. [@maccione2012multiscale] and Ullo et al. [@10.3389/fnana.2014.00137], but without the cumbersome and time-demanding step of extracting the connectivity map manually.
Graph pruning
-------------
As the last step, it is given to the user the opportunity to edit the graph extracted by removing or adding new edges, tracing new edges between them and assigning properties to each node.
Training
--------
In order to use the methods that depend on supervised learning, the user has to provide first a set of good examples so the algorithm can be properly trained. This process is usually poorly documented and the data format that the algorithm should receive is usually obscure. We make this step explicit, by declaring exactly what should be the data format, and providing a simple interface that the users can use to generate the training data themselves and train the model.
Training in-painting
--------------------
To train the in-painting[@liu2018image] network, we need a set of ground truth images, and a set of masks that would match in shape and size the typical artifact obstructing the original image. To generate this data, we segmented the dark areas of original raw image using a simple threshold. We dilated the segmented areas with a 5x5 circular kernel to include the edges of the artifact areas. We randomly cropped the mask image in images of 256x256 pixels. The images in which 1/4th of the area was occupied by the electrode mask were selected for the mask pool. Each mask was then copied 35 times and rotated cumulatively by 10 degrees until we had 36 versions of the same mask in all orientations. To extract the ground-truth images, we cropped patches of 256x256 pixels from the original image where no pixel in the patch overlapped with the cordinates of a pixel belonging to a mask. To expand the dataset, the selected patches were flipped and rotated 90, 180 and 270 degrees.
Training object detection
-------------------------
To train the Yolov3, we defined regions of interests (ROIs) by drawing a bounding boxes from a subset of patches (100 images, randomly picked). This ROIs are constrained by the vertical and horizontal coordinates of its centroid and its height and with as ratios of the original image. Each ROI is labeled as an instance of a class of objects.
In our dataset, we defined three labeled structures: neurons, astrocytes and cluster of neurons. Only neurons and cluster of neurons were relevant for the graph extraction, thus only these two labels are displayed. The labeling of astrocytes was required to prevent falsely detecting astrocytes as neurons. Once training data is available, training follows by pointing the location of the data in the storage unit and running the training function.
Because the amount of data was limited. The network was pre-trained with the COCO dataset[@lin2014microsoft] to learn and then fine-tuned and cross-validated using the labeled images. Our implementation of Yolov3 operates by predicting 3 boxes in 2 different scales. Thus, the tensor is N x N x\[2\*(4+1+3)\], where is for the 4 bounding box offsets, 1 for objectness prediction, and 3 is for the class predictions. Furthermore we chose 6 clusters in the k-means algorithm to establish our binding box priors. In our dataset the 6 clusters were (7x9), (15x16), (22x19), (31x32), (55 x 49), (89x91).
The training progress was displayed on every set of epochs, which could defined by the user, and it could be interrupted at any time. The set of weights with the smaller error was highlighted to facilitate the use of the pipeline.
Discussion
==========
Many solutions exist to extract network graphs from images, including some generic flexible tools. But these tools assume that the network to be extracted is homogeneous (i.e., all the nodes are equal). This is a major problem in neuroscience because biological neurons form highly heterogeneous networks. In particular, the tools available cannot account for the difference between neurons and synapses as nodes. Additionally, they cannot account for differences between cell types (i.e., neurons vs. glia). This is a major source of error for describing a network. The abundance of false positives can lead to a description that is much bigger and dense, hence increasing the level of complexity which by itself increases the challenge of analysis. Our toolbox circumvent this problem by integrating machine learning methods into an easy to use pipeline to extract graphs from network of neurons. Because the algorithm detects objects by category, further developments may be implemented to extract sub-populations of neurons and include more cell types. One possible avenue is to develop a specific dataset for brain cell-type detection, which is currently unavailable in the best of our knowledge.
A second major challenge in the path of automatizing graph extraction from images of cultured cells is that these images often come with major artifacts (e.g., electrodes, pipettes, objects that obstruct the view). We eliminate these artifacts by combining in-painting techniques and style transfer through deep learning methodologies. Although not perfect, we demonstrate that both techniques can provide qualitatively satisfactory results. Allowing to reconstruct a plausible network, despite the artifact. One further point of development could be to apply techniques to improve the resolution, as it may increase the performance of in-painting and style transfer techniques.
We anticipate that this toolbox will enable neuroscientists to extract graphs from network of neurons in a more time-efficient way and consequently contribute in the pursue of the understanding of perception, intelligence and behavior.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by Norwegian Research Council SOCRATES project (grant number 270961) and received internal support as a lighthouse project in Computer Vision from the Faculty of Technology, Art and Design (TKD) at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway.
Repository {#repository .unnumbered}
==========
Code and example data can be found in the following repository: https://github.com/gmorenomello/deepteginn
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent High Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS) observations show that microquasars in high-mass systems are sources of very high energy $\gamma$-rays. A leptonic jet model for microquasar $\gamma$-ray emission is developed. Using the head-on approximation for the Compton cross section and taking into account angular effects from the star’s orbital motion, we derive expressions to calculate the spectrum of ${\gamma}$ rays when nonthermal jet electrons Compton-scatter photons of the stellar radiation field. The spectrum of Compton-scattered accretion-disk radiation is also derived by approximating the accretion disk as a point source of radiation located behind the jet. Numerical results are compared with simpler expressions obtained using $\delta$-function approximations for the cross sections, from which beaming factors are derived. Calculations are presented for power-law distributions of nonthermal electrons that are assumed to be isotropically distributed in the comoving jet frame, and applied to $\gamma$-ray observations of LS 5039. We conclude that (1) the TeV emission measured with HESS cannot result only from Compton-scattered stellar radiation (CSSR), but could be synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission or a combination of CSSR and SSC; (2) fitting both the HESS data and the EGRET data claimed to be associated with LS 5039 requires a very improbable leptonic model with a very hard electron energy distribution. Because the $\gamma$ rays would be variable in a leptonic jet model, the data sets are unlikely to be representative of a simultaneously measured $\gamma$-ray spectrum. We therefore attribute EGRET $\gamma$ rays primarily to CSSR emission, and HESS $\gamma$ rays to SSC emission. Detection of periodic modulation of the TeV emission from LS 5039 would favor a leptonic SSC or cascade hadron origin of the emission in the inner jet, whereas stochastic variability alone would support a more extended leptonic model. The puzzle of the EGRET $\gamma$ rays from LS 5039 will be quickly solved with GLAST.'
author:
- 'Charles D. Dermer & Markus Böttcher'
title: |
Gamma Rays from Compton Scattering in the Jets of Microquasars:\
Application to LS 5039
---
Introduction
============
X-ray binaries with jets, or microquasars, are common in our Galaxy, with $\approx 16$ now known [for a recent review see, e.g., @par05]. About one-third are high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs), including Cygnus X-1, Cygnus X-3, LS 5039, and LSI+61$^\circ$303, and the remainder are low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs), including GRS 1915+105, GRO J1655-40, Sco X-1, and 1E 1740.7-2942. The compact companions are a mixture of black holes and neutron stars, and the radio activity of the microquasars is about equally divided into persistent and transient behaviors.
Recent observations [@aha05] made with the High Energy Stereoscopic System (HESS) show that the high-mass microquasar LS 5039 is a source of very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$ rays in the $\approx
200$ GeV – 10 TeV range, confirming its earlier tentative identification with the EGRET source 3EG J1824-1514 [@par00]. A second high-mass microquasar system, LSI+61$^\circ$303 (V615 Cas), is associated with the COS-B source 2CG 135+01 [@her77; @gt78] and the EGRET source 3EG J0241+6103 [@kni97], but is too far north for observations with HESS. The EGRET source 3EG J1824-1514 associated with LS 5039 shows marginal evidence for variability [@tor03]. In contrast, the EGRET light curve of 3EG J0241+6103, the counterpart to LSI+61$^\circ$303, is strongly variable [@tav98]. Moreover, @mas04 performed a timing analysis of the 3EG J0241+6103 data and found a most probable period of $27.4\pm 7.2$ days, compared to its 26.5 day orbital period.
Evidence for stochastic and periodic variability of these sources at $\gamma$-ray energies would argue in favor of a leptonic microquasar jet model similar to blazar jet models [for recent reviews of microquasar models, see @rom05; @fm04], especially if the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emissions display correlated variability [@gbd05]. The importance of Compton scattering of external photons to produce gamma-rays in blazar jets was first considered by @bs87 and @mk89 and later, in view of the [*Compton Observatory*]{} discoveries, by @dsm92 and @sbr94. A microquasar jet model differs importantly from a blazar jet model through the addition of the stellar radiation field from the high-mass star and the periodic orbital modulation of the binary stellar system [@gak02; @krm02]. Although @cas05 claim low significance periodic variability when folding the HESS data for LS 5039 with its orbital period, the EGRET data showed no compelling evidence for either stochastic or periodic variability [@par00]. The X-rays from LS 5039 are, however, moderately variable. [*RXTE*]{} observations in the 3 – 30 keV range may show periodic variability correlated with the periastron passage of LS 5039, so it is unceratin whether the X-rays are associated with accretion disk or the jet [@bos05].
In addition to stellar and accretion-disk emissions, microquasar emission from the jet will produce a variable multiwavelength continuum consisting of radio/IR and jet X-ray [@mff01] synchrotron radiation. Nonthermal $\gamma$-ray emission is likely to originate from synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) [@aa99] and external Compton (EC) processes [@lb96; @gak02] by these same jet electrons. The bright high-mass star makes an important contribution to the external radiation field in HMXBs, whereas the accretion disk is the dominant external photon source in LMXBs [@gre05]. Compton-scattering leptonic jet models of the $\gamma$-ray emission from LS 5039 and LSI+61$^\circ$303 are presented by @bp04a [@bp04b].
In this paper, we perform a Compton-scattering analysis of the jet $\gamma$-ray emission from HMXB microquasars for a leptonic jet model, focusing on Compton-scattering effects from the azimuthal variations of the stellar radiation field using parameters inferred from observations [@mcs01; @cas05] of LS 5039, which has a period of $3.90603\pm 0.00017$ days. We assume that the twin jets of the microquasar are oriented normal to the orbital plane of the compact object and star; geometrical complications of precessing jets are not considered here. The orbital variations of the bright O or B stars introduce interesting kinematic variations that appear in the $\gamma$-ray emission spectrum if the $\gamma$ rays are due to stellar photons that are Compton-scattered by nonthermal jet electrons, including variations of peak $\nu F_\nu$ photon energy and inferences of the locations of the $\gamma$-ray emission site. This emission is also subject to the effects of $\gamma\gamma$ absorption [@bd05; @dub05], although this effect is not included in the calculations shown here.
Angle-dependent effects on Compton-scattered jet radiation are treated in Section 2. Approximations made in the derivation are clearly enumerated, so that they can be relaxed in more detailed numerical treatments. In particular, the analysis employs a fixed electron distribution. Spectral calculations are presented in Section 3 using parameters appropriate to LS 5039. Difficulties to fit the combined EGRET and HESS spectra of LS 5039, if assumed to be simultaneously radiated, are discussed in Section 4. Implications for establishing the nature of microquasar $\gamma$-ray emission from LS 5039 from further HESS and upcoming GLAST observations are also considered. A summary of the results is given in Section 5.
Gamma Rays from Compton-Scattered Stellar Radiation
===================================================
The geometry of the microquasar system is shown in Fig. 1. The generic system considered here is a HMXB with parameters taken from observations of LS 5039, but our results are also applicable to LMXBs when the accretion disk is approximated by a hot spot at the base of the twin jets. The star and the compact object, separated by distance $d$, are assumed to follow circular orbits around their common center of mass. Material from Roche-lobe overflow in low-mass systems, or stellar winds in high-mass systems, forms an accretion disk surrounding the compact object. As the matter accretes onto the neutron star or black hole, plasma is assumed to be ejected transverse to the orbital plane in the form of twin jets.
-0.5in
Model Assumptions
-----------------
Given that the dominant radiation mechanism for microquasar $\gamma$-ray emission is undecided, for example, whether microquasar emissions have a primary hadronic [e.g., @romero03; @aha05a] or leptonic [e.g., @brp05; @pbr05] origin, an overly complicated leptonic jet model for microquasar emission seems unjustified at this time. A number of simplifying assumptions are therefore made that can be relaxed in more detailed treatments. Specifically, we assume that
1. the jets are steady and oriented in the direction normal to the orbital plane of the binary system, with the jet electrons confined to the axis defining the jet direction;
2. the orbit is circular;
3. the star and accretion disk can be treated as point sources of radiation;
4. the nonthermal electrons are isotropically distributed in the comoving frame with a fixed energy distribution, and most of the radiation is emitted at a specified distance above the orbital plane; and
5. cascade processes can be neglected.
Assumption 1 means that we neglect additional periodicities of the jet ejection process possibly associated with periastron passage, or disk precession that could lead to additional modulation of the $\gamma$-ray signal. This latter periodicity [e.g., @krm02; @tor05] could be different from the orbital periodicity. Moreover, the jets need not be aligned normal to the orbital plane. For example, the jets in V4641 Sgr may lie within $\sim 36^\circ$ of the orbital plane [@but03]. These effects can be dealt with in the present model by treating a more complicated geometry, and X-ray and TeV observations should be cross-correlated to search for periods unrelated to orbital motions. Helical motions of jet trajectories, which may operate in black-hole jet systems [e.g., @rei04], would also require a more detailed treatment than considered here.
Regarding assumption 2, scattering kinematics for highly eccentric orbits can be developed on the basis of the treatment presented here. LS 5039 executes a moderately elliptical orbit in a system with a 22.9 $M_\odot$ star of spectral type O6.5, with eccentricity $\cong 0.35$ [@cas05]. This effect will be displayed in both the scattering kinematics [@pbr05] and $\gamma\gamma$ absorption calculations [@dub05], but does not, to first order, change the conclusions we draw by studying anisotropic Compton scattering and $\gamma\gamma$ absorption for circular orbits.
For the purposes of modeling VHE $\gamma$-rays, analysis of a microquasar system must take into account the angle-dependence of the stellar and accretion-disk radiation field both in the Thomson and Klein-Nishina (KN) regimes of scattering. Although @gkm01 provide a useful method to calculate scattered radiation spectra in the KN regime, it is applicable as presented only to surrounding isotropic radiation fields, and for jets with fixed isotropic electron distributions. @pbr05 and @brp05 also treat the anisotropy of the stellar radiation field in a simplified fashion, without fully taking into account the effects of the directional target photon field.
In this work, we treat the angular dependence of Compton-scattered stellar and accretion-disk radiation fields employing an accurate approximation to the Compton cross section in the head-on approximation that is valid throughout the Thomson and KN regimes. To avoid over-complicated expressions, the star and accretion-disk are treated as point sources of photons scattered by nonthermal electrons in a relativistically-moving jet with negligible extent (assumption 3). These assumptions simplify the derivation, but in no way violate the essential geometry of the microquasar system, and are straightforward (if tedious) to relax. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the companion star in a HMXB can subtend as much as $\approx 10$% of the full sky as seen from a location close to the compact object.
We also assume a non-evolving electron distribution and calculate emission from a fixed jet location (assumption 4). As the jet plasma moves away from the microquasar system, the electrons are energized, for example, through internal collisions of ejected plasma shells or via shocks formed during interactions of the jetted plasma with the external medium. The nonthermal electrons subsequently lose energy through expansion and radiative losses. In more detailed treatments, electron-energy evolution through synchrotron, Compton, and adiabatic losses are considered [e.g., @aa99; @bos05a; @gbd05]. When stellar radiation fields are important, a consistent treatment of the evolution of the nonthermal electron Lorentz factor distribution with location requires, in addition to the synchrotron, SSC, and adiabatic energy-loss rates, electron energy-loss rates obtained from the Compton-scattered stellar and accretion-disk radiation fields, as derived here. Given that $\gamma$-ray telescopes integrate over a long time to accumulate signal in comparison with Compton and synchrotron cooling time scales for the $\gamma$-ray emitting electrons, as is easily demonstrated, the detected emission is well-approximated as the radiation from a time-averaged electron distribution. Yet the power-law form of the electron distribution remains an assumption that may not agree with calculations of electron evolution.
Finally, we do not treat the electromagnetic cascades formed through $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation as $\gamma$-rays propagate through the anisotropic radiation field of the jet and star [see, e.g., @pmd92; @bed97; @aha05a]. Cascading effects could be important when the absorption depth to $\gamma\gamma$ pair production attenuation is large, namely within the inner jet[^1] [@bd05; @dub05]. This effect could, in principle, reduce the level of modulation of the VHE $\gamma$-ray signal from $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation and introduce new spectral components. Relaxing assumption (5) introduces, however, new assumptions about the strength and geometry of the magnetic field in the vicinity of the microquasar outside the jet plasma that are difficult to constrain.
Stellar Radiation Field
-----------------------
We treat a system (Fig. 1a) where the jet outflow has constant bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}$. In the stationary frame of the microquasar system (where the center-of-mass of the compact object and high-mass star is at rest), the plasma will have traveled a distance $x=\beta c t_{*}$ from the compact object and reached a distance $r = \sqrt{x^2+d^2}$ from the companion star after time $t_*$, measured from the moment of ejection of the jetted plasma at $x= 0$.
Let $\bar\phi_{*}(t) = \omega_{*}t_{*}$ represent the star’s orbital phase measured from the angle when the high-mass star is closest to the observer, where $\omega_{*} = 2\pi/P$ is the star’s angular frequency and $P$ is the period (from hours to days for LMXBs, and days to weeks for HMXBs). Photons from the companion star impinge on the outflowing jet plasma at an angle $\bar\theta_* = \arccos \bar
\mu_*$ to the jet axis as measured in the stationary frame of the star, where $\bar\mu_*= x/r = 1/ \sqrt{1+d^2/ x^2}$. The angle $\theta = \arccos \mu$ is the inclination of the observer with respect to the jet axis.
The energy flux at distance $r$ from a uniform brightness sphere (i.e., the star) of radius $R_*$ is $${d{\cal E_*}\over dA dt d{\epsilon_{*}}} =
{\pi R_*^2\over r^2} B_{{\epsilon}_*}\;,$$ where ${\cal E}_*$ is the radiated photon energy and ${\epsilon_{*}}= h\nu_* /m_ec^2$ is the dimensionless photon energy. The intensity $$B_{{\epsilon}_*} = I_{{\epsilon}_*}^{bb}(\Theta ) = {2 m_e c^3
{\epsilon_{*}}^3\over \lambda_{\rm C}^3 [\exp({\epsilon_{*}}/\Theta) - 1]}$$ for a blackbody, where $\lambda_{\rm C}=h/m_e c= 2.42\times 10^{-10}$ cm is the Compton wavelength of the electron and $\Theta = k_{B}T_*/m_ec^2$ is the dimensionless temperature of the star.
Consider a star with luminosity $L_*$ and temperature $T_*$, so that the stellar radius $R_* = \sqrt{L_*/4\pi \sigma_{\rm SB}T^4_*}$, and $\sigma_{\rm SB}$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The differential energy density $$u^*_{bb}({\epsilon}_{*};r)= {1\over c} {d{\cal E}_*\over dA
dt d{\epsilon}_*}.$$ Hence $$u^*_{bb}({\epsilon}_{*},\Omega_{*};r)= u^0_*\;{{\epsilon}_*^3
\delta(\mu_*- \bar\mu_*) \delta(\phi_* - \bar \phi_*)
\over \exp({\epsilon_{*}}/\Theta) - 1 }\;,
\label{ustarbb}$$ where $$u^0_* = {15L_*\over 4\pi^5 c\Theta^4 r^2}\;.$$ The stationary-frame photon density $n^*_{ph}({\epsilon_{*}},{\Omega_{*}})=u^*({\epsilon_{*}},{\Omega_{*}})/(m_ec^2{\epsilon_{*}})$.
The $f^*_{\epsilon}= \nu F^*_\nu$ spectrum of the star measured by an observer located a (luminosity) distance $d_L$ away from the star is $$f^*_{\epsilon}= {15L_*\over4\pi^5 \Theta^4d_L^2}\;
{{\epsilon}^4\over \exp({\epsilon}/\Theta ) - 1}\;,
\label{festar}$$ where ${\epsilon}= {\epsilon}_*/(1+z) \cong {\epsilon}_*$ for the low redshift ($z \ll 1$) sources considered here.
Stellar Radiation Photons Compton-Scattered by Jet Electrons
------------------------------------------------------------
The detailed derivation of the Compton-scattered stellar radiation (CSSR) spectrum is given in Appendix A. The $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum resulting from Compton-scattered stellar radiation (CSSR) for a uniform emitting region filled with an isotropic comoving distribution of electrons is $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm C*} = {3 c\sigma_{\rm T} u_*^0 {\delta_{\rm D}}^2{\epsilon}^2\over 32\pi d_L^2}\;
\int_{{\epsilon}/{\delta_{\rm D}}}^\infty d{\gamma}\;
{N^\prime_e({\gamma})\over {\gamma^2}}\times$$ $$a^2\big[g^{-2}\;(y + {1\over y})I_1 - {2{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}{\gamma}y b g}I_2
+ \big({{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}{\gamma}y b}\big)^2 I_3\;\big]\;
\label{feC_1}$$ where $y = 1-({\epsilon}/{\delta_{\rm D}}{\gamma})$, $${\delta_{\rm D}}= [\Gamma(1-\beta \mu)]^{-1}\;,
\label{Doppler}$$ is the Doppler factor, ${\epsilon}= h\nu/m_ec^2$ is the dimensionless observed photon energy, $N^\prime_e(\gamma)$ is differential distribution of electrons with comoving Lorentz factors $\gamma$, and $d_L$ is the luminosity distance to the source. The functions a, b, $I_1$, $I_2$ and $I_3$ are defined in Appendix A.
Compton Spectrum from Point Source of Radiation Field Behind Jet
----------------------------------------------------------------
The accretion disk provides a source of external radiation that enters the jet from behind. For a Shakura-Sunyaev accretion disk, the distance where the transverse extent of the accretion disk can be neglected and the accretion disk can be approximated by a point source is given by $$x \gg \Gamma^4 r_g\;
\label{xG4}$$ [@ds93; @ds02], where $r_g = GM/c^2$ is the gravitational radius of the black hole with mass $M$. For the mildly relativistic speeds ($\Gamma \approx 1$ – 2) considered here, and jet distances of order of the orbital radius, the accretion disk can be well approximated as a point source of radiation. The accretion-disk radiation spectrum may not be well represented by a blackbody or a Shakura-Sunyaev spectrum, as accretion disks display a wide range of spectra. This does not affect eq. (\[xG4\]), as this estimate is based on energy dissipation at various radii, which is largely unaffected by disk type.
Following the procedure in Appendix A, again using the head-on approximation, eq. (\[dsigC\]), for the Compton cross section, but now for a point source at the origin, we derive the $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum of Compton-scattered accretion disk (CSAD) radiation given by $$f_{\epsilon}^{pt} = {3{\epsilon}^2 {\delta_{\rm D}}^2\sigma_{\rm T} \over
128\pi^2 x^2 d_L^2 }\int_0^\infty d{\epsilon}_0 \; {L_0({\epsilon}_0 )\over {\epsilon}_0^2}
\;\int_{{\gamma}_{min}}^\infty d{\gamma}\;
{N^\prime_e({\gamma})\over {\gamma^2}}\times$$ $$\;\big[ y + y^{-1} -
{2{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}{\gamma}\hat{\epsilon}_i y} +
\big({{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}{\gamma}\hat{\epsilon}_i y}\big)^2\big]\;,
\label{fept}$$ where $\hat {\epsilon}_i = \gamma {\epsilon}_0 {\delta_{\rm D}}(1-\mu)$ and $${\gamma}_{min} = {{\epsilon}\over 2{\delta_{\rm D}}}
\;\big[ 1 + \sqrt{1 + {2\over {\epsilon}{\epsilon}_0(1-\mu)}} \;\big]\;.$$ Appendix B gives approximate expressions for the CSSR and CSAD spectra in the Thomson and KN regimes that reduce the number of numerical integrations, though at the expense of accuracy. These simpler expressions have, however, the virtue of allowing the beaming factors of the various processes to be simply derived.
Results
=======
We calculate the CSSR spectrum using the standard parameters listed in Table 1. The standard jet height $x$ is taken to be equal to the mean orbital separation $d = 2.5\times 10^{12}$ cm of LS 5039. We also employ a broken power-law distribution for the nonthermal electrons, given by $$N_e^\prime ({\gamma}) = K [{\gamma}_1^{q-p}{\gamma}^{-q}H({\gamma};{\gamma}_0,{\gamma}_1) +
{\gamma}^{-p}H({\gamma};{\gamma}_1,{\gamma}_2 )]\;.
\label{elecbpl}$$ Normalizing to the total comoving nonthermal electron energy $$W_e^\prime \;\cong\; m_ec^2 \int_1^\infty d{\gamma}\; {\gamma}\;N_e^\prime ({\gamma})$$ gives $$K = {W_e^\prime\over m_e c^2} \;
\big[{{\gamma}_1^{q-p}({\gamma}_1^{2-q} - {\gamma}_0^{2-q})\over 2-q}
+ {{\gamma}_1^{2-p}-{\gamma}_2^{2-p}\over p-2}\big]^{-1}\;.
\label{K}$$ The maximum electron Lorentz factor is calculated from the well-known [@gfr83] radiation-reaction limit obtained by equating the electron energy-loss timescale with the gyration timescale $t_g =
m_e c{\gamma}/eB$, which holds provided that synchrotron losses dominate Compton-energy losses. The situation is more complicated here, where Compton-losses from the stellar radiation field are large and KN effects are important [@aha05a]. In Appendix C, an improved treatment of this limit for relativistic jets is performed, and we quantify the regime where the synchrotron radiation-reaction limit holds. We take ${\gamma}_2 = {\gamma}_{max}$ here, with ${\gamma}_{max}$ given by eq. (\[gammamaxsyn\]) and $\eta = 1$, giving the most optimistic maximum synchrotron frequency.
-0.5in
Fig. 2 show calculations of the $\nu F_\nu$ SED of the CSSR process. The dependence of the SED on phase of the binary orbit is shown in Fig. 2a, and the dependence of the SED on various parameters of the binary system at $\phi = \pi/2$ is shown in Fig. 2b (we now simplify the notation by letting the stellar azimuth angle $\bar \phi_* \rightarrow
\phi$). In both figures, the steep lower energy behavior is a consequence of the low-energy cutoff Lorentz factor ${\gamma}_0 = 100$ assumed in the electron distribution. The energy of this low-energy cutoff, and the cutoff associated with the change in slope at ${\gamma}_1 = 10^3$, occurs for the blackbody stellar spectrum around photon energy $$E_{\rm T} \cong 2.7 k_{\rm B} T_* {\gamma}_i^2 {\delta_{\rm D}}\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*) (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)\;,\;i = 0, 1\;,
\label{EgbreakT}$$ provided that the scattering takes place in the Thomson regime. (This result is found from the $\delta$-function approximations for Thomson scatering given in Appendix B.) Except for the phase-dependent factor $(1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)$, all the terms in eq.(\[EgbreakT\]) are uniquely determined. For the standard parameters of Table 1, $\beta = 0.866$, ${\delta_{\rm D}}= 2.32$ and $\bar\mu_* = 0.707$, so that the breaks due to Thomson scattering occur at $E_{\gamma}\cong 16
{\gamma}_i^2 (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)$ eV, in accord with the results shown. The breaks in the photon spectrum in Fig. 2a occur at lower energies when $\phi= \pi$ than when $\phi = 0$ because the $\phi =
\pi$ case involves more nearly tail-on scattering events that scatter the target photons to lower energies than for the more nearly head-on scattering events with $\phi \approx 0$ (see Fig. 1a).
The spectral index of the Compton-scattered stellar radiation follows the well-known behavior $$\alpha_\nu = {3-p\over 2}\;$$ in the Thomson regime, as shown in Appendix B, where $\alpha_\nu$ is the $\nu
F_\nu$ spectral index[^2]. For electron index $p = 2$ assumed in the lower branch of the electron spectrum in Fig. 2a, the spectrum rises with slope $1/2$ in a $\nu
F_\nu$ plot. For the upper branch of the electron spectrum with $p =
3$, the spectrum is flat, as seen for the $\phi = \pi$ curve in Fig.2a. For the more nearly head-on scattering events with $\phi \approx
0$, the transition to the KN regime occurs at lower photon energies, so that scattering in the Thomson regime is never fully achieved. Indeed, the CSSR spectral index at high-energies asymptotically approaches the steep KN index $\alpha_\nu \approx 1-p$ (eq. \[\[A7\]\]).
Transition to the KN regime of scattering, as derived in Appendix B, takes place over a broad range of photon energies centered around[^3] $$E_{\rm KN} \cong ({m_e c^2\over 4\times 2.7 \Theta}) \times { {\delta_{\rm D}}\over
\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)}\times { 1\over(1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)}
\cong {20 {\rm GeV} \over (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)}\;.
\label{EgbreakKN}$$ The three terms making up the middle expression represent, from left to right, the transition energy for a monochromatic radiation field with mean photon energy $\approx 2.70 \Theta m_ec^2 $, a factor for the dependence on jet speed, stellar location and observer direction, and an angular factor accounting for the stellar azimuth. The $\phi = 0$ and $\phi = \pi $ cases in Fig. 2a have, roughly, $\cos\psi^\prime \sim -0.9$ and $\cos\psi^\prime \sim +0.8$, which accounts for the large ranges in photon energies corresponding to the transition to the KN behavior. KN effects are quite substantial, however, even at lower energies than given by eq. (\[EgbreakKN\]), because of the gradual change in the Compton cross section over the range where recoil effects start to become important.
Because the transition to the KN regime occurs at lower values of scattered photon energy at $\phi = 0$ where the flux is higher than for the $\phi = \pi$ case where the flux is lower, the CSSR process will produce a softer spectra with increasing flux at multi-GeV – TeV energies. This is the same behavior as inferred from the effects of $\gamma\gamma$ absorption on the emitted radiation spectrum [@bd05], and so would enhance this behavior.
-0.5in
Besides the rapid transition to the steep KN behavior at energies $\lesssim$ 100 GeV, Fig. 2a shows that the CSSR spectra are strongly modulated in flux as a function of phase of the binary system. Also shown in Fig. 2a by the solid curve is the phase-averaged CSSR SED, which is approximately equal to the $\phi =\pi/2$ curve (actually closer to $\phi \cong 7/16$). Fig. 2b shows calculations of CSSR at $\phi = \pi/2$ for different values of $p$ and $x$. Due to the diminution of the target photon density, the absolute value of the flux decreases rapidly with jet height $x$, as expected. The harder electron spectrum causes the peak of the CSSR SED to shift to higher energies, but the spectrum still falls rapidly when KN effects become important.
Fig. 3 shows in more detail how the CSSR SED depends on jet height $x$ at phases $\phi = 0$ and $\pi$. For these parameters, the $\nu
F_\nu$ spectrum peaks between 100 MeV and 1 GeV, as shown in Fig. 3a. If $\gamma$-ray emission from microquasars is due to this process, then strong phase-dependent modulation is expected if the jet electrons radiate on a distance scale comparable to the orbital radius. As seen in Fig. 3b, the CSSR flux nulls at $\phi = \pi$ when the inclination angle $\theta \cong \arctan (d/x)$, which takes place at $x
\cong 5.4\times 10^{12}$ cm for our parameters. This happens because the target photons are directed almost exactly “tail-on" past those electrons which would scatter photons into our observing direction. This effect will be somewhat ameliorated in calculations where the star has a finite extent.
Unlike the $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation process, which ceases to be effective at producing even 10% orbital modulation of the VHE emission when $x \approx 10^{13}$ cm [@bd05], the CSSR process will produce significant phase-dependent modulation of the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV emission to much larger distances. The 100 MeV fluxes at $\phi = 0$ and $\phi = \pi$ differ by a factor of 2 at $x \approx
5\times 10^{13}$ cm, and by a factor of 10% at $x \approx 5\times
10^{14}$ cm. Therefore even if the $\gamma$-ray emission is not produced in the inner jet, GLAST could still detect significant orbital modulation of the $\gamma$ rays. The large range of distances that produce significant orbital modulation also makes the claim [@mas04] of periodic variability of the EGRET emission from 3EG J0241+6103 associated with LSI+61$^\circ$303 more believable, and suggests that the EGRET data for 3EG J1824-1514 should be reanalyzed to establish strong limits to modulation at the orbital period of LS 5039.
-1.5in
Fig. 4 illustrates the dependence of the fluxes of a two-sided jet for model jets with $\Gamma = 1.2$ and 2. The forward (f) jets are inclined at $\theta = 25^\circ$ to the observer, and the reverse (r) jets have $\theta = 155^\circ$. Even at mildly relativistic Lorentz factors, the Doppler boosting can lead to differences of several orders of magnitude between the fluxes from the forward and reverse jets. As shown in Appendix B, the beaming factors for Thomson-scattered radiation for external photons that enter the jet from behind and in front of the jet are $\propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}(1-\mu)^{(p+1)/2}$ and $\propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}(1+\mu)^{(p+1)/2}$, respectively. For the standard parameters, $\mu = 0.9063$, $p = 3$, and $\beta = 0.866$ for $\Gamma =
2$. Thus the ratio of scattered fluxes of the forward and reverse jets range from $\approx 800$ for target photons entering from behind, to $\approx 10^8$ for target photons entering from in front of the jet. Intermediate values are found for stellar photons that enter at shallow angles, as calculated in Fig. 4. This shows that CSSR from the reverse jet can generally be neglected for even mildly relativistic jets.
Compton-Scattering Leptonic Jet Model for LS 5039
=================================================
In this section, we apply the preceeding results to LS 5039 data, showing that
- It is very difficult to fit the HESS with a CSSR model because of the strong curvature produced by KN effects;
- An improbable leptonic model with electrons accelerated with maximum efficiency with a distribution displaying no spectral breaks is required to fit both EGRET and HESS data, assuming that these data are representative of the simultaneously measured spectrum of LS 5039;
- The EGRET and HESS data can be separately fit with emission that is primarily from the CSSR and SSC processes, respectively, which implies significant aperiodic variability of the $\gamma$ rays.
We furthermore consider other possible origins for the broadband emission from LS 5039, including hadronic and combined hadronic and leptonic models, and the possibility that the EGRET emission associated with LS 5039 originates from another source in the LS 5039 field, or is contaminated by, e.g., diffuse radiation.
Fig. 5 shows non-simultaneous data [@aha05] taken at radio, optical, X-ray, and $\gamma$-ray wavelengths, with EGRET data points taken from @bp04a. The HESS data are described by a power-law spectrum between 250 GeV and 4 TeV with photon index $=2.1\pm 0.15$ [@aha05]. We find that fitting the HESS spectrum with a pure CSSR model faces severe difficulties. This is due to the strong KN decline and marked convexity of the CSSR radiation spectrum at TeV energies. Extremely hard $(p \approx 2)$ electron spectra extending to very high energies are required for such a model to work, but in all cases the CSSR SEDs display strong curvature that should be measurable with more sensitive HESS data.
-1.0in
Assume now that the EGRET and HESS data represent the $\gamma$-ray spectrum of LS 5039 that would be measured at a single epoch. In order to fit both the EGRET and HESS data simultaneously, we find that a CSSR fit to the EGRET data will produce too soft of a spectrum in the HESS range. This is likewise the case for an SSC model fit to the EGRET data. A leptonic SSC model can fit the HESS data alone, as we show below. But an SSC model fit to the HESS data means that the EGRET data require a separate explanation. One possibility considered in Fig. 5 is that the high-energy extension of the synchrotron spectrum could produce emission in the EGRET band. For the hard synchrotron spectrum required in this case, it is then necessary to fine-tune the joint CSSR and SSC spectra to obtain an acceptable fit to the joint EGRET and HESS data (see inset of Fig. 5). Model A parameters given in Table 1 are used in this fit, noting that the mean magnetic field $B\lesssim $ 10 G in order to have sufficiently energetic electrons to scatter target photons to multi-TeV energies (eq.).
It is interesting to note that the radio and low-state X-ray emission from LS 5039 can be connected by a single power-law. This suggests that the radio through X/$\gamma$-ray emission could originate from the same (nonthermal jet synchrotron) process, as has been argued to be the case for models of the LMXBs XTE J1118+480 [@mff01] and GX 339-4 [@mar03] on the basis of radio, IR, and X-ray spectral correlations. In those models, a broken power-law jet synchrotron radiation spectrum resulting from adiabatic and radiative cooling is used to fit the data. A similar type of model, as shown in Fig. 5, could in principle fit the radio/low-state X-ray data from LS 5039 if the synchrotron cooling frequency lies either below radio frequencies or above $\sim 100$ MeV $\gamma$-ray energies.
Nevertheless, we do not consider this a viable explanation, as it requires acceleration of electrons with maximal efficiency (eq.) with no strong evidence for a synchrotron cooling break from the radio through $\sim 100 $ MeV $\gamma$-ray regime. It also requires fine-tuning of the CSSR and SSC spectra to fit the HESS data. Moreover, in this jet model, as well as in the models by Markoff et al., the radio emission begins to be self-absorbed below $\sim 10$ GHz (see Fig. 5) for a comoving jet radius $r_b = 2\times 10^{11}$ cm (Table 1) needed to give the requisite SSC flux. The radio data of LS 5039, by contrast, shows no evidence for self-absorption.
Thus if the EGRET and HESS data are to be jointly fit, it seems that a leptonic jet model does not work. Yet a simple hadronic model, where the emission is due to a power-law spectrum of cosmic rays accelerated by the outer parts of the jet, which then interact with the ambient medium or the dense matter field of the stellar wind [@romero03] to produce secondary nuclear pion-decay $\gamma$ rays, seems no more likely. The dot-dashed line connecting the EGRET and HESS data in the inset to Fig. 5 suggests that a single power law with number index $\simeq 2.4$ nearly connects the two data sets. But a power-law cosmic-ray spectrum produces a convex $\gamma$-ray spectrum at a few hundred MeV due to the pion production and decay processes [@rco05] that would miss the EGRET data points which are most significant.
-1.0in
Any leptonic jet model would predict stochastic variability, so clearly the assumption that needs to be relaxed is that the EGRET and HESS data, taken years apart, are typical of a contemporaneously measured data set. Leptonic jet models must be highly variable in view of the short radiative cooling times of nonthermal jet electrons, which require active mechanisms for accelerating the electrons, such as internal shocks from variable relativistic plasma outflows that form the microquasar jets.
Fig. 6 shows an example of a fit where the EGRET data are due primarily to the CSSR process, and the HESS data are due primarily to the SSC process. Here we take $r_b = 10^{11}$ cm. The spectral components, and the heavy solid and dotted curves for the CSSR process and the total spectrum, respectively, refer to the case when $x = 10^{13}$ cm. The light solid curve for the total spectrum and the light dotted curve for the CSSR process refers to the case when $x = 10^{14}$ cm. All other parameters remain the same (we let $\phi = \pi/2$ in our fits). The difference between the two spectral fits are then due to the effects on the CSSR component arising from the different distances of the jet from the star. We do not fit the radio emission, which is produced at scales as large as $\sim 1000$ AU [@par00; @par02].
Also shown for completeness is a model accretion-disk spectrum with emission that is comparable to the low-state X-ray flux, along with the associated CSAD radiation. When $x \gg 10^{12}$ cm, the CSAD process makes no significant contribution to the $\gamma$-ray emission. It is surprising, however, how weak and soft (here we use an effective temperature of 0.3 keV) the accretion-disk radiation field has to be in comparison with the flux level of the jet radiation, and even here the model overproduces the low-state X-ray observations. The use of more realistic disk models with hard X-ray emissions could better fit the low-state X-ray data, as observed with XMM-Newton, as well as X-ray states measured with RXTE [@bos05], though these authors favor a jet origin for the X-rays in view of the spectral index/flux correlation and the smooth transition that is indicated between the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray components [the X-ray high state shown in Figs. 5 and 6 represent the historical 1998 high fluxes measured with RXTE, but may be contaminated by diffuse emission; see @rib99; @bos05].
Fig. 6 shows that if the CSSR process accounts for the origin of the $\gamma$ rays measured with EGRET, then it would exceed the flux measured by HESS at photon energies of several hundred GeV. This can be reversed to make a prediction that when the emission from LS 5039 is luminous in the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV band, then the HESS spectrum will be brighter and softer than reported by @aha05. Besides predicting stochastic variability, our model would also predict weak or absent periodic variability of the HESS emission on the orbital timescale associated with the SSC emission process. This is because SSC emission does not exhibit (for fully isotropized electron distributions) the periodic emission signatures of the CSSR process. There could, however, be variability of the HESS emission on the orbital timescale due to $\gamma\gamma$ effects if the SSC emission originated from the inner jet, which would display the distinctive features that we recently calculated [@bd05]. Aperiodic variability of the $\gamma$ ray emission could arise from a region as large as $\sim 10$ AU, corresponding to the size scale of resolved, radio emission from LS 5039. The size scale of the $\gamma$-ray emission would be difficult to constrain unless sub-hour variability were measured with HESS or GLAST. Note that the $\lesssim 1^\prime$ resolution of HESS corresponds, at 2.5 kpc, to $\lesssim 100$ AU. EGRET localized sources in the Milky Way’s disk to $\approx 1^\circ$ at best, whereas GLAST will achieve a localization by a factor $\approx 10$ better than EGRET.
The situation is, of course, more complicated, and we can consider a number of other possibilities to explain the broadband spectrum of LS 5039. For example,
1. A model involving hadronic cascades from an inner jet source might fit the data. The model of @aha05a would predict strong phase-dependent modulation of the $\gamma$-rays; if this is not detected with HESS, this model will probably be ruled out. A more probable hadronic model, in accord with indications of variability, involves the interaction of cosmic-ray accelerated particles with the stellar wind [@romero03], though the energetics could be demanding if the cosmic rays diffuse rapidly away from the source.
2. A combined leptonic and hadronic model could explain the observations. In such a model, the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV $\gamma$ rays are due to CSSR with a soft (cooling) electron spectrum with $p
\gtrsim 3$, and the VHE $\gamma$ rays would be formed by a hadronic emission component due to secondary nuclear production with particles from the surrounding medium or stellar wind, as in the model of @rco05. In this case, we would expect variable modulated emission at GLAST energies, and nonvarying or slowly varying radiation at TeV energies with no periodic modulation. One would also expect extended VHE emission around LS 5039 as the accelerated cosmic rays diffuse away from the source. In contrast, LS 5039 emission is reported to be consistent with a point source [@aha05]; even if the extended VHE emission were too weak to detect with HESS, an associated radio halo from pion-decay secondaries would be expected if a dense target, such as a molecular cloud, was nearby [@bap05].
3. The EGRET emission could originate from another source in the field of LS 5039. Both PSR B1822-14 and SNR G16.8-1.1, the association proposed by @tor03, are within the EGRET error box [@aha05]. It is doubtful that a hadronic SNR component could produce the EGRET emission without also being a significant HESS source, so that emission from a pulsar seems more likely. Cosmic ray irradiation of clumped cold dust not recognized in CO surveys [@gct05] could also masquerade as a $\gamma$-ray source in the LS 5039 error box. Because EGRET source detection depends sensitively on the cosmic-ray induced diffuse background, incorrect background subtraction for EGRET, which has a much larger spatial resolution than HESS, could give an incorrect flux for the LS 5039 source. Insofar as LS 5039 is a VHE source, we would still expect it to radiate in the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV band, though possibly at a flux level lower than reported by EGRET.
In spite of these possibilities, we think that emission from a leptonic jet is the most likely explanation for the origin of the $\gamma$-ray emission from LS 5039 and other galactic microquasars. We agree with @bp04a that the EGRET $\gamma$ rays are likely dominated by CSSR; indeed, a model where the EGRET emission is primarily fit with an SSC component gives a poor fit to the HESS data [@pbr05]. More likely, the VHE emission observed with HESS is mainly SSC radiation.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
In this work, we developed a leptonic model for the VHE emission observed from LS 5039 with HESS, where the Compton-scattered flux depends on observer angle $\theta$, bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma$, and the parameters of the binary microquasar system. If the $\gamma$-ray flux of a galactic microquasar is due to stellar photons that are Compton-scattered by jet electrons, then the ${\gamma}$-ray spectrum will exhibit variability correlated with orbital phase of the companion star. The fractional modulation depends strongly on the location of the jet. Phase-dependent modulation of the $\gamma$ rays can result both from the CSSR process and $\gamma\gamma$ pair-production absorption [@bd05; @dub05] of jet $\gamma$ rays that interact with photons of the high-mass star. Periodic modulation of the VHE emission with signatures characteristic of the $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation would provide strong evidence in favor of an inner jet model for the origin of VHE $\gamma$ radiation from LS 5039, whereas variability of the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV emission on the orbital timescale allows the $\gamma$ rays to originate from either the inner or extended ($d \lesssim x \lesssim 100 d$) jet.
Our study of the CSSR process for high-mass microquasars yielded a number of results:
1. The high flux states associated with the orbital modulation of the binary microquasar system exhibit stronger spectral softening than the low flux states as a result stronger KN effects near orbital phase $\phi = 0$ than at phase $\phi = \pi$;
2. An expression was derived, eq. (\[EgbreakT\]), relating breaks in the CSSR spectra for scattering in the Thomson regime to breaks in the electron distribution. These breaks can potentially be inferred from the synchrotron radiation spectrum, and used to test a CSSR model.
3. Another expression, eq. (\[EgbreakKN\]), was derived that gives the photon energy for the onset of KN effects in CSSR spectra. The KN softening can appear at energies less than $\sim m_e c^2/(4\times 2.7\Theta) \sim 25{\rm~GeV}/T_*({\rm eV})$, even for mildly relativistic outflows, due to the gradual onset of the decline in the Compton cross section.
4. Beaming factors for the CSSR process were derived in Appendix B, and it was shown that the principal dependence of the CSSR $\nu F_\nu$ flux $f_{\epsilon}\propto {\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}$ (eqs. \[\[feKNstar\]\] and \[\[A7\]\]) for an electron spectrum with index $p$.
5. Ratios of CSSR fluxes from forward and reverse jets for a microquasar system were obtained. Even for mildly relativistic outflows $(\Gamma \sim 1.5$) of microquasar jets, the ratios of the CSSR fluxes from the forward and reverse jets can be many orders of magnitude.
6. Allowed ranges of parameters related to maximum electron energies permitted by competing Compton losses and measured ratios of Compton-to-synchrotron fluxes were derived in Appendices C and D, respectively, showing that a leptonic inner jet must be, at least, mildly relativistic.
7. Significant modulation of the CSSR $\gamma$ rays with the orbital period of the star can take place for emission produced in the extended jet, unlike the modulation produced by $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation, which is only important for emission produced in the inner jet.
From these results, we tried to construct a purely leptonic model for the multiwavelength SED of LS 5039. The HESS data cannot be fit with the CSSR process alone due to the strong curvature of the scattered spectra. If the CSSR process is used to fit the EGRET data, then it overproduces the emission in the HESS band. Thus, it is difficult for the CSSR and SSC processes to fit both the HESS and EGRET data simultaneously. To circumvent this difficulty, we considered a model, Fig. 5, where the EGRET emission is due to nonthermal synchrotron radiation emitted by an electron distribution with a very hard spectrum $(p \lesssim 2.5)$ that extends to the radiation-reaction limited maximum electron energy. Not only is this electron distribution unrealistic by displaying no cooling break, but the model requires fine-tuning of the CSSR and SSC processes to fit the HESS data.
Because leptonic jet models should exhibit marked aperiodic variability, it is doubtful that the HESS and EGRET data are representative of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum at a fixed epoch. Abandoning this assumption makes it feasible to fit the EGRET data with CSSR emission (Fig. 6) and the HESS data with SSC emission [as in the model of @aa99]. This leptonic model predicts stochastic variability of the HESS data, and enhanced emission at several hundred GeV energies when the $\sim 100$ MeV – GeV emission is in a high-flux state. The level of modulation of the AGILE/GLAST and HESS $\gamma$-ray flux on the stellar orbital period will directly imply the location of the $\gamma$-ray emission site; in the former case from the inner or extended jet, and for the latter case, from within the inner jet. Absence of periodicity of the $\gamma$-ray emission measured with both GLAST and HESS means that the $\gamma$ rays originate from the outer ($x \gtrsim 100 d$) jet. Confirmation of a leptonic jet model can be made by comparing contemporaneous X-ray and $\gamma$-ray observations with predictions of correlated variability [@gbd05].
If the jet flow is nonrelativistic, then the jet emission must be produced in the extended or outer jet in order that electrons can be accelerated to sufficiently high energies to emit multi-TeV $\gamma$ rays (see Appendices B and C). Thus, if the outflows forming galactic microquasar jets are nonrelativistic throughout the full extent of the jet, only weak periodic modulation from Compton scattering, and essentially no periodic modulation from $\gamma\gamma$ absorption effects, is possible. A mildly relativistic ($\Gamma \gtrsim 2$) leptonic jet model in the inner regions of the jet is compatible with the acceleration of sufficiently energetic electrons to make VHE $\gamma$ rays throughout the HESS band. If HESS data show variability on the orbital timescale, it means that microquasars eject relativistic flows, which must then be decelerated to nonrelativistic speeds by the time the jets are detected with radio telescopes. Jet deceleration can be accomplished through radiative drag on the stellar radiation field—which makes the $\gamma$ rays—as well as via interactions with the surrounding medium to form shocks that could accelerate cosmic rays. In this case, the radiative opacity should be large and a light pair jet might be required.
The most serious limitation of our study is the use of fixed electron energy distributions. In more realistic models, power-law distributions of nonthermal electrons are accelerated through shock processes and are injected and evolve through radiative, adiabatic, and cascade processes [@aa99; @brp05] while the jet plasma flows away from the central star. To treat such a system, electron energy-loss rates associated with Compton interactions in both the Thomson and KN regimes need to be derived for use in an equation for electron energy evolution [see @gbd05 for an analytic treatment in the Thomson regime]. Systems where Compton losses dominate synchrotron losses can introduce unusual hardenings in the steady-state electron distribution and synchrotron spectrum [@da02], so that it is not clear under what conditions the assumption of a power-law electron distribution is valid. Future work will address this question.
In summary, we have developed a leptonic jet model for galactic microquasars to fit the EGRET and HESS $\gamma$-ray data for LS 5039, complementary to the leptonic jet models developed by @bos05a. This model predicts aperiodic variability, and periodic variability correlated with the orbital motion of the star that depends on the location of the $\gamma$-ray emission site and the speed of the jet outflow. Joint observations with AGILE, GLAST and air Cherenkov telescopes will quickly reveal the actual contemporaneous $\gamma$-ray spectra of high-mass microquasars, their variability properties, and whether a joint CSSR/SSC model, as proposed here, is correct.
We thank V. Bosch-Ramon for a thorough reading of the paper and many useful suggestions. We also thank K. E. Mitman for assistance during the start of this project, G. Romero for comments and S. Gupta for corrections, and G. Dubus and M. de Naurois for helpful correspondence concerning the HESS data. The work of C. D. D. is supported by the Office of Naval Research and the NASA GLAST Science Investigation DPR-S-1563-Y. The work of M. B. is supported by NASA through XMM-Newton GO grant no. NNG04GI50G and INTEGRAL theory grant NNG05GK59G.
Derivation of CSSR Spectrum
===========================
Quantities in the comoving jet frame are denoted by primes[^4]. The invariance of $u^*({\epsilon_{*}},{\Omega_{*}})/{\epsilon_{*}}^3$ implies that the spectral energy density of the stellar radiation field in the comoving fluid frame is $u^\prime({\epsilon^\prime},\Omega^\prime) = ({\epsilon^\prime}/{\epsilon_{*}})^3 u^*_{bb}({\epsilon}_{*},{\Omega_{*}})$, where ${\Omega_{*}}= (\arccos \mu_*,\phi_*)$, $${\epsilon}_{*} = \Gamma {\epsilon^\prime}(1 + \beta
{\mu^\prime}) \;, \;\mu_* = ({\mu^\prime}+\beta)/(1+\beta{\mu^\prime})\;,\;{\rm and}\;
\phi^\prime = \phi_*-\pi\;.$$ The reverse transformations are $${\epsilon^\prime}= \Gamma{\epsilon}_*(1-\beta\mu_*)\;,\; {\mu^\prime}=
(\mu_* - \beta)/(1-\beta\mu_*) \;,\;{\rm and}\; \phi_* = \phi^\prime +\pi\;.$$ Eq. (\[ustarbb\]) becomes $$u^\prime_{bb}({\epsilon^\prime},{\Omega^\prime}) = \;
u^0_*\;{{\epsilon_{*}}^{3}\;\delta({\mu^\prime}-{\mu^\prime}_*)\delta(\phi^\prime - \bar\phi_*)
\over \Gamma (1+\beta{\mu^\prime})[\exp ({\epsilon_{*}}/\Theta ) - 1] }
\;,
\label{ubbprime}$$ where $${\mu^\prime}_* = { \bar \mu_* - \beta
\over 1 - \beta \bar \mu_*}\;,\; \bar \phi_* = \phi_* - \pi\;.$$ This can also be written in the form of the specific spectral photon density $$n^\prime_{bb}({\epsilon^\prime},{\Omega^\prime}) = \; {u^0_*\;
\over m_ec^2} \;{{\epsilon_{*}}^{2}\;\delta({\mu^\prime}-{\mu^\prime}_*)\delta(\phi^\prime - \bar\phi_*)
\over [\exp ({\epsilon_{*}}/\Theta ) - 1] }
\;.
\label{nbbprime}$$
The nonthermal electrons Compton-scatter the target stellar photons that intercept the jet. The comoving-frame emissivity as a function of scattered photon energy ${\epsilon}_s^\prime$, scattered direction $\Omega_s^\prime$, and location $x$ is given by $$j^\prime({\epsilon}_s^\prime,\Omega_s^\prime;x) =
m_ec^3 {\epsilon^\prime}_s\int_0^\infty d{\epsilon^\prime}\oint
d{\Omega^\prime}\int_1^\infty d{\gamma}\oint d{\Omega^\prime}_e (1-\beta_e \cos \psi^\prime)
n_{bb}^\prime({\epsilon^\prime},{\Omega^\prime};x)
n_e^\prime({\gamma},{\Omega^\prime}_e) \big( {d\sigma_{\rm C} \over d{\epsilon^\prime}_s d{\Omega^\prime}_s}\big)\;
\label{jint}$$ [@dss97]. In this expression, $n_e^\prime({\gamma},{\Omega^\prime}_e)d{\gamma}d{\Omega^\prime}_e$ is the differential number of electrons per unit proper volume in the comoving frame with Lorentz factors between ${\gamma}$ and ${\gamma}$ + $d{\gamma}$ that are directed into the solid angle element $d{\Omega^\prime}_e$ in the direction ${\Omega^\prime}_e$, and $\psi^\prime$ is the angle between the incident photon and electron in the comoving frame. From Fig. 1b, $$\cos\psi^\prime = {\mu^\prime}{\mu^\prime}_e + \sqrt{1-\mu^{\prime
2}}\sqrt{1-\mu_e^{\prime 2}}\cos(\phi^\prime -\phi^\prime_e)\;,$$ and $d\sigma_{\rm C} / d{\epsilon^\prime}_s d{\Omega^\prime}_s $ is the differential Compton-scattering cross section. The speed of the electron is $\beta_e c$, and $\beta_e = \sqrt{1-{\gamma}^{-2}} \approx 1$ for the relativistic electrons of interest in this problem.
Photons are scattered within a cone of half-opening angle $\approx
1/{\gamma}$ by electrons with ${\gamma}\gg 1$. For highly relativistic electrons, we employ the Compton-scattering cross section in the head-on approximation, where the scattered photons travel in the same direction as the scattering electrons. Thus $${d\sigma_{\rm C} \over
d{\epsilon^\prime}_s d{\Omega^\prime}_s} = {d\sigma_{\rm C} \over d{\epsilon^\prime}_s }\;\delta ({\Omega^\prime}_s -
{\Omega^\prime}_e)\;,$$ and $${d\sigma_{\rm C} \over d{\epsilon^\prime}_s}\;=\;
{3\sigma_{\rm T} \over 8{\gamma}{\epsilon}_i}\;\big[
y + y^{-1} - {2{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over {\gamma}{\epsilon}_i y}
+ \big({{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over {\gamma}{\epsilon}_i y}\big)^2\big] \;
H\big({\epsilon^\prime}_s;{{\epsilon}_i\over 2{\gamma}},{2{\gamma}{\epsilon}_i \over 1+2{\epsilon}_i}\big)\;
\label{dsigC}$$ [@j68; @bg70; @ds93], where $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson cross section, $H(x;a,b)$ is the Heaviside function such that $H(x;a,b) = 1$ if $a\leq x\leq b$ and $H(x;a,b) = 0$ otherwise, and $$y \equiv 1 - {{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over {\gamma}}\;\;{\rm and}\;\;
{\epsilon}_i \equiv {\gamma}{\epsilon^\prime}(1-\beta_e \cos\psi^\prime)\cong
{\gamma}{\epsilon^\prime}(1- \cos\psi^\prime)\;,$$ where ${\epsilon^\prime}_s$ is the scattered photon energy in the comoving frame. The term ${\epsilon}_i$ gives the photon energy in the proper frame of the electron, and defines the regime of interaction (Thomson regime for ${\epsilon}_i \ll 1$, and KN regime for ${\epsilon}_i \gg 1$).
Substituting eqs. (\[nbbprime\]) and (\[dsigC\]) into eq.(\[jint\]) gives, after solving the $\delta$-functions, the result $$j^\prime({\epsilon}_s^\prime,\Omega_s^\prime;x) =
u_*^0 c \pi r_e^2 {\epsilon^\prime}_s\;
\int_1^\infty d{\gamma}\;{n^\prime_e({\gamma},{\Omega^\prime}_s)
\over {\gamma^2}}\;\int_{{\epsilon^\prime}_l}^{{\epsilon^\prime}_u} {d{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon^\prime}}
\;{{\epsilon}_*^2\over \exp({\epsilon}_*/\Theta )- 1}\;\big[ y + y^{-1} -
{2{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over {\gamma}\bar{\epsilon}_i y}
+ \big({{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over {\gamma}\bar{\epsilon}_i y}\big)^2\big] \; ,\label{jint1}$$ where $\bar{\epsilon}_i = {\gamma}{\epsilon^\prime}(1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime )$, $$\cos\bar\psi^\prime = {\mu^\prime}_*{\mu^\prime}_s - \sqrt{1-\mu_*^{\prime 2}}
\sqrt{1-\mu_s^{\prime 2}}\cos\bar\phi_*\;.$$ The equations relating the comoving and observer quantities are[^5] $${\epsilon^\prime}_s =
{(1+z){\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}}\;\cong {{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}}\;,\;{\mu^\prime}_s = {\mu -
\beta\over 1-\beta\mu}\;,\; {\rm and}\;\phi^\prime = \phi\;.$$ The limits on the ${\epsilon^\prime}$-integral implied by the Heaviside function are $${\epsilon^\prime}_l =
{{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over 2\gamma(\gamma - {\epsilon^\prime}_s )(1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)}\;\;{\rm
and}\; {\epsilon^\prime}_u = {2{\epsilon^\prime}_s\over 1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime}\;.$$
The $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum resulting from Compton-scattered stellar radiation (CSSR) is given by $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm C*} = {{\delta_{\rm D}}^4\over d_L^2}\;{\epsilon^\prime}_s J^\prime ({\epsilon^\prime}_s,{\Omega^\prime}_s )=
{{\delta_{\rm D}}^4\over d_L^2}\;{\epsilon^\prime}_s V_b^\prime j^\prime ({\epsilon^\prime}_s,{\Omega^\prime}_s )\;,
\label{feC}$$ where ${\delta_{\rm D}}$ is the Doppler factor, eq. (\[Doppler\]), $V_b^\prime$ is the comoving volume of the radiating region, and $d_L$ is the luminosity distance to the source.
For a uniform emitting region filled with an isotropic comoving distribution of electrons, $$V_b^\prime n^\prime_e({\gamma}, {\Omega^\prime}_s) =
V_b^\prime \;{n^\prime_e({\gamma})\over 4\pi} ={N^\prime_e({\gamma})\over 4\pi
}\;,$$ and we obtain eq. (\[feC\_1\]) for the CSSR spectrum. In this expression, we define $$a = \Gamma
(1+\beta{\mu^\prime}_*)\;,\;b = \gamma (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)\;\;{\rm
and}\;\;g = a/\Theta
\;.$$ The integrals are defined as $$I_i \equiv
I_i(u_1) - I_i(u_2)\;,\;i = 1,3,$$ where $$I_1(u) = \int_u^\infty dx\;{x\over \exp(x) -1}
\cong \cases{\zeta(2) - u \; ,\;u \leq 1\; , &
\cr\cr
(1+u)\exp(-u)
\; ,\;u\geq 1\;,
& \cr}
\label{I1u}$$ $\zeta(n)$ is the Riemann zeta function ($\zeta(2) = \pi^2/6 =
1.6449\dots$), and $$u_1 = a {\epsilon^\prime}_l/\Theta\;\;{\rm and}\; u_2 = a{\epsilon^\prime}_u/\Theta\;.$$ The function $I_2$ is analytic and is given by $$I_2 = \ln \big({1-e^{-u_2}\over 1-e^{-u_1}}\big)\;.
\label{I2u}$$ The function $$I_3(u) = \int_u^\infty dx\;{1\over x(e^{x} -1)}
\cong {e^{-u}\over u}\;.
\label{I3u}$$ Fig. A1 compares the approximations for $I_1(u)$ and $I_3(u)$ with numerical integrations. These approximations, which introduce at most $\approx 10$ – 20% errors over a narrow range, are used in subsequent calculations.
-1.0in -0.15in
Comparison of Approximations for Radiation Processes
====================================================
Simpler expressions for the Compton-scattered photon spectrum from a point source can be derived using $\delta$-function approximations for the Thomson and KN regimes in the head-on approximation [@ds93]. The accuracy of these expressions are indicated by comparing with accurate results obtained through numerical integrations of eqs. (\[feC\_1\]) and (\[fept\]).
In the Thomson regime, we approximate the differential cross section by the expression $${d\sigma_{\rm T}\over d{\epsilon^\prime}_s} = \sigma_{\rm T} \delta
({\epsilon^\prime}_s -\gamma {\epsilon}_i)H(1-{\epsilon}_i)\;,
\label{dsigmaTdeps}$$ where the Heaviside function with a single argument is defined by $H(x) = 1$ for $x \geq 0$, and $H(x) = 0$ otherwise. The Heaviside function in eq. (\[dsigmaTdeps\]) obviously restricts scattering to the Thomson regime.
Following the approach leading to eq. (\[feC\_1\]), but now using cross section (\[dsigmaTdeps\]) and approximating the star by a monochromatic point source with differential energy density $$u_*({\epsilon}_*,\Omega_*;r) = \hat u_* \delta({\epsilon}_* -2.70\Theta) \delta(\mu_*
- \bar\mu_*) \delta(\phi_* -\bar\phi_*)\;, \; \hat u_* = {L_*\over
4\pi r^2 c}\;,$$ we obtain the $\delta$-function approximation to the CSSR $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum in the Thomson regime, given by $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T*} = {\delta_{\rm D}}^4 \;{c\sigma_{\rm T}\hat u_* (1-\beta\bar\mu_*
)^2 (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)^2\Gamma^2 \over 8\pi d_L^2}\;\hat{\gamma}^3
N^\prime_e (\hat {\gamma})\; H\big[ {{\delta_{\rm D}}\over 2.70\Theta \Gamma (1-\beta
\bar \mu_* ) (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)} -{\epsilon}\;\big]\;.
\label{feTstar}$$ Here $$\hat \gamma = \sqrt{ {{\epsilon}\over 2.70\Theta \Gamma {\delta_{\rm D}}(1-\beta \bar \mu_* ) (1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)}}\;,$$ $$\cos\bar\psi^\prime = \mu_*^\prime {\mu^\prime}_s - \sqrt{1-
\mu_*^{\prime 2} } \sqrt{1-\mu_s^{\prime 2}}
\cos (\phi^\prime - \bar\phi_* )\;,$$ and, as before, $\mu_*^\prime = (\bar\mu_* -
\beta)/(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)$ and ${\mu^\prime}_s = (\mu -
\beta)/(1-\beta\mu )$. The factor $2.70$ arises because the mean energy of a photon in a blackbody radiation field is $[3\zeta(4)/\zeta(3)] k_{\rm B}T \cong 2.70
k_{\rm B}T$.
For a point source radiation field located behind the jet, $\bar\mu_*
\rightarrow 1$ and $\cos\bar\psi^\prime \rightarrow {\mu^\prime}_s$. Replacing $2.70\Theta$ with the dimensionless soft photon energy ${\epsilon}_0$, we obtain $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T,pt} = {\delta_{\rm D}}^6 \;{\sigma_{\rm T} (1-\mu )^2 \over 32 \pi^2
x^2 d_L^2}\;
\int_0^{1/{\epsilon}(1-\mu)}d{\epsilon}_o\; L({\epsilon}_0) {\gamma}_{\rm T}^3 N^\prime_e({\gamma}_{\rm T})\;
\label{feT}$$ [@dsm92], where $${\gamma}_{\rm T} = {1\over {\delta_{\rm D}}}\sqrt{{\epsilon}\over {\epsilon}_0(1-\mu)}\;.$$ This result is written in a form suitable for integration over the spectrum of an isotropic point source with spectral luminosity $L({\epsilon}_0)$.
The beaming properties of the scattered spectrum are easily derived from eq. (\[feTstar\]). If $N_e^\prime({\gamma}) \propto {\gamma}^{-p}$, then $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T*} \propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{(5+p)/2}[\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)
(1-\cos\bar \psi^\prime )]^{(p+1)/2}({\epsilon}/{\epsilon}_0)^{(3-p)/2}
\;.
\label{beaming1}$$ For a point source behind the jet, $\bar\mu_*
\rightarrow 1$, and $[\dots ] \rightarrow {\delta_{\rm D}}(1-\mu)$ in eq. (\[beaming1\]), so that $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T,pt} \propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}(1-\mu)^{(p+1)/2}({\epsilon}/{\epsilon}_0)^{(3-p)/2}
\;.$$ For a point source in front of the jet, $\bar\mu_*
\rightarrow -1$, and $[\dots ] \rightarrow {\delta_{\rm D}}(1+\mu)$ in eq. (\[beaming1\]), so that $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T,ptf} \propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}(1+\mu)^{(p+1)/2}({\epsilon}/{\epsilon}_0)^{(3-p)/2}
\;,$$ which has the same beaming dependence as an external isotropic photon field [@der95]. Because these results span the possible locations of the stellar point source radiation field, we see that the principal dependence of the beaming factor in the Thomson regime is $f_{\epsilon}^{\rm T*} \propto
{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}({\epsilon}/{\epsilon}_0)^{(3-p)/2}$ multiplied by an angle-dependent factor; the exact beaming factor for the CSSR process in the Thomson regime is given by eq.(\[beaming1\]).
In the KN regime, we use the $\delta$-function approximation $${d\sigma_{\rm KN}\over d{\epsilon^\prime}_s} = {3\sigma_{\rm T}\over
8{\epsilon}_i}\ln(2e^{1/2}{\epsilon}_i) \delta ({\epsilon^\prime}_s -\gamma)H({\epsilon}_i-1 )\;
\label{dsigmaKNdeps}$$ [@ds93; @lw04] for the cross section. The CSSR $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum of point-source emission scattered by a jet in the KN regime is given for approximation (\[dsigmaKNdeps\]) by the expression $$f_{\epsilon}^{KN*} = {\delta_{\rm D}}^6\;{3 c
\sigma_{\rm T} \hat u_* {\gamma}_{\rm KN}^3 N_e^\prime ({\gamma}_{\rm KN})
\over 32 \pi d_L^2 (2.70\Theta )^2 {\epsilon}^2}\;\ln[2e^{1/2}
{\gamma}_{\rm KN} \cdot 2.70\Theta \Gamma (1-\beta \bar\mu_*)(1-
\cos \bar\psi^\prime ) ]\times$$ $$\;H\big[ {\epsilon}- {{\delta_{\rm D}}\over 2.70\Theta \Gamma (1-\beta \bar \mu_* )
(1-\cos\bar\psi^\prime)} \;\big]\;,
\label{feKNstar}$$ where $$\gamma_{KN} = {{\epsilon}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}}\;.
\label{gammaKN}$$
The KN regime $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum of an isotropically emitting point-source of radiation located behind the jet is given by the expression $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm KN} = {\delta_{\rm D}}^6 \;{ 3 \sigma_{\rm T} {\gamma}_{\rm KN}^3
N^\prime_e({\gamma}_{\rm KN})\over 128 \pi^2 x^2 d_L^2 {\epsilon}^2}\;
\int_{1/{\epsilon}(1-\mu)}^\infty d{\epsilon}_o\; {L({\epsilon}_0)\over {\epsilon}_0^2}
\ln[2e^{1/2}{\epsilon}{\epsilon}_0(1-\mu)]\;.
\label{feKN}$$ The principal dependence of the beaming factor in the KN regime for a point source behind $(-)$ and in front of $(+)$ of the jet, from eqs. (\[feKNstar\]) and (\[gammaKN\]) and the results following eq. (\[beaming1\]), goes as $$f_{\epsilon}^{\rm KN} \propto{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}\ln[{\epsilon}{\epsilon}_0(1\pm\mu)]{\epsilon}^{1-p}\;.
\label{A7}$$ Because of the slowly varying logarithmic factor, the Doppler dependence of the beaming factor in the KN regime goes as $f_{\epsilon}^{\rm KN} \propto{\delta_{\rm D}}^{3+p}$, as in the case for a surrounding isotropic external radiation field [@gkm01].
-1.5in -0.25in
Fig. B1 gives a comparison of the $\delta$-function (dotted lines) approximations and the accurate (solid curves) calculations of the CSSR and CSAD processes, respectively. The lower and upper branches of the approximations for the CSSR and CSAD processes represent the Thomson and KN $\delta$-function approximations, respectively. Here we treat a monochromatic point source of radiation that radiates isotropically from behind a one-sided jet with Lorentz factor $\Gamma
= 2$. The parameters of the stellar radiation field and accretion disk point source are given by Table 1 parameter study values, though here we use only a single power-law electron distribution between electron Lorentz factors $\gamma = 10^2$ and $10^8$ with $p = 2.5$. The accretion disk luminosity is $10^{36}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, and the accretion disk is assumed to emit monochromatically at 1 keV. The emission from this source is plotted as a thermal emitter with effective temperature $\Theta_{pt} = 1.0/(2.70\times 511)$. Depending on the accuracy desired, the $\delta$-function approximations may be adequate for calculating the spectrum of a point-source radiation field, and is simpler when integrating over non-monochromatic accretion-disk radiation spectra.
It is also useful to compare simple $\delta$-function approximations for the synchrotron and SSC processes with more accurate calculations. A $\delta$-function approximation for the synchrotron spectrum is $$f^{\rm{syn}}_\epsilon \cong {{\delta_{\rm D}}^4 \over 6\pi d_L^2} c \sigma_T u_B^\prime
\gamma_s^3 N_e{^\prime}(\gamma_s)\;,\; {\gamma}_s = \sqrt{{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}{\epsilon}_B}\;,
\label{f_sync}$$ where ${\epsilon}_B = B{\rm(G)}/4.414\times 10^{13}{\rm~G}$, and $B$(G) is the magnetic field in the comoving frame. A $\delta$-function approximation for the SSC spectrum is $$f^{\rm{SSC}}_\epsilon \cong {\delta_{\rm D}}^4 \;{c \sigma_T^2 r_b u_B^\prime\over
12\pi d_L^2 V^\prime_b}\;\big({{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon}_B}\big)^{3/2}
\int_0^{\rm{min}({\epsilon^\prime},1/{\epsilon^\prime})} d{\epsilon^\prime}_i \;{\epsilon}_i^{\prime -1} N^\prime_e(
\sqrt{{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon^\prime}_i}) N^\prime_e( \sqrt{{\epsilon^\prime}_i \over \epsilon_B})
\label{f_SSC}$$ [@ds02], where $u_B^\prime = B^2/8\pi $ and $V_b^\prime = 4\pi r_b^3/3$. The only provision made in this approximation to account for scattering in the KN regime is to terminate the scattering when $\gamma{\epsilon^\prime}_i \geq 1$.
For the broken power-law electron distribution, eq. (\[elecbpl\]), eq. (\[f\_SSC\]) gives $$f^{\rm{SSC}}_\epsilon \cong {\delta_{\rm D}}^4 \;{c \sigma_T^2 u_B^\prime\over 16\pi^2
d_L^2 r_b^2}
\;K^2\big({{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon}_B}\big)^{3/2}
\big[ {\gamma}_1^{2(q-p)} {\cal I}_1 + {\gamma}_1^{q-p}({\cal I}_2 +
{\cal I}_3 ) + {\cal I}_4 \big]\;,
\label{f_SSC_pl}$$ where $${\cal I}_1 = \big({{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon}_B}\big)^{-q/2}
\ln \big[ {\min({\epsilon}^{\prime -1},{\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_0^2,{\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_1^2 )\over
\max({\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_1^2, {\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_0^2 )} \big]\;,$$ $${\cal I}_2 = {2{\epsilon}_B^{q/2} {\epsilon}^{\prime -p/2}\over p-q}\;
\{ \big[ {\min({\epsilon}^{\prime -1},{\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_1^2,{\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_1^2 \big]^{(p-q)/2}
- \big[ \max({\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_2^2, {\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_0^2 )} \big]^{(p-q)/2}\}\;,$$ $${\cal I}_3 = {2{\epsilon}_B^{p/2} {\epsilon}^{\prime -q/2}\over q-p}\;
\{ \big[ {\min({\epsilon}^{\prime -1},{\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_0^2, {\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_2^2\big]^{(q-p)/2}
- \big[ \max({\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_1^2, {\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_1^2 )} \big]^{(q-p)/2}\}\;,\; {\rm and}$$ $${\cal I}_4 = \big({{\epsilon^\prime}\over {\epsilon}_B}\big)^{-p/2}
\ln \big[ {\min({\epsilon}^{\prime -1},{\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_1^2,{\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_2^2 )\over
\max({\epsilon^\prime}/{\gamma}_2^2, {\epsilon}_B{\gamma}_1^2 )} \big]\;$$ [see also @tave98]. In deriving this expression, we assume that the mean escape time of a synchrotron photon from the uniform spherical emitting region is $3r_b/4c$.
The quality of the $\delta$-function approximations for the synchrotron and SSC processes is shown in Fig. B1. Note that synchrotron self-absorption plays a role at the lowest synchrotron photon energies, and is not considered in the approximate curve.
Allowed Parameters for Leptonic Jet Model from Radiation Reaction Limit
=======================================================================
We first generalize the well-known expression for the maximum electron Lorentz factor obtained by comparing the optimal Fermi acceleration rate with the synchrotron energy-loss rate [@gfr83; @rm98] to include Compton losses on the CSSR field. Besides treating KN effects on the energy-loss rates [@aha05a], our results also correct for relativistic jet motions on the Doppler-boosted stellar radiation field.
The electron gyration frequency $\omega_g = eB/m_e c \gamma $ in a magnetic field with mean intensity $B$. Note a number of underlying assumptions in this treatment: that the mean magnetic field is uniform throughout the emitting volume, and that it is randomly oriented. The acceleration rate $\omega_{acc}$ in Fermi processes cannot exceed the gyration frequency because an electron gains at most a fraction of its energy when executing a single gyration in first-order shock or second-order stochastic Fermi processes. Thus $\omega_{acc}= \eta
\omega_g$, with $\eta \lesssim 1$. The fractional synchrotron energy-loss rate $\omega_{syn} = |-\dot\gamma_{syn}/\gamma | =
\sigma_{\rm T} B^2\gamma/6\pi m_e c$ which, when equated with the acceleration rate, gives $$\gamma_{max} = \eta^{1/2} \sqrt{6\pi e\over \sigma_{\rm T} B}
\cong {1.2\times 10^8 \eta^{1/2}\over
\sqrt{B({\rm G})} } \;,
\label{gammamaxsyn}$$ and a maximum synchrotron frequency of $h\nu_{max} \cong
{\delta_{\rm D}}(\hbar eB/m_e c)\gamma^2/(1+z) \cong 160 \eta {\delta_{\rm D}}/(1+z)
{\rm ~MeV}$.
Scattering in the Klein-Nishina regime is important when $4\gamma{\epsilon^\prime}=
4\gamma[2.70\Theta\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)] \gtrsim 1$ (compare eq.), that is, when $\gamma \gtrsim 5\times 10^4/[k_{\rm
B}T_*({\rm eV})\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)]$. The fractional energy-loss rate in the extreme KN regime for a blackbody radiation field with dimensionless temperature $\Theta$ is $$\omega_{\rm KN} = |{-\dot\gamma_{\rm KN}\over \gamma} |
\cong {c\sigma_{\rm T}\over 16 {\lambda\!\!\! \raisebox{0.5ex}{--}_{\rm C}}^3}
\;{\Theta^2\over \gamma}\; \ln(0.552 \gamma\Theta)\;
\label{omegaKN}$$ [@bg70], where ${\lambda\!\!\! \raisebox{0.5ex}{--}_{\rm C}}= \lambda_{\rm C}/2\pi =
\hbar/m_e c = 3.86\times 10^{-11}$ cm is (also called) the electron Compton wavelength.
The energy density $u_*^\prime$ of a stellar blackbody radiation field in the comoving jet frame has to be corrected by a graybody factor that accounts for (1) the dilution of the radiation field due to the distance of the jet from the star, and (2) the reduction in energy density due to the bulk relativistic motion of the jet. Recalling that the energy density at the surface of a blackbody is $1/4$ times the energy density in the interior of a blackbody cavity, the relation between the energy densities is therefore given by $$u_*^\prime = {1\over 4} \big({R_*\over r}\big)^2
\;\Gamma^2 (1-\beta\bar\mu_* )^2 u_{bb} (\Theta )\;
\label{ustarprime}$$ [e.g., @ds02], where $u_{bb}(\Theta ) = {\pi^2 m_ec^2\Theta^4/ 15{\lambda\!\!\! \raisebox{0.5ex}{--}_{\rm C}}^3}\;$ is the energy density of a blackbody stellar radiation field with dimensionless temperature $\Theta $.
The graybody factor from eq. (\[ustarprime\]) therefore gives the maximum electron Lorentz factor $\gamma_{max}$ by solving the equation $$\eta\;{eB\over m_e c } = {\sigma_{\rm T}
B^2\gamma^2_{max}\over 6\pi m_e c} +
\big({R_*\over r}\big)^2 \;\Gamma^2
(1-\beta\bar\mu_* )^2{c\sigma_{\rm T}\over 64 {\lambda\!\!\! \raisebox{0.5ex}{--}_{\rm C}}^3}
\;\Theta^2\; \ln[0.552 \gamma_{max}\Gamma\Theta(1-\beta\bar\mu_* )]\;.
\label{gammamaxKN}$$ which holds when $\gamma_{max}\gg [\Gamma\Theta(1-\beta\bar\mu_*
)]^{-1}$. The maximum synchrotron energy in the comoving frame is $h\nu_{max,syn}^\prime \cong (\hbar e B/ m_e c) \gamma_{max}^2$. Eq.(\[gammamaxKN\]) can be rewritten as $$\gamma_{max}^2 = \eta\; {9B_{cr}\over 4\alpha_f B}\; -
{3\pi\alpha_f\over 32}\;({B_{cr}\over B})^2
\big[ {R_* \Gamma (1-\beta\bar\mu_* )\Theta\over r}\big]^2
\ln[0.552 \gamma_{max}\Gamma\Theta(1-\beta\bar\mu_* )]\;,
\label{gammamaxKN_1}$$ where $\alpha_f = 1/137$ is the fine structure constant and $B_{cr} =
m_e^2c^3/e\hbar = 4.41\times 10^{13}$ G is the critical magnetic field. Again, this expression holds as long as the argument of the logarithm is much greater than unity.
Because of the similar dependence of the acceleration rate and the fractional KN energy-loss rate found in eq. (\[gammamaxKN\]), Compton-scattering in the KN regime will be unimportant to limit electron acceleration when $${r\over R_*}\; \gtrsim \alpha_f \Theta \;
\sqrt{{\pi B_{cr}\over 24\eta B} }\cong
0.07\;{ T_*({\rm eV})\;\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_* )
\over \sqrt{\eta B({\rm G})}}\;;
\label{rKNmax}$$ here we have taken the square root of the logarithmic term $\approx
2$.
A limit on the range of values of $B$ can be obtained by noting that the emission of photons with energy $E_\gamma$ requires electrons with Lorentz factors $$\gamma \; \gtrsim \; {E_\gamma\over {\delta_{\rm D}}m_ec^2}\;
\cong\; {2\times 10^7 E_{10}\over {\delta_{\rm D}}} \;,$$ where $E_{10}\equiv E_\gamma / 10{\rm ~TeV}$. From Eq. (\[gammamaxsyn\]), $$B({\rm G}) \lesssim 38\eta {\delta_{\rm D}}^2/E_{10}^2\;.
\label{gammae10}$$ With eq. (\[rKNmax\]), this implies an allowed range of magnetic fields, given by $${5\times 10^{-3}\over \eta} \; T_*^2({\rm eV})\;
\big[ {R_* \Gamma (1-\beta\bar\mu_* )\over r}\big]^2
\lesssim B({\rm G})\lesssim {38\eta {\delta_{\rm D}}^2 \over E_{10}^2}\;,
\label{Brange}$$ for a leptonic jet model to apply to the observed VHE emission from a microquasar.
For the parameters of LS 5039 given in Table 1, $${0.024\over \eta}{[\Gamma(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)]^2\over r^2_{12}}
\; \lesssim \; B({\rm G})\; \lesssim\;
{38\eta {\delta_{\rm D}}^2 \over E_{10}^2}\;,
\label{Brange2}$$ where $r_{12} = r/10^{12}$ cm and $\bar\mu_* = \sqrt{1-d^2/r^2}$. For a nonrelativistic outflow, as treated by @aha05a, $\eta \rightarrow \eta_0 \beta^2 = (0.2)^2\eta_0(\beta/0.2)^2$, with $\eta_0 \lesssim 1$. The allowed range becomes $${0.6\over \eta_0 r_{12}^2 (\beta/0.2)^2}
\; \lesssim \; B({\rm G})\; \lesssim\;
{ 1.4\eta_0 (\beta/0.2)^2 \over E^2_{10}}\;\;.
\label{Brange1}$$ If the jet is nonrelativistic, eq. (\[Brange1\]) circumscribes the mean comoving magnetic field of a leptonic jet model for LS 5039 to a narrow range of values unless $r_{12} \gg 1$ even for the optimistic case of $\eta_0 \cong 1$, in which case the orbital modulation of the $\gamma$-ray emission due to $\gamma\gamma$ attenuation and, to a lesser extent, the CSSR process will be small. Even a mildly relativistic jet ($\Gamma \gtrsim 1.5$) opens up a much larger allowable parameter space to permit the source of emission to originate from the inner jet. Note that the inferred jet speed from radio observations [@par02] of LS 5039 may not be representative of the jet speed near the source due to bulk deceleration caused, for example, by radiative drag.
Allowed Parameters for Leptonic Jet Model from Ratio of Compton to Synchrotron Fluxes
=====================================================================================
A further restriction on parameters for a leptonic microquasar jet model can be obtained by noting that the ratio of the peak $\nu F_\nu$ fluxes for the Compton and synchrotron components, denoted by $\rho$, is related to the ratio of the comoving photon $u^\prime_*$ and magnetic field $u_B^\prime $ energy densities by the relation $$\rho \equiv {f_{{\epsilon}_{pk,{\rm C}}}^{\rm C}\over f_{{\epsilon}_{pk,{\rm s}}}^{\rm s} }
\approx {u^\prime_*\over u^\prime_B}\;
\label{rho}$$ [compare @sik97 for blazars]. This expression, which neglects angular scattering effects, holds for scattering in the Thomson regime and so would best be applied to emission observed in the GLAST band. Taking $$u^\prime_* = {L_*\over 4\pi r^2 c} \Gamma^2
(1-\beta\bar\mu_*)^2\;,$$ (compare eq. \[\[ustarprime\]\]; $\sigma_{\rm SB} = \pi^2 m_e c^3 k_{\rm B}^4/[60{\lambda\!\!\! \raisebox{0.5ex}{--}_{\rm C}}^3
(m_e c^2)^4 ]$ ), we find $$r \; \gtrsim \; {E_{10}^2 \over 38\eta {\delta_{\rm D}}^2}\;({2L_*\over
c\rho})^{1/2} \Gamma (1-\beta\bar\mu_* )\;.
\label{secondrrange}$$ using eq. (\[gammae10\]). For the parameters of LS 5039, $$r_{12} \; \gtrsim \; {0.6 E_{10}^2 \over \eta
\sqrt{\rho/100}}\;{\Gamma (1-\beta\bar\mu_* )\over {\delta_{\rm D}}^2}\;
\rightarrow\;
{15 E_{10}^2 \over \eta_0 (\beta/0.2)^2\sqrt{\rho/100}}\;,
\label{thirdrrange}$$ where the last expression holds for a nonrelativistic outflow. Application of this constraint implies that we properly identify the peak nonthermal jet synchrotron flux, which is not necessarily obvious from the broadband data (see Fig. 5). Choosing a value $\rho \approx 10^2$ suggested by Fig. 6 data, we conclude that emission from the inner jet is possible for a mildly relativistic leptonic jet model, but not for a nonrelativistic jet at the base of the microquasar.
Aharonian, F., et al., 2005, Science, 309, 746
Aharonian, F., Anchordoqui, L. A., Khangulyan, D., & Montaruli, T., 2005a, astro-ph/0508658
Atoyan, A. M., & Aharonian, F. A. 1999, , 302, 253
Bednarek, W. 1997, , 322, 523
Begelman, M. C., & Sikora, M. 1987, , 322, 650
Blumenthal, G. R., & Gould, R. J. 1970, Reviews of Modern Physics, 42, 237
Böttcher, M., & Dermer, C. D. 2005, ApJ Letters, 634, L81
Bosch-Ramon, V., Paredes, J. M., Rib[' o]{}, M., Miller, J. M., Reig, P., & Mart[í]{}, J. 2005, , 628, 388
Bosch-Ramon, V., Romero, G. E., & Paredes, J. M. 2005a, , 429, 267
Bosch-Ramon V., Romero, G. E., & Paredes, J. M. 2005b, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0509086)
Bosch-Ramon, V., Aharonian, F. A., & Paredes, J. M. 2005c, , 432, 609
Bosch-Ramon, V., & Paredes, J. M., 2004a, A&A, 417, 1075
Bosch-Ramon, V., & Paredes, J. M. 2004b, , 425, 1069
Butt, Y. M., Maccarone, T. J., & Prantzos, N. 2003, , 587, 748
Casares, J., Ribó, M., Ribas, I., Paredes, J. M., Martí, J., & Herrero, A., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 899
Dermer, C. D. 1995, , 446, L63
Dermer, C. D., Schlickeiser, R., & Mastichiadis, A. 1992, , 256, L27
Dermer, C. D. & Schlickeiser, R. 1993, , 416, 458
Dermer, C. D., Sturner, S. J., & Schlickeiser, R. 1997, , 109, 103
Dermer, C. D., & Schlickeiser, R. 2002, , 575, 667
Dermer, C. D., & Atoyan, A. M. 2002, , 568, L81
Dubus, G., 2005, A&A, submitted (astro-ph/0509633)
Fender, R., & Maccarone, T. 2004, ASSL Vol. 304: Cosmic Gamma-Ray Sources, K.S. Cheng and G.E. Romero (eds.), (Kluwer: Dordrecht), p. 205 (astro-ph/0310538)
Georganopoulos, M., Aharonian, F. A., & Kirk, J. G. 2002, , 388, L25
Georganopoulos, M., Kirk, J. G., & Mastichiadis, A. 2001, , 561, 111; (e) 2004, , 604, 479
Gregory, P. C., & Taylor, A. R., 1978, Nature, 272, 704
Grenier, I. A., Casandjian, J.-M., & Terrier, R. 2005a, Science, 307, 1292
Grenier, I. A., Bernad[ó]{}, M. M. K., & Romero, G. E. 2005a, , 297, 109
Guilbert, P. W., Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1983, , 205, 593
Gupta, S., Böttcher, M., & Dermer, C. D. 2005, , submitted
Hermsen, W., et al. 1977, , 269, 494
Jones, F. C. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 1159
Kaufman Bernad[ó]{}, M. M., Romero, G. E., & Mirabel, I. F. 2002, , 385, L10
Kniffen, D. A., et al. 1997, , 486, 126
Levinson, A. & Blandford, R. 1996, , 456, L29
Li, H., & Wang, J. 2004, , 617, 162
Markoff, S., Falcke, H., & Fender, R. P. 2001, A&A, 372, L25
Markoff, S., Nowak, M., Corbel, S., Fender, R., & Falcke, H. 2003, , 397, 645
Massi, M. 2004, , 422, 267
McSwain, M. V., Gies, D. R., Riddle, R. L., Wang, Z., & Wingert, D. W. 2001, , 558, L43
Melia, F., & Königl, A. 1989, , 340, 162
Paredes, J. M. 2005, Chinese Journal of Astronony and Astrophysics, 5, 121 (astro-ph/0409226)
Paredes, J. M., Mart[í]{}, J., Rib[' o]{}, M., & Massi, M. 2000, Science, 288, 2340
Paredes, J. M., Rib[ó]{}, M., Ros, E., Mart[í]{}, J., & Massi, M. 2002, , 393, L99
Paredes, J. M., Bosch-Ramon, V., & Romero, G. E., 2005, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0509095)
Protheroe, R. J., Mastichiadis, A., & Dermer, C. D. 1992, Astroparticle Physics, 1, 113
Rachen, J. P., and M[' e]{}sz[' a]{}ros, P. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 123005.
Rib[ó]{}, M., Reig, P., Mart[í]{}, J., & Paredes, J. M. 1999, , 347, 518
Rieger, F. M. 2004, , 615, L5
Romero, G. E., Torres, D. F., Kaufman Bernadó, M. M., & Mirabel, I. F., 2003, A&A, 410, L1
Romero, G. E., Christiansen, H. R., & Orellana, M. 2005, , 632, 1093
Romero, G. E. 2005, Chinese Journal of Astronony and Astrophysics, 5, 110 (astro-ph/0407461)
Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C., & Rees, M. J. 1994, , 421, 153
Sikora, M. 1997, AIP Conf. Proc. 410: Proceedings of the Fourth Compton Symposium, 410, 494
Tavani, M., Kniffen, D., Mattox, J. R., Paredes, J. M., & Foster, R. 1998, , 497, L89
Tavecchio, F., Maraschi, L., & Ghisellini, G. 1998, , 509, 608
Torres, D. F., Romero, G. E., Dame, T. M., Combi, J. A., and Butt, Y. M. 2003, Phys. Reports, 382, 303
Torres, D. F., Romero, G. E., Barcons, X., & Lu, Y., 2005, ApJ, 626, 1015
0.1in
------------------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --
Quantity Parameter Model A Model B
Study
$d_L({\rm kpc})$ 3.0
$ T_*({\rm K})$ 39000
$ L_*({\rm ergs~s}^{-1})$ $7\times 10^{38}$
$ R_*$(cm) $6.5\times 10^{11}$
$ d({\rm cm})$ $2.5\times 10^{12}$
$\theta$ (incl.) 25$^\circ$
$\Gamma$ 2.0
$ {\delta_{\rm D}}$ 2.32
$B({\rm G})$ 1.0 0.8 0.8
$r_b ({\rm cm}) $ $10^{11}$ $2\times 10^{11}$ $ 10^{11}$
$W_e^\prime ({\rm ergs}) $ $10^{38}$ $2\times 10^{37}$ $2\times 10^{38}$
$p$ 3.0 2.25 3.0
$q$ $2.0$ 1.25 2.0
${\gamma}_0$ 100 10 300
${\gamma}_1$ $10^3$ 100 $10^3$
$ x({\rm cm})$ $2.5\times 10^{12}$ $2\times 10^{13}$ $10^{13},10^{14}$
$ L_{pt}({\rm ergs~s}^{-1})$ $ 10^{36}$ – $ 10^{34}$
$ T_{pt}({\rm keV})$ 1/2.70 – 0.3/2.70
------------------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --
: Standard values used in parameter study and model fits to LS 5039
\[tab:invariant\_cross\_section\_constants\]
[^1]: Inner jet refers to jet locations $x \lesssim d$.
[^2]: At lower energies, $\alpha_\nu
\cong 2$, corresponding to the low-energy emissivity spectrum $j^\prime \propto {\epsilon^\prime}$ of a mono-energetic electron distribution [@bg70].
[^3]: The factor 1/4 is introduced because the domain of Compton scattering is defined by the value of the quantity $4\gamma{\epsilon^\prime}$ rather than $\gamma{\epsilon^\prime}$; see @bg70.
[^4]: No primes are attached to the electron Lorentz factor $\gamma$, however, as this quantity is always referred to the comoving frame here.
[^5]: The following results can be applied to sources at cosmological distances by replacing ${\epsilon}$ with $(1+z){\epsilon}$ in the right-hand-sides of the subsequent expressions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The FFT of three-dimensional (3D) input data is an important computational kernel of numerical simulations and is widely used in High Performance Computing (HPC) codes running on large number of processors. Although the efficient parallelization of 3D FFT has been largely investigated over the last few decades, performance and scalability of parallel 3D FFT methods on new generation hardware architecture for HPC is a major challenge. Looking at upcoming exascale cluster architectures, the conventional parallel 3D FFT calculations on HPC needs improvement for better performance.
In this paper, we present C-DAC’s three-dimensional Fast Fourier Transform (CROFT) library which implements three-dimensional parallel FFT using pencil decomposition. To exploit the multithreading capabilities of hardware without affecting performance, CROFT is designed to use hybrid programming model of OpenMP and MPI. CROFT implementation has a feature of overlapping compute and memory-I/O with MPI communication. Depending on the number of processes used, CROFT shows performance improvement of about $ 51 \% - 42 \% $ as compared to FFTW3 library.
address: 'HPC-Medical and Bioinformatics Applications Group, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing(C-DAC), C-DAC Innovation Park, Pashan, Pune-411008, India.'
author:
- Vivek Gavane
- Supriya Prabhugawankar
- Shivam Garg
- Archana Achalere
- Rajendra Joshi
title: 'CROFT: A scalable three-dimensional parallel Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) implementation for High Performance Clusters'
---
3D FFT, pencil decomposition, 2D decomposition, parallel FFT.
Introduction
============
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is an extensively used algorithm which calculates the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of $N$ complex points. Discrete Fourier Transform is the most fundamental mathematical tool applied to time series and waveform analysis in signal processing, applied mathematics, spectral analysis, control processing etc [@Stearns1993]. With the famous divide and conquer algorithm by Cooley and Tukey [@Cooley1965], FFT algorithm reduced the time complexity of naive implementation of DFT from O($n^2$) to O$(n \log n)$ for serial computation. It also opened up active area for parallel implementation of FFT algorithms, depending on data size and machine architecture. Fast Fourier Transform as a numerical tool, has been extensively used across wide disciplines of science and engineering. For example, its application ranges from turbulence simulations, computational chemistry and biology, gravitational interactions, cardiac electro-physiology, acoustic, seismic and electromagnetic scattering, image processing and many other areas [[@Lee2013], [@Dror2010],[@Aarseth2003], [@Bruno2001], [@Philips1997]]{}.
In most of these applications, FFT is applied on large data sets with multiple dimensions. This makes FFT calculations computationally intensive, and parallel FFT involves data distribution and collective communication. Therefore, a lot of efforts on research and development in parallelization of FFT, especially on 3D FFT, have been carried out for a variety of domain specific applications. With modern day HPC environment, where large number of processors are available, scalability and performance of 3D FFT is a major challenge. Parallelization of FFT algorithm can be broadly categorized as distributed FFT and transpose-based algorithms [@Foster1997] [@Grama2003]. In order to utilize the maximum number of processors in modern day HPC machines, transpose-based algorithms have been predominantly used in many parallel 3D FFT codes.
Parallel FFT on multidimensional data can be performed as a sequence of one-dimensional transforms along each dimension. This demands data distribution, that involves lot of communication across the processors and hence, prevents the efficient usage of large number of processors for a given data size. The efficiently scaled implementation of parallel 3D FFT on new generation HPC hardware is one of the grand challenges in scientific computing. Since last two decades lots of efforts have been made to resolve this issue using different strategies. Therefore, many parallel open source FFT libraries exist and have been efficiently used in academia and industry as well. FFTW (Fastest Fourier Transform from West)[@Frigo2005], PFFT (Parallel FFT) [@Pippig2013], P3DFFT (Parallel Three-Dimensional Fast Fourier Transforms)[@Pekurovasky2012] and 2DECOMP&FFT [@Sylvain2010] are few such libraries. Most of the conventional parallel 3D FFT libraries are based on 1D or slab decomposition method, which limits scaling only up to the largest dimension of multidimensional data. While using pencil or 2D decomposition, scalability of 3D FFT has been improved in libraries like P3DFFT and 2DECOMP&FFT. All of these libraries use MPI for message passing on a distributed cluster for parallel FFT calculations. On the other hand, hardware reconfiguration techniques and accelerators have also been used to obtain performance of 3D FFT [@Nidhi2013],[@Sheng2014],[@Keskin2017]. Similarly, 3D parallel FFT libraries like AccFFT have been developed to achieve scalability and performance on both CPU and GPU architectures [@Gholamia2016]. Recently, to improve the scalability of 3D parallel FFT, use of non-blocking MPI call has been reported[@Hollingsworth2014]. Also combination of OpenMP and MPI has been used on HPC to speed up 3D FFT parallel calculations [@Nikl2014].
In this paper, we present CROFT library to calculate 3D parallel FFT using MPI and OpenMP hybrid programming model. CROFT’s parallel strategy is designed and implemented for performance and scalability on large multicore clusters. In upcoming exascale clusters there is an increase in the total amount of memory per node and improvement in the operating frequency of main memory. High bandwidth and low latency networks are being designed for scalability of applications. To exploit the improvement in technology, this paper presents application of hybrid programming model comprising OpenMP and MPI having overlap of compute and memory-I/O with MPI communication. CROFT has demonstrated performance improvement of approximately $42\%$ to $51\%$ with varying number of processes as compared to popularly used FFTW3 library.
Background and Implementation of parallel 3D FFT
================================================
Multidimensional FFT
--------------------
The forward DFT of a three-dimensional complex input array $X = \{ X (0:N_{x} -1, 0: N_{y} - 1, 0:N_{z} - 1 )$ } to a complex three-dimensional output array $Y = \{ Y (0:N_{x} -1, 0: N_{y} - 1, 0:N_{z} - 1 ) \}$ is defined as [@Sigrist2007], $$Y(k_{x},k_{y},k_{z}) = \sum^{N_{x}-1}_{j_{x}= 0} \sum^{N_{y}-1}_{j_{y}= 0} \sum^{N_{z}-1}_{j_{z}= 0} X(j_{x},j_{y},j_{z}) E$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\textrm{where}}, & E & = e^{ -2 \pi \imath \left( \frac{k_x j_x}{N_x} + \frac{k_y j_y}{N_y} + \frac{k_z j_z}{N_z} \right)} {\textrm{and}} \nonumber \\
&& 0 \leq k_x < N_x ,\nonumber \\
&& 0 \leq k_y < N_y , \nonumber \\
&& 0 \leq k_z < N_z \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding backward DFT using the same definitions is defined as [@Sigrist2007], $$X(j_x,j_y,j_z) = \frac{1}{N_x N_y N_z } \sum^{N_{x}-1}_{k_{x}= 0} \sum^{N_{y}-1}_{k_{y}= 0} \sum^{N_{z}-1}_{k_{z}= 0} Y(k_x,k_y,k_z ) E$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\textrm{where}}, & E & = e^{2 \pi \imath \left( \frac{k_x j_x}{N_x} + \frac{k_y j_y}{N_y} + \frac{k_z j_z}{N_z} \right) } {\textrm{and}} \nonumber\\
&& 0 \leq j_x < N_x, \nonumber \\
&& 0 \leq j_y < N_y, \nonumber \\
&& 0 \leq j_z < N_z \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
For parallelization of 3D FFT, the 3D input matrix data can be decomposed and distributed amongst the processes [@Sigrist2007]. To perform 3D FFT we have to take 1D FFT, along each dimension. This can be achieved using the serial 1D FFT as the building block.
Decomposition techniques
------------------------
There are three main data decomposition techniques available. These are 1) slab or 1D decomposition [@Foster1997], 2) pencil or 2D decomposition [@Ayala2012] and 3) cell or 3D decomposition [@Sedukhin2012].
### Slab Decomposition
![Slab or 1D decomposition technique for parallelization.[]{data-label="fig:slab"}](SlabDecomposition.eps){width="3in" height="2.5in"}
In this approach 3D input matrix is decomposed along any one dimension resulting in multiple slabs which are given to different processes for further computations. For example, if input matrix has dimension $ N_x \times N_y \times N_z$, and any one axis, say $Z$ is chosen for decomposition, then the distributed input with every process will be, $$N_x \times N_y \times \frac{N_z}{P_z}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{where, } \nonumber
P =P_z = \textrm{Number of processes along $ Z$ axis.} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As data along the $X$ and $Y$ is contiguous in memory, we can either take 2D FFT transform or separately take 1D FFT along both the axes locally. These local transforms do not involve any kind of communication between the processes. After 2D transform along the $X$ and $Y$ dimensions, we have to take a global transpose of the data and then perform 1D FFT along the $Z$ axis. This global transpose is required to make the third dimension locally available on the processes and involves communication between the processes to exchange data. The scalability of the slab decomposition is limited by the number of slabs that can be created along a single dimension of the 3D matrix. In this case, the maximum number of processes that can be used is $P_{max}=N_z$. Thus, this technique is not suitable when large number of processors are available. Slab decomposition is used by many parallel 3D FFT libraries e.g. FFTW3 [@Frigo2005] and problem-specific applications e.g. molecular dynamics software GROMACS [@urlgromacs].
### Pencil Decomposition
In this approach 3D input matrix is decomposed along two dimensions which forms a shape of pencil. Number of pencils generated are equal to the number of processes to be spawned. For example, if input 3D matrix has dimension $N_x \times N_y \times N_z$, then take any two dimensions for decomposition say Y and Z. The distributed input with every process will be,
$$N_x \times \frac{N_y}{P_y} \times \frac{N_z}{P_z}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{where} \nonumber\\
P_y &=& \textrm{Number of processes along $Y$ axis,} \nonumber\\
P_z &=& \textrm{Number of processes along $ Z $ axis, and} \nonumber \\
P_{} &=& P_y \times P_z \textrm{ is the total number of available processes.} \nonumber\\ \end{aligned}$$
![Pencil or 2D decomposition technique for parallelization.[]{data-label="fig:pencil"}](PencilDecomposition.eps){width="3in" height="2.5in"}
The scaling limitation of 1D decomposition technique can be overcome by using a 2D decomposition technique. Here, maximum number of processes that can be used are $P_{max}=N_y \times N_z$ which is greater than that of slab decomposition.
### Cell decomposition
In this approach 3D input matrix is decomposed along all three dimensions to form small cuboidal sub-matrices of data, called cells. Number of cells generated are equal to number of processes to be spawned. For example, if input 3D matrix has dimension $N_x \times N_y \times N_z$, then distributed input with every process will be, $$\frac{N_x}{P_x} \times \frac{N_y}{P_y} \times \frac{N_z}{P_z}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{where} \nonumber\\
P_x &=& \textrm{ Number of processes along $X$ axis,} \nonumber\\
P_y &=& \textrm{ Number of processes along $Y$ axis,} \nonumber\\
P_z &=& \textrm{ Number of processes along $Z$ axis, and} \nonumber\\
P_{} &=& P_x \times P_y \times P_z \nonumber\\
& &\textrm{is the total number of available processes.} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
For calculation of 3D FFT using this approach, we can use large number of processors, but computation becomes complex and involves huge amount of communication and hence is rarely used.
![Cell or 3D decomposition technique for parallelization.[]{data-label="fig:cell"}](CellDecomposition.eps){width="3in" height="2.5in"}
Related Work
============
To perform parallel 3D FFT, different open source libraries such as FFTW3, P3DFFT, and 2DECOMP$\&$FFT are available. FFTW3 uses slab decomposition, whereas P3DFFT and 2DECOMP$\&$FFT use pencil decomposition to distribute the data in parallel environment.
FFTW3
-----
FFTW3 is a widely used free-software library that computes the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and its various special cases [@Frigo2005], [@urlfftw]. It is a C subroutine library for computing the DFT in one or more dimensions of arbitrary input size, and works on both real and complex data. It also works on even/odd data, i.e. the discrete cosine/sine transforms or DCT/DST respectively[@urlfftw]. The latest official release of FFTW3 is version 3.3.8. Version 3.3 introduced support for AVX x86 extensions, a distributed-memory implementation on top of MPI, and a Fortran 2003 API [@urlfftw]. This version is used for comparative study and serial 1D FFT calculations. FFTW3 uses slab decomposition and therefore its scaling is limited to $P_{max} <= N$ where, $ P_{max}$ is maximum number of processors and $N$ is linear problem size.
P3DFFT
------
Parallel Three-Dimensional Fast Fourier Transforms, dubbed P3DFFT is a library for large-scale computer simulations on parallel platforms [@Pekurovasky2012]. P3DFFT is written in Fortran and is optimized for parallel performance. It uses Message Passing Interface (MPI) for interprocessor communication, and from v.2.7.5 onwards P3DFFT provides a multi-threading option for hybrid MPI/OpenMP implementation.
This library uses 2D or pencil decomposition to overcome an important scalability limitation which is known to be inherent in FFT libraries based on 1D (or slab) decomposition [@urlp3dfft]. The number of processors/tasks used can be as large as $ P_{max}=N_y \times N_z$, where $ N_y$ and $N_z$ are input matrix sizes along the $Y$ and $Z$ dimensions respectively.
2DECOMP&FFT
------------
2DECOMP&FFT [@Sylvain2010] library written in Fortran uses 2D or pencil decomposition for data distribution on distributed-memory platforms. It is one of the scalable and efficient distributed Fast Fourier Transform modules that supports three-dimensional FFT and includes both complex-to-complex and real-to-complex/complex-to-real transforms. The maximum number of processors/tasks that can be used are $P_{max}= N_y \times N_z$, where $N_y$ and $N_z$ are input matrix sizes along the $Y$ and $Z$ dimensions respectively.
Proposed Method
===============
CROFT is a parallel three-dimensional Fast Fourier Transform library implementation for distributed clusters. We have used a general algorithm which is based on pencil decomposition for data distribution. It is implemented using hybrid programming and is based on the strategy of overlapping compute and communication operations. Three-dimensional FFT is obtained by calculating 1D FFT along all the three dimensions of the input data. CROFT uses 1D FFT routine from FFTW3 library to calculate the FFT along each dimension.
Algorithm
---------
The algorithm requires $2^{p}$ processes which are arranged as a two dimensional matrix. Processes in each row form row-communicator and processes in each column form column-communicator resulting in multiple row and column communicators as seen in figure \[fig:vgrid\]. The algorithm requires each process to have its part of data. For the sake of understanding, it is assumed that the data is aligned along the $X$ dimension. The data is decomposed along the $Y$ and $Z$ dimensions to form multiple pencils, which are aligned along the X dimension as seen in figure \[3DFFT\](a). The number of pencils would be equal to the number of processes, where, one pencil is assigned to each process. The steps followed by CROFT are given below.
[**[Steps:]{}**]{}
1. Compute 1-D FFT along the X dimension for all processes.
2. Pack the 1-D array data into a buffer in preparation for all-to-all communication.
3. For all column communicators, perform all-to-all communication between all processes in a column communicator.
4. Rearrange the received data into the 1-D array with the new memory layout such that elements on the $Y$ dimension are adjacent in memory.
5. Compute 1-D FFT along the $Y$ dimension.
6. Pack the 1-D array data into a buffer in preparation for all-to-all communication.
7. For all row communicators, perform all-to-all communication for each process in a row communicator.
8. Rearrange the received data into the 1-D array with new memory layout such that the elements on the $Z$ dimension are adjacent in memory.
9. Compute 1-D FFT along the $Z$ dimension.
Algorithm Explanation
---------------------
![Steps involved in computing 3D parallel FFT. Pencil image indicates 1D FFT calculations along a dimension and arrow between two images indicates transpose.[]{data-label="3DFFT"}](3DParallelFFT_final.eps){width="4.8in" height="2.0in"}
Initially, the data is distributed to each process as a pencil in which the data is aligned along the $X$ axis. Each process now computes 1D FFT along the $X$ axis and saves the result in 1D array. To compute FFT along the $Y$ axis, $XY$ transpose is performed so that data along the $Y$ axis becomes contiguous. This is achieved using step 2, 3 and 4 of the algorithm. The 1-D array data is packed into a buffer, such that the buffer is filled with data which is to be communicated, followed by all-to-all communication in the column communicator. Both these operations, packing and MPI all-to-all communication have been overlapped. After the completion of communication, the data is unpacked and rearranged in the memory, so that the data along the $Y$ axis would be contiguous. Now, the 1D FFT is computed along the $Y$ dimension and the result is saved in 1D array. The FFT along the $Z$ axis is computed, by performing $YZ$ transpose, so that data along the $Z$ axis would be contiguous as per the steps 6, 7 and 8. This is followed by the overlap of the operations involving packing of data with MPI all-to-all communication in row communicator. After the completion of communication, the date is unpacked and rearranged in memory so that the data along $Z$ axis would be contiguous. Now, 1-D FFT is computed along the $Z$ dimension and the result is saved in 1D array. To get the same data layout as initial, $YZ$ and $XY$ transpose are performed.
Implementation and verification
===============================
The above mentioned algorithm (Section 4.1) is implemented in CROFT library to calculate parallel 3D FFT using pencil decomposition. The implementation is done in C using MPI+OpenMP hybrid programming model for double precision complex data. This implementation considers the dimensions of actual 3D matrix as $N_x$ , $N_y$ and $N_z$, where $N_x = N_y = N_z$ and is equal to $2^{n}$ for any integer $n$. We have discussed the implementation of forward transform in this paper. The backward transform can be obtained by reversing the steps in the algorithm.
Parallelization and optimization
--------------------------------
Message Passing Interface (MPI) library is used to communicate across the processes in a distributed cluster. The total number of processes are virtually arranged in 2D virtual communication grid as shown in figure \[fig:vgrid\], with $P_y$ as the number of processes along the $Y$ axis and $P_z$ as the number of processes along the $Z$ axis.
![2D virtual communication grid formed by processes in 2D or pencil decomposition[]{data-label="fig:vgrid"}](VirtualProcesses2DGrid_final.eps){width="3in" height="2.5in"}
Initially, as the data is contiguous along the X axis, each process first performs a 1D FFT along it. For all the nodes to have the $Y$ dimension locally available, a global transpose is required. It then takes global transpose and performs 1D FFT along the $Y$ axis. At this stage, to swap the X and Y axis, all-to-all communication between processes within the same row of the virtual communication grid takes place. It again performs global transpose and 1D FFT along the $Z$ axis. This global transpose is required for the nodes to have the $Z$ dimension locally available. Here, all-to-all communication between processes within the same column of the virtual communication grid is required to swap the data along the $Y$ and $Z$ axis.
![Overlapping of data copy and communication operations.[]{data-label="Overlap"}](OverlappingCopy_Comm.eps){width="3in" height="1.7in"}
OpenMP is used for overlapping compute and memory I/O with communication operations. The implementation uses two threads as seen in figure \[Overlap\](b) with one thread dedicated for MPI communication. While one thread is executing the application, if communication is demanded, it is handled by the other thread. Here, we define an iteration parameter $K$ to handle the trade-off between size of overlapping computation and memory I/O chunk with the communication calls. With a small value of $K$, we can overlap large chunk of compute and memory I/O operations with the communication calls, which results into less communication overhead. If the value of parameter $K$ gets large, we can overlap smaller chunks of compute and memory I/O operations with the communication, which results into more number of communication calls. Thus we should find an optimum value of $K \ge 1$ to achieve high performance.
For optimizing the code execution, various techniques such as function inlining and vectorization is used wherever possible. For checking the performance with different implementation approaches, code was implemented for various combinations of compute and communication options. These options include:
Option 1 : without overlap of compute and communication while using multiple FFTW3 plans for calculating 1D FFTs;
Option 2: without overlap of compute and communication while using single FFTW3 plan for calculating multiple 1D FFTs;
Option 3 : with overlap of compute and communication while using multiple FFTW3 plans for calculating 1D FFTs;
Option 4: with overlap of compute and communication while using single FFTW3 plan for calculating multiple 1D FFTs.
However, as option 4 has been observed to perform better on large data and large number of processors, “CROFT” library is implemented using option 4 with the value of $K$ fixed as 2.
Forward transform implementation
--------------------------------
Forward transform is computed after data is divided in number of pencils as seen in figure \[3DFFT\](a). Every process will get its own chunk of 3D pencil data ($N_x$, $N_y/P_y$, $N_z/P_z$ according to pencil decomposition) as a 1D input array. Each process executes the above given algorithm with the help of two OpenMP threads which are spawned after first step. The thread with thread Id 0 is used for MPI communication and the thread with thread Id 1 is used for packing the data into buffer and performing 1D FFT as seen in figure \[Overlap\](b). Two threads run simultaneously and achieve overlapping of computation and memory I/O with all-to-all communication, i.e step 2 and step 3 of the algorithm are successfully overlapped. After the communication the data is unpacked and FFT along the $Y$ direction is computed. Once again packing of data and all-to-all communication steps are overlapped in preparation for the FFT along the last dimension. Then the data received after communication is unpacked and FFT along the $Z$ direction is computed. To get the same data layout as initial, we again perform $YZ$ and $XY$ transpose respectively and use overlapping of data packing with MPI all-to-all communication.
Verification of code
--------------------
3D parallel FFT using pencil decomposition requires MPI all-to-all communication and many data copy operations within local memory for rearranging the data. Therefore, it is necessary to verify the result after every step. For verification purpose, we first implemented routines to print the results and verified the generated output data with the desired output for the given input. Secondly, we have taken backward FFT to get back the original input. Since, we did not perform any manipulations while using normalization factor, output of backward transform is same as input applied. Finally, to check the correctness, we tested the results obtained by CROFT library against the results from FFTW3 library for double precision complex input. The output was found to be exactly the same.
Discussion and Results
======================
Benchmarking details
--------------------
CROFT was benchmarked against 3D FFT API from FFTW3v3.3.8 on Param Bioblaze cluster and Sangam Lab cluster which are internal clusters in C-DAC. The Param Bioblaze cluster is a blade based cluster with two chassis which are interconnected with an external 56 Gbps Mellanox FDR IB switch. Each chassis contains 16 dual socket blade servers connected through internal FDR IB switch. Each blade server has two 8 core Intel sandy bridge processors and 64 GB RAM. So, the number of cores in Param Bioblaze cluster accumulates to a total 512 compute cores.
The input data used for the benchmarking purpose was the 3D matrix of double precision complex numbers. As the number of cores and RAM per core were limited, the first benchmark was done with the smaller 3D matrix of size $128 \times 128 \times 128$, and another benchmark with the larger 3D matrix of size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$.
### Time measurements
The timing information is collected for benchmarking purpose using MPI\_Wtime API. The starting timestamp is collected just before calling the 3D FFT API of CROFT and FFTW3 library functions. The processes are synchronized at a global barrier to avoid distortion of the time before collecting the initial timestamps. Another timestamp is collected just after the 3D FFT API execution is completed. The difference between the two timestamps is considered as the execution time required for the process to perform 3D FFT. We then get the minimum and maximum execution time taken by the processes onto processor 0 using a global reduction with MPI\_MAX and MPI\_MIN options. The time obtained from MPI$\_$MAX reduction is considered as the wall time required by the 3D FFT library function. To get the final wall time, multiple runs of application are done and the best timings are selected.
Results
-------
Benchmarking runs were performed on parallel 3D API of FFTW3 and all the implemented options as discussed in Section 5.1.
------- -------- ------- ------- ------- -------
cores
FFTW3 opt1 opt2 opt3 opt4
4 0.053 0.163 0.060 0.166 0.045
8 0.029 0.089 0.037 0.097 0.036
16 0.020 0.055 0.029 0.060 0.032
32 0.019 0.028 0.014 0.031 0.017
64 0.494 0.038 0.031 0.039 0.032
128 1.911 0.037 0.031 0.039 0.032
256 5.473 0.073 0.069 0.074 0.076
512 26.149 0.183 0.178 0.126 0.123
------- -------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: [Timings (in sec) on Param Bioblaze cluster for benchmarking with 3D matrix of size $128 \times 128 \times 128$ and nodes fill up allocation for FFTW3 and multiple options of CROFT. Opt 1: Without overlap multiple plans; Opt 2: Without overlap single plan; Opt 3: With overlap multiple plans; Opt 4: With overlap single plan]{}[]{data-label="size128"}
----------------- ----------- -------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Layout Number of
(Nodes $\times$ cores
ppn) FFTW3 opt1 opt2 opt3 opt4
2 $\times$ 2 4 0.057 0.156 0.043 0.166 0.041
4 $\times$ 2 8 0.032 0.079 0.025 0.082 0.021
4 $\times$ 4 16 0.021 0.044 0.017 0.043 0.016
4 $\times$ 8 32 0.019 0.027 0.013 0.039 0.029
8 $\times$ 8 64 0.401 0.037 0.023 0.065 0.038
8 $\times$ 16 128 1.911 0.037 0.031 0.039 0.032
16 $\times$ 16 256 5.473 0.073 0.069 0.074 0.076
32 $\times$ 16 512 26.149 0.183 0.178 0.126 0.123
----------------- ----------- -------- ------- ------- ------- -------
: Timings (in sec) on Param Bioblaze cluster with processes layout.[]{data-label="size128_2"}
Table \[size128\] shows the benchmarking timings on Param Bioblaze cluster with fill up allocation, i.e. all cores on a node are used before spawning to the next node, and table \[size128\_2\] shows the timings obtained by custom layout of processes. For the 3D matrix of size $128 \times 128 \times 128$, FFTW3 code can use up to 128 cores due to the use of slab decomposition and it is evident from the time taken by FFTW3 code for more than 128 cores. All other implemented options take relatively less time for execution and scale upto all the available 512 cores. With a different layout, the timing improves to some extent, as seen in table \[size128\_2\].
----------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Number of
cores FFTW3 opt1 opt2 opt3 opt4
4 101.8044 67.1240 58.7549 61.4341 51.9448
8 51.8731 38.0646 33.8035 36.7066 29.7946
16 26.9177 25.0881 23.2374 25.8118 24.0778
32 13.3403 13.8911 12.8060 13.0762 12.1718
64 8.5792 8.1453 7.6859 7.2702 6.6610
128 5.0288 4.1973 3.9772 3.5217 3.3376
256 4.7209 2.4439 2.2346 2.1265 1.9747
512 18.8849 1.3945 1.3237 1.4165 1.2722
----------- ---------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: [Timings (in sec) on Param Bioblaze cluster for benchmarking with 3D matrix of size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ with nodes fill up allocation for FFTW3 and multiple options of CROFT. Opt 1: Without overlap multiple plans; Opt 2: Without overlap single plan; Opt 3: With overlap multiple plans; Opt 4: With overlap single plan]{}[]{data-label="size1024"}
![Comparative timing chart for data size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ on Param Bioblaze cluster[]{data-label="time_Bioblaze"}](Figure1.eps){width="5.0in" height="3.0in"}
For larger 3D matrix of size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$, CROFT implementation with overlapping of compute and communication along with the use of single FFTW3 plan for computing 1D FFT performs better than FFTW3 and all other implemented options as seen in table \[size1024\] and figure \[time\_Bioblaze\].
![Timings for no of cores between 4 to 16 in figure \[time\_Bioblaze\] []{data-label="Time4-16"}](Figure2.eps){width="5.0in" height="3.0in"}
![Timings for no of cores between 32 to 256 in figure \[time\_Bioblaze\] []{data-label="Time32-256"}](Figure3.eps){width="5.0in" height="3.0in"}
At smaller number of cores, the difference in execution time is more (Figure \[Time4-16\]). The CROFT implementation (option 4) is faster than FFTW3 by approximately $51 \%$ when the number of cores are less (4 processes) (Figure \[Time4-16\]) and approximately $42 \%$ when FFTW3 is having lowest time (at 256 processes) as seen in figure \[Time32-256\].
![Comparative timing chart for data size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ on Sangam Lab cluster[]{data-label="time_Sangam"}](Figure4.eps){width="5.0in" height="3.0in"}
Similar results in terms of timings have been observed in Sangam Lab cluster where, CROFT (option 4) is faster than FFTW3 as seen in figure \[time\_Sangam\].
![Speedup graph for data size 1024 x 1024 x 1024 on Param Bioblaze cluster[]{data-label="SpeedUp"}](Figure5.eps){width="5.0in" height="3.0in"}
From the scalability chart as shown in figure \[SpeedUp\], we can see that all the implemented options of CROFT are scalable upto all the available 512 compute cores in Param Bioblaze cluster whereas performance of FFTW3 drops after 128 cores.
Profiling details
-----------------
![Event profile of “fftw\_mpi\_plan\_dft\_3d” API for 8 processes and input size of $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ using Intel trace collector and analyzer(ITAC)[]{data-label="fftw3prof_time"}](fftw3_eventTimeline.eps){width="4.0in" height="3.0in"}
![Event profile of “croft\_parallel3d” API for 8 processes and input size of $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ using Intel trace collector and analyzer(ITAC) []{data-label="crafftprof_time"}](Crafft_eventTimeline.eps){width="4.0in" height="3.0in"}
To get an insight on the difference between FFTW3 parallel 3D routine’s execution and CROFT execution, profiling of both the applications have been performed on 8 processes with input matrix of size $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$. The profiling result is shown in figure \[fftw3prof\_time\] and \[crafftprof\_time\]. From the profiling data, it is clear that CROFT takes less time due to optimized user code. Inorder to produce the same result, FFTW3 takes 453.678 seconds for the user code to execute whereas, CROFT takes only 177.666 seconds. Similarly, MPI calls take 77.289 seconds in case of FFTW3 and 35.725 seconds in case of CROFT as seen in figure \[fftw3prof\_time\] and \[crafftprof\_time\] respectively.
![Function profile of “fftw\_mpi\_plan\_dft\_3d” API for 8 processes and input size of $1024 \times 1024 \times 1024$ using Intel trace collector and analyzer(ITAC) []{data-label="fftw3mpi_call"}](fftw3_MPI_UngroupFunctions.eps){width="4.0in" height="3.0in"}
![Function profile of “croft\_parallel3d” API for 8 processes and input size of 1024 x 1024 x 1024 using Intel trace collector and analyzer(ITAC) []{data-label="cafftmpi_call"}](Crafft_MPI_UngroupFunctions.eps){width="4.0in" height="3.0in"}
Scalability of the code may be explained by analyzing the MPI communication. The code is well load balanced with very less waiting time for MPI calls as seen in figure \[crafftprof\_time\]. Number of MPI calls required by FFTW3 for communication are 864 which are much more than 124 MPI calls required by CROFT. Apart from other MPI routines, there are 112 MPI\_Sendrecv calls in FFTW3 routine which takes 77.136 seconds (figure \[fftw3mpi\_call\]) as compared to 64 MPI\_Alltoall used in CROFT which takes 35.574 seconds (figure \[cafftmpi\_call\]) to execute. The reduction in number of MPI communication calls in CROFT, indicated that the code is more scalable.
Conclusion
==========
For the smaller datasets, FFTW3 is faster when number of cores used are less than 32, but CROFT code implemented with option 4 (with overlap of compute and communication while using single FFTW3 plan for calculating 1D FFTs) performed better when number of cores are more than 32. For larger dataset, CROFT implementation option 4 is the best implementation with the performance improvement between $42\%$ - $51\%$ as seen in table \[size1024\]. It also scales to more number of cores than FFTW3 due to pencil decomposition and further reducing the execution time. It can be used as one of the options for implementing exascale applications which requires 3D parallel FFT.
Future work
===========
CROFT library is a pure CPU implementation and can be extended to add support for the accelerators like GPUs. Currently, CROFT uses 1D FFT from FFTW3 package, but native implementation of 1D FFT can be done as a replacement to 1D FFT from FFTW3 package, eliminating the dependency on FFTW3. CROFT is implemented for double precision complex-to-complex data only and can be further extended for implementing complex-to-real, and real-to-complex data. Moreover, there is scope for further memory optimization which can be looked at.
Acknowledgements
================
CROFT library is developed under the project National Supercomputing Mission (NSM), Government of India. The authors would like to acknowledge the use of Bioinformatics Resources and Applications Facility (BRAF) at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune and NSM Sangam Lab cluster at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune for testing and benchmarking of CROFT. Authors would also like to thank Ms. Shruti Koulgi, Ms. Sunitha Manjari and Dr. Uddhavesh Sonavane for their encouragement and support.
[8]{}
S. D. Stearns, and R. A David, Signal Processing Algorithms, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1988. J. W. Cooley, and J. W. Tukey, An Algorithm for the Machine Calculation of Complex Fourier Series, Mathematics of Computation, 19, 90 (1965) 297-301. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1 M. Lee, N. Malaya, and R. D. Moser, Petascale direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow on up to 786K cores, In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (SC ’13), ACM, New York, USA, 61, (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2503210.2503298 R. Dror, J. P. Grossman, K. Mackenzie, B. Towles, E. Chow, J. Salmon, C. Young, J. Bank, B. Batson, M. Deneroff, J. Kuskin, R. Larson, M. Moraes, and D. Shaw, Exploiting 162-Nanosecond End-to-End Communication Latency on Anton, ACM/IEEE International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC 2010, (2010) 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1109/SC.2010.23. S. Aarseth, Gravitational N-Body Simulations: Tools and Algorithms (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535246 O. Bruno, and L. Kunyansky, A Fast High-Order Algorithm for the Solution of Surface Scattering Problems: Basic Implementation, Tests, and Applications, Journal of Computational Physics, 169, (2001) 80-110. http://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6714. J. R. Phillips, and J. K. White, A precorrected-FFT method for electrostatic analysis of complicated 3-D structures, Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integreted Circuit Systems, 16, 10 (2006), 1059-1072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/43.662670 I. T. Foster, and P. H. Worley, Parallel Algorithms for the Spectral Transform Method, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 18, 3 (1997), 806-837. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827594266891 V. Kumar, A. Grama, A. Gupta, and G. Karypis, Introduction to Parallel Computing: Design and Analysis of Algorithms, Benjamin-Cummings Publ. Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1994. A. Bueno-Orovio, V. M. Pérez-García, and F. H. Fenton, Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations in Irregular Domains: The Spectral Smoothed Boundary Method, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 28, 3 (2006) 886-900. https://doi.org/10.1137/040607575 M. Frigo, and S. G. Johnson, The Design and Implementation of FFTW3, Proceedings of the IEEE, 93, (2005) 216-231. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.840301 M. Pippig, PFFT: An Extension of FFTW to Massively Parallel Architectures, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 35, (2013). http://doi.org/10.1137/120885887 D. Pekurovsky, P3DFFT: A Framework for Parallel Computations of Fourier Transforms in Three Dimensions, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 34, 4 (2012) 192-209. https://doi.org/10.1137/11082748X E. J. Bylaska, M. Valiev, R. Kawai, and J. H. Weare, Parallel implementation of the projector augmented plane wave method for charged systems, Computer Physics Communications, 143, 1 (2002) 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00413-1. A. Gholami, J. Hill, D. Malhotra, and G. Biros, AccFFT: A library for distributed-memory FFT on CPU and GPU architectures, (2015). arXiv, abs/1506.07933. U. Nidhi, K. Paul, A. Hemani, and A. Kumar, High performance 3D-FFT implementation, IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Beijing, 201, (2013) 2227-2230. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2013.6572319 J. Sheng, B. Humphries, H. Zhang, and M. C. Herbordt, Design of 3D FFTs with FPGA clusters, IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), Waltham, MA, (2014) 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPEC.2014.7040997 S. Keskin, E. Erdil, and T. Koçak, An efficient parallel implementation of 3D-FFT on GPU, IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference, Waltham (2017). S. Song, and J. K. Hollingsworth, Scaling Parallel 3-D FFT with Non-Blocking MPI Collectives, 5th Workshop on Latest Advances in Scalable Algorithms for Large-Scale Systems, New Orleans, LA, (2014) 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ScalA.2014.9 V. Nikl, and J. Jaros, Parallelisation of the 3D Fast Fourier Transform Using the Hybrid OpenMP/MPI Decomposition. In: Hliněný P. et al. (eds) Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8934. Springer, Cham 2014. U. Sigrist, Optimizing parallel 3D fast Fourier transformations for a cluster of IBM POWER5 SMP nodes, PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 2007. M. Frigo, A fast Fourier transform compiler, Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN 1999 conference on Programming language design and implementation (PLDI ’99), ACM, New York, NY, USA, (1999) 169-180. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/301618.301661 N. Li, and S. Laizet, 2DECOMP&FFT – A highly scalable 2D decomposition library and FFT interface, Cray User Group 2010 conference, Edinburgh, (2010). O. Ayala, L. P. Wang, Parallel implementation and scalability analysis of 3D Fast Fourier Transform using 2D domain decomposition, Parallel Computing, 39, 1, (2013) 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2012.12.002. S. G. Sedukhin, Co-design of Extremely Scalable Algorithms/Architecture for 3-Dimensional Linear Transforms, Technical Report TR2012-001, The University of Aizu, (2012). http://www.fftw.org/ https://www.p3dfft.net/ http://www.gromacs.org/Documentation/-Installation\_Instructions\_5.0?highlightffts\#fast-fourier-transform-libraryh
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. Arcodia'
- 'A. Merloni'
- 'K. Nandra'
- 'G. Ponti'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: 'Received ; accepted '
title: 'Testing the disk-corona interplay in radiatively-efficient broad-line AGN'
---
Introduction
============
The development of an in-depth understanding of accretion physics in active galactic nuclei (AGN) has tended to lag behind in comparison to other accreting objects (e.g., X-ray binaries, cataclysmic variables, and protoplanetary disks), for which many more observational constraints are available. While it seems that the standard thin-disk model [@Shakura+Sunyaev1973:accretion hereafter ] is not able to fully explain the plethora of accreting sources that we observe [e.g., @Koratkar+Blaes1999:status_accrdisks; @Blaes2007:accr_discs_status; @Antonucci2015:AGNpuzzle], it is still unclear to what extent this simple but effective prescription has to be improved [@Kishimoto+2008:polarAD; @Capellupo+2015:AGN_fit_ADs; @Capellupo+2016:AD_fits_2].
Since the first AGN X-ray spectral surveys were performed [e.g. @Elvis+1978:X_seyferts; @Turner+Pounds1989:agn_survey_X], the need for an additional spectral component to extend the cold-disk’s $\lesssim\,$keV temperatures was evident. This so-called X-ray “corona” [e.g. @Liang+Price1977:coronae; @Galeev1979:coronae] is now almost universally considered as a hot ($\sim10^9\,$K), optically thin ($\tau\lesssim1$) plasma up-scattering the disk photons via thermal Comptonization [@Haardt+Maraschi1991:twophase1; @Haardt+Maraschi1993:twophase2; @Haardt+1994ApJ:patchy; @Stern+1995:Xray_geom], although an additional warm component is sometimes needed to fit the softest X-rays [@Petrucci+2018:warm_corona; @Kubota+Done2018:model_lx_luv and references therein]. The proximity of the corona to the central black hole was immediately suggested by its strong and fast variability [e.g. @McHardy1989:variability] and by the reflection signatures [@Lightman+White1988:Xraybump; @Pounds+1990:xray_reflect; @Nandra1991:reflection; @Williams+1992:ginga_spectra; @Tanaka1995:relativistic_iron], but in-depth information regarding its geometry and formation mechanism is still lacking. The geometry of the corona can be constrained via the observation of X-ray reverberation lags [@Fabian+2009:ironKlag; @DeMarco+2013:softlags; @Uttley2014:xrayreverb_review; @Fabian2017:xray_reverb], that seem to show a, possibly non-static, corona extending vertically and radially over the underlying disk for a few and a few tens of gravitational radii, respectively [@Wilkins+2016:modeling_Xreverb]. The compactness of the corona and the origin of the X-rays close to the black hole also appear to be confirmed by micro-lensing results [e.g. @Mosquera+2013:lensedQSO_corona; @Reis+2013:size_reverb_micro].
As far as the formation of the corona is concerned from the theoretical point of view, the most likely explanation for it is that it is magnetically-dominated with an efficient saturation of the magnetic field that is amplified via the magneto-rotational instability [MRI, @Chandrasekhar1960:MRI_foreseen; @B+H1991:MRI1; @B+H1992:MRI4; @H+B1991:MRI2; @H+B1992:MRI3] and extending buoyantly upward (and downward) from the denser parts of the disk [@Galeev1979:coronae; @Stella+Rosner1984:Binstabilities; @DiMatteo1998:magn_reconnection; @Merloni+Fabian2002:model_corona; @Blackman+2009:coronae_largeB]. Magnetic reconnection can then keep the corona hot [e.g., @Liu+2002:B_corona; @Uzdensky+2008:magnetized_corona_loops; @Uzdensky+2016:magn_reconn; @Beloborodov2017:magn_reconn; @Werner+2019:reconn_IC; @Ripperda+2019:MHDreconn]. This scenario seems to be supported by magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations , although only qualitative comparisons with observations have been made so far [however, see @Schnittman+2013:coronae_stellar_massBH]. Much effort has, nonetheless, been put into trying to shed light on the physics of the disk-corona system [see @Blaes+2014:BHaccr_review] and this will continue with global 3D radiation-MHD simulations [e.g. @Jiang+2017:globalSUPEREDD], that are now approaching sub-Eddington flows as well [@Jiang+2019:subEdd_disks].
Observationally, the increase in quality and quantity of available AGN X-ray-to-UV data from large samples can provide insightful, and more easily approachable, diagnostics. The smoking gun of the disk-corona interplay in radiatively efficient AGN is given by the non linear correlation observed between the $2\,$keV and $2500\AA$ monochromatic luminosities , that persists throughout the common observed X-ray and optical-UV bands [@Jin+2012:optX_correlation]. Despite the possible differences arising from different sample selections and regression techniques, most observations point towards a $\log L_{X}-\log L_{UV}$ correlation with a slope $\approx0.6$, a dispersion that can be as small as $\sigma\approx0.2\,$dex , and no apparent redshift dependency. Such a tight correlation paved the way for quasars to provide an alternative standard candle for cosmographic studies . The slope, being smaller than unity, indicates that from lowly to highly accreting AGN, the disk emission increases more than the corona emission [e.g., @Kelly+2008:AGNcorrelations] with crucial implications for the physics governing the coupled disk-corona system. However, a solid and conclusive theoretical explanation, for what is one of the most studied multi-wavelength observables in AGN, is still lacking.
The goal of this paper is indeed to test a self-consistently coupled disk-corona analytic model against the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. Given the existing gap between simulations and observations, we argue that the use of simplified (but motivated) prescriptions still represents a powerful tool to explain observed disk-corona scaling relations, as it was done with the X-ray photon index (or the X-ray bolometric correction) correlation with the Eddington ratio [@Wang2004:hotdisccorona_constraints; @Cao2009:coronamodel; @Liu2009:disc-corona_investigated; @You2012:model_disc_corona; @Liu+2012:corona_model_highL; @Liu+2016:structure_spec_corona_highL; @Wang+2019:testing_stress], or with the $\log L_{X}-\log L_{UV}$ itself (, hereafter ; [@Kubota+Done2018:model_lx_luv]). We here rely uniquely on the $\log L_{X}-\log L_{UV}$ relation, since monochromatic $L_{X}$ and $L_{UV}$ values can be directly obtained from spectral fits. Forward modeling monochromatic luminosities circumvents difficulties and issues typical of model comparisons with accretion rate, Eddington ratio or bolometric luminosity estimates .
We describe our disk-corona model in Section \[sec:model\] (and Appendix \[sec:app\_model\]) and we briefly show its qualitative predictions in Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]. Then, we outline the observational test that we put forward to thoroughly understand the disk-corona interplay in Section \[sec:observational\_test\] and we show the results in Section \[sec:results\]. Throughout this work, we quote median values with 16th and 84th percentiles unless otherwise stated.
The disk-corona model {#sec:model}
=====================
The disk-corona model adopted in this work is largely based on the prescriptions put forward by @Merloni2003:model [hereafter ; see also ], in which the standard conservation equations of a geometrically-thin and optically-thick accretion disk [; @Pringle1981:accr_disc] are self-consistently coupled with the X-ray corona, indicated as the fraction $f$ of accretion power (per unit area, $Q_+$) that is dissipated away from the cold disk [e.g., @Stella+Rosner1984:Binstabilities; @DiMatteo1998:magn_reconnection]: $$\label{eq:eqf}
f=\frac{Q_{cor}}{Q_+}$$ with $Q_{cor}=v_DP_{mag}$ and $Q_{+}=\frac{3}{2}c_s\tau_{r\phi}$, where $v_D$ is the vertical drift velocity (taken proportional to the Alfvén speed via an order-unity constant $b$), $P_{mag}=B^2/8\pi$ is the magnetic pressure, $c_s$ is the sound speed and $\tau_{r\phi}$ is the vertically-averaged stress tensor.
The stress tensor can be assumed to be dominated by Maxwell stresses [e.g., @Hawley+1995:Bstresses; @Sano+2004:MHD_accrdisc; @Minoshima+2015:MRI_gaspress], from which we can write $\tau_{r\phi}=k_0 P_{mag}$, with $k_0$ being a constant of order unity [@Hawley+1995:Bstresses]. To build a self-consistent solution to the accretion problem, we need to relate the stress tensor (via the magnetic pressure) with local quantities that standard analytic models are familiar with. As a matter of fact, the $\alpha-$prescription is not the only educated guess that is adopted to dodge our ignorance of the physical mechanism producing the disk viscosity. Within the same theoretical framework, fundamental modifications to the viscosity law can be introduced depending on whether the viscous stress is assumed to scale proportionally with the total ($P_{tot}$, gas plus radiation) pressure , with the gas pressure alone [@Lightman+Eardley1974:instability; @Sakimoto+Coroniti1981:viscosity; @Meyer+M-H1982:verticalstructure; @Stella+Rosner1984:Binstabilities] or with the geometric mean of the two [; @Ichimaru1977:accretion; @Taam+Lin1984:viscous_accretion; @Burm1985:scaling_stress]. It was soon discovered that the first prescription leads to thermally and viscously unstable disks in the radiation-pressure dominated regions, with the first instability acting on shorter timescales [@Lightman+Eardley1974:instability; @SS1976:instab; @Pringle1976:therm_instab]. This encouraged many authors [@Hoshi1985:generalized_viscosity; @Szuszkiewicz1990:viscosity_laws; @Merloni+Nayakshin2006:viscosity_laws; @Gredzielski+2017:mod_viscosity] to generalize the viscosity law. Recent simulations (albeit of gas-pressure dominated disks only) indeed seem to show a power-law stress-pressure relation [@Sano+2004:MHD_accrdisc; @Minoshima+2015:MRI_gaspress; @Ross+2016:stress_vs_pressure; @Shadmehri+2018MNRAS:stress_vs_press], with an index varying from zero to one according to the different assumptions.
Here, we address this issue generalising the model reported in with: $$\label{eq:viscosity_law}
P_{mag}=\alpha_0P_{gas}^{\mu}P_{tot}^{1-\mu}$$ where $\alpha_0$ is a constant, generally not equal to $\alpha_{SS73}=P_{mag}/P_{tot}$. This behavior is physically motivated by the MRI prescriptions, as its growth rate was shown to depend on the $P_{rad}$-to-$P_{gas}$ ratio influencing the level of the magnetic field saturation. Equations \[eq:eqf\] and \[eq:viscosity\_law\] provide the closure equation of the disk-corona system:
$$\label{eq:eqf_closure}
f=\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha_0}{k_1^2}}\left(1+\frac{P_{rad}}{P_{gas}}\right)^{-\mu/2}$$
where $k_1=3k_0/2b$ gathers the model’s uncertainties in an order unity factor . Its exact value only affects $f$ at its maximum $\Big(f_{max}=\sqrt{2\alpha_0/k_1^2}\Big)$ and not the nature of what is described throughout this paper.
The model is then completed with the equation of state:$$\label{eq:eqstate}
P_{tot}=P_{gas}+P_{rad}= \frac{2\rho k_BT}{m_p}+\frac{aT^4}{3}$$ and with a density- and temperature-dependent opacity $\kappa=\kappa\,(\rho,T)$. We compute the opacity value self-consistently with the density and temperature at each radius with an iterative process, using as reference stellar opacity tables (at solar metallicity) from the Opacity Project [@Seaton+1994:OP_project; @Seaton+1995:OP_2]. This is important since the density and temperature regimes relevant for AGN disks imply opacities that can be significantly different from the electron scattering value [e.g., see @Jiang+2016:iron_bump_AGN; @Czerny+2016ApJ:BLR_newOP; @Grzedzielski+2017:opacity].
Further, we assume a downward component of the X-ray emission ($\eta$) and a disk albedo ($a_{disk}$), which modify the disk equations from the usual ($1-f$) factor to:$$\label{eq:eqf_tilde}
1-\tilde{f}=1-f\left[1-\eta\left(1-a_{disk}\right)\right]$$We here adopt $\eta=0.55$ and $a_{disk}=0.1$, respectively [e.g., @Haardt+Maraschi1993:twophase2]. These are typical values for anisotropic Comptonization in plane-parallel geometry, although more generally the product $\eta\left(1-a_{disk}\right)$ can be a function of the photon index $\Gamma$ [@Beloborodov+1999:HE_accr; @Malzac+2001:dyn_coronae] and of the disk’s vertical structure.
For simplicity, we adopt dimensionless units for the black hole mass, the accretion rate, the radial distance and the vertical scale-height: $$\begin{cases}
m=M/M_{\astrosun} \\
\dot{m}=\frac{\dot{M}}{L_{edd}/\epsilon_0c^2}=m^{-1} \frac{\dot{M}\epsilon_0c^2}{1.3\times10^{38}} \\
r=R/R_s=m^{-1}Rc^2/2GM_{\astrosun} \\
h=H/R_s=m^{-1}Hc^2/2GM_{\astrosun}
\end{cases}$$
The equations for $h$, mid-plane $\rho$ (gcm$^{-3}$), $P$ (dyncm$^{-2}$) and $T$ (K), with the closure equation for $f$, are reported in Appendix \[sec:app\_model\] in Newtonian approximation , along with the related radial profiles (Fig. \[fig:other\_profiles\]). We note that a constant efficiency of $\epsilon_0=0.057$, typical of non-rotating black holes, and a no-torque inner boundary condition ($J(r)=1-\sqrt{r_0/r}$, with $r_0=3$ and $r_{out}=2000$) are initially adopted.
Once $m$, $\dot{m}$, $\alpha_0$, $\mu$ and $f_{max}$ are fixed, one can numerically solve the closure equations for $f$ at each radius (see the last rows of Eq. \[eq:system\_rad\_mu\] and \[eq:system\_gas\], respectively). The left-hand side is equal to $P_{rad}/P_{gas}$ and we can infer the correct regime and compute the main physical quantities at the mid-plane ($\rho$, $P$, $T$, $\kappa$). Then, the effective temperature at the surface is computed:$$\label{eq:Teff}
T_{eff}(r)\propto\frac{T(r)}{\tau(r)^{1/4}}$$where we take $\tau(r)=h(r)\,\rho(r)\,\kappa(r)$. Monochromatic optical-UV luminosities can be then easily computed in the multi-color blackbody approximation:$$\label{eq:Luv_BB}
L_{\nu}(r)=2\pi r\Delta r\,\pi\,B_{\nu}(T_{eff})$$where $\pi\,B_{\nu}(T_{eff})$ is the black-body flux at the frequency $\nu$ and temperature $T_{eff}(r)$.
![Radial profiles for the fraction $f$ of power dissipated in the corona (top panel) and $L_{2keV}$ (bottom panel), obtained with fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$ and $f_{max}=0.5$. Colors are coded according to the choice of the viscosity law: stress proportional to $P_{tot}$ ($P_{gas}+P_{rad}$, $\mu=0$, black), to $P_{gas}$ ($\mu=1$, blue), or the geometric mean of the two ($\mu=0.5$, red). The continuous solid, or solid-dashed, lines represent the median profiles, with the related shaded areas showing the 16th and 84th percentiles, the scatter due to the range of sources (i.e. $m$ and $\dot{m}$) modeled. $L_{2keV}$ is proportional to the product of $f$ and $Q_{+}$ (the accretion power per unit area). As $Q_{+}$ has very similar profiles across all models, those systems for which $f$ is smaller produce weaker coronae in the central part. In the top panel, a solid line for the median $f$-profile represents (thermally) stable regions of the median test source, whereas a dashed line highlights the instability regions. The vertical dot-dashed lines show instead where the median transition radius, from $P_{rad}$- to $P_{gas}$-dominated regions, lies. Refer to Section \[sec:radial\_profiles\] for details.[]{data-label="fig:f_Lx_profiles"}](Images/fprofile_allmus_fmax0d5_transition_stability "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![Radial profiles for the fraction $f$ of power dissipated in the corona (top panel) and $L_{2keV}$ (bottom panel), obtained with fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$ and $f_{max}=0.5$. Colors are coded according to the choice of the viscosity law: stress proportional to $P_{tot}$ ($P_{gas}+P_{rad}$, $\mu=0$, black), to $P_{gas}$ ($\mu=1$, blue), or the geometric mean of the two ($\mu=0.5$, red). The continuous solid, or solid-dashed, lines represent the median profiles, with the related shaded areas showing the 16th and 84th percentiles, the scatter due to the range of sources (i.e. $m$ and $\dot{m}$) modeled. $L_{2keV}$ is proportional to the product of $f$ and $Q_{+}$ (the accretion power per unit area). As $Q_{+}$ has very similar profiles across all models, those systems for which $f$ is smaller produce weaker coronae in the central part. In the top panel, a solid line for the median $f$-profile represents (thermally) stable regions of the median test source, whereas a dashed line highlights the instability regions. The vertical dot-dashed lines show instead where the median transition radius, from $P_{rad}$- to $P_{gas}$-dominated regions, lies. Refer to Section \[sec:radial\_profiles\] for details.[]{data-label="fig:f_Lx_profiles"}](Images/Lxprofile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In this framework, the energy per unit area dissipated in the corona at each radius is $Q_{cor}(r)=f(r)Q_{+}(r)$, although only a fraction $(1-\eta)$ will contribute to what is observed as X-ray emission:$$\label{eq:LX_tot}
L_{X,tot}(r)=2\pi r\Delta r\,(1-\eta)\,f(r)Q_{+}(r)$$Here, we did not include the component reflected by the disk (given by the fraction $f\,\eta\, a_{disk}$), so that we could easily extrapolate at each radius a monochromatic value, for instance $L_{2keV}$, assuming a simple power-law spectrum within $\nu_i=0.1$ and $\nu_f=100\,$keV:$$L_{X,tot}=K\int_{\nu_i}^{\nu_f}\nu^{-(\Gamma-1)}\,d\nu$$$$\label{eq:L2kev_extrapolation}
L_{2keV}=K\,{\nu_{2\,keV}}^{-(\Gamma-1)}=L_{X,tot}\,(2-\Gamma)\,\frac{{\nu_{2\,keV}}^{1-\Gamma}}{{\nu_f}^{2-\Gamma}-{\nu_i}^{2-\Gamma}}$$
The model relies on the assumption that a plane-parallel geometry holds for bright radiatively-efficient sources, lying in a sweet spot of accretion rate ($\dot{m}$ approximately from a few percent to Eddington). Hence, the accretion disk extends down to the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) and no advection is included. A scripted version of the model outlined in this Section will be made publicly available online[^1].
Radial profiles for $f$ and $L_{2keV}$ {#sec:radial_profiles}
--------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\] we show as an example radial profiles of $f$ and $L_{2keV}$, obtained by solving Eq. \[eq:system\_rad\_mu\], \[eq:system\_gas\], \[eq:LX\_tot\] and \[eq:L2kev\_extrapolation\]. For simplicity, we fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$ and $f_{max}=0.5$ and used the three values of $\mu$ corresponding to the most-used viscosity laws, namely $\mu=0$, 0.5 and 1, for $P_{mag}$ proportional to $P_{tot}$, $\sqrt{P_{gas}P_{tot}}$ and $P_{gas}$, respectively. Other values of $\mu$ would support the same picture with analogous intermediate profiles. A range of typical $m$, $\dot{m}$ and X-ray spectral slopes was chosen, following the distribution of objects observed in the survey field adopted for the observational test (see Section \[sec:observational\_test\] below), namely with median values (and related 16th and 84th percentiles) of $\log m=8.7_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$, $\dot{m}=0.2_{-0.1}^{+0.5}$ and $\Gamma=2.1\pm0.1$.
The solid (or solid-dashed) lines represent the median profiles, with the corresponding shaded areas showing the 16th and 84th percentiles of the distribution. The top panel of Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\] shows how the standard $\mu=0$ law (e.g., ) results in $f=f_{max}$ at all radii (e.g., ), whereas alternative viscosity laws (e.g., $\mu=0.5$ and $\mu=1$) show non-constant radial profiles for $f$: in the latter cases, the fraction of power dissipated in the corona is smaller in the regions strongly dominated by $P_{rad}$. As it was shown in in particular for the $\mu=0.5$ scaling, the higher suppression of the growth rate in $P_{rad}$-dominated regions of the disk leads to such damped $f$-profiles. This directly influences the strength of the corona emission, as $L_{2keV}$ is proportional (through $L_{X,tot}$) to the product of $f$ and $Q_{+}$: $Q_{+}$ peaks at small radii in a very similar way across all models, therefore the ones with deeper $f$-profiles show flatter $L_{2keV}$ radial profiles and, hence, weaker coronae (bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]). The exact shape of $f(r)$ also affects the strength of the disk emission since the two are self-consistently coupled (see Eq. \[eq:eqf\_tilde\]).
We can also define the mean value of each $f(r)$ profile (i.e. for each combination of $m$, $\dot{m}$ and $\Gamma$):$$\label{eq:f_mean}
\text{<}f\text{>}_i=\frac{\int f_i(r)\,Q_{+,i}(r)\,2\pi r\,dr}{\int Q_{+,i}(r)\,2\pi r\,dr}$$that is also a function of $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$. Then, the mean value can be computed for the median $f$ profiles in the examples in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]: $\text{<}f\text{>}_{median}=0.5$, 0.13 or 0.05, for $\mu=0$, 0.5 and 1, respectively. Of course, within such a model the exact value of $\text{<}f\text{>}_{median}$ depends on its normalization $f_{max}$, that is a free parameter in the model only bound to be $<1$. Nonetheless, simply from looking at $\text{<}f\text{>}_{median}$ as a function of $\mu$ (and from Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]) we can see how, for the same set of inputs (e.g., $m$, $\dot{m}$), the different accretion prescriptions relate to the output corona luminosities: in a nutshell, going from $\mu=0$ to $\mu=1$ produces lower $\text{<}f\text{>}_{median}$, thus weaker coronae.
Changing $\mu$ also affects the logarithmic scatter in the radial profiles, from being absent in $\mu=0$ to increase with $\mu$ for $\mu\neq0$ (see Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]). The spread on a given $f(r)$ is due to the scatter in $m$, $\dot{m}$ and $\Gamma$, where the major role is played by the accretion rate (e.g., see Fig. 1 in ). Crucially, $\text{<}f\text{>}$ decreases with increasing $\dot{m}$ for all $\mu\neq0$ models. This points in the same direction as the evidence of an X-ray bolometric correction (that is proportional to the inverse of $f$) increasing with the accretion rate [e.g. @Wang2004:hotdisccorona_constraints; @Vasudevan+Fabian2007:kbol_1; @Vasudevan+Fabian2009:kbol_2; @Lusso+2010:alphaOX; @Young+2010:alpha_ox_kbol]. This relation between $\text{<}f\text{>}$ and $\dot{m}$ has also crucial implications for what our models predictions on the physical mechanisms behind the observed $L_X-L_{UV}$ (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]).
Local thermal stability
-----------------------
Before proceeding to a detailed observational test of the model, we briefly discuss here the stability issue for the various adopted viscosity laws. @Jiang+2016:iron_bump_AGN showed that the presence of the iron bump in the opacity at $\sim2\times10^5\,$K stabilizes the flow in the disk regions around that temperature, where the cooling term has a different dependency and thermal runaway is avoided [@Grzedzielski+2017:opacity]. In the top panel of Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], a solid median line for the $f$-profile represents (thermally) stable regions of the median test source, whereas a dashed line highlights the instability regions. The vertical dot-dashed lines show instead where the median transition radius, from $P_{rad}$- to $P_{gas}$-dominated regions, lies. This highlights that, for the median test source, the stability region extends also well within $P_{rad}$-dominated regions of the disk, confirming previous results [@Jiang+2016:iron_bump_AGN; @Grzedzielski+2017:opacity]. More quantitatively, we computed the thermal stability balance [e.g. @Pringle1976:therm_instab] for each test source ($m$, $\dot{m}$) at all radii with varying viscosity laws. The new stability regions in the inner $P_{rad}$-dominated portions of $\mu=0$ and $\mu=0.5$ disks are ubiquitous, but they appear at different radii according to where the disk reaches the temperatures around the iron bump in $\kappa$ (see also Fig. \[fig:other\_profiles\]). The $\mu=1$ case, as it is well known [e.g. @Lightman+Eardley1974:instability], is stable throughout.
Predictions of the model on the $L_X-L_{UV}$ relation {#sec:prediction_lxluv}
=====================================================
[C[0.07]{} C[0.4]{} C[0.25]{}]{} & &\
& Regulates the scaling between the magnetic stress & $\mu=0\,\,$ $\rightarrow$ $\,\,P_{mag}\propto P_{tot}$\
$\mu$ & and the thermal pressure: & $\mu=0.5\,\,$ $\rightarrow$ $\,\,P_{mag}\propto \sqrt{P_{gas} P_{tot}}$\
& $\tau_{r\phi}\propto P_{mag}=\alpha_0P_{gas}^{\mu}P_{tot}^{1-\mu}$ & $\mu=1\,\,$ $\rightarrow$ $\,\,P_{mag}\propto P_{gas}$\
$\alpha_{0}$ & Proportionality constant of the viscosity law (see above) & Small influence on $L_X-L_{UV}$\
$f(r)$ & Fraction of accretion power dissipated in the corona & $f(r)$ for $\mu\neq0$\
$f_{max}$ & Maximum value of $f(r)$ & Impacts the normalization of the $L_X-L_{UV}$\
$\text{<}f\text{>}$ & Mean value of a $f(r)$ profile & Real fraction of bolometric power emitted by the corona\
$\eta$ & Fraction of $f$ emitted downward back to the disk & Exact value impacts the normalization of the $L_X-L_{UV}$\
In this section we aim to test our disk-corona model (presented in Section \[sec:model\]) against the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$, a robust observable linked to the disk-corona physics. Before performing a more quantitative observational test (Section \[sec:observational\_test\]), we here outline the predictions of our model concerning the disk-corona energetics and the expected impact of our accretion prescription on the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$.
![Schematic illustration of our model and how it relates to the observed $L_X-L_{UV}$ (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\] for an interpretative guide).[]{data-label="fig:cartoon"}](Images/cartoon_disk_corona_2){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The schematic illustration in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\] summarizes the qualitative take-home messages of this work. The observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ states that going from a lower to a higher accretion regime, the luminosity of the corona increases less than the disk luminosity, resulting in a slope smaller than one in the log-space. In our model for the disk-corona system, the luminosity outputs are directly modified by the viscosity prescription in the flow, determined by the parameter $\mu$, and by the fraction of accretion power going into the corona, $f$ (see Table \[tab:model\_param\] for a summary on the model parameters). Among all scenarios spanned by these two main unknowns, the qualitative behavior of the accretion disk-corona system, along its radial extent, is similar: higher accretion states have a more powerful disks and coronae, but wider $P_{rad}$-dominated inner region and, only for modified viscosity prescriptions (i.e. $\mu\neq0$), lower relative contribution of the corona to the total luminosity (see the upper diagram in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]).
Thus, our model can provide a simple explanation for the observed slope of the $L_X$-$L_{UV}$ relation, bridging in a simple but effective way the gap between the observed X-to-UV energetics and some aspects of MRI simulations. Changing $\mu$ not only affects the disk thermodynamics, but also changes the amount of power carried away by the corona (see Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]). A constant radial profile for $f$ (e.g., ; here $\mu=0$) would naturally result in a $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ close to a one-to-one relation. On the contrary, the alternative viscosity prescriptions, that we identify with $\mu\neq0$, inherently result in a different disk-corona energetic coupling for varying accretion rates: in particular, higher $\dot{m}$ yield more damped $f-$profiles (see also ). In this scenario, the outcome would be a slope of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ that is smaller than one (see the lower diagram in Fig. \[fig:cartoon\]).
It is worth stressing that it is only the relative fraction $f$ that is more suppressed in the inner regions of systems with a modified viscosity and not the X-ray emission per se. Regardless the underlying assumption of a plane-parallel geometry for the disk-corona system (see Eq. \[eq:eqf\_tilde\]), the X-ray emission peaks in the innermost radii (e.g., see the $\mu=0.5$ case in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]). This will be addressed in details in Section \[sec:results\_norm\].
![Mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ with fixed $f_{max}=0.5$ and different $\mu$ color coded, as in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]. The connected solid points show the trend of a single typical mass ($\log m=8.7$) with $\dot{m}=0.03$, 0.07, 0.17, 0.42, 1 ( increasing from left to right in $L_{UV}$). The dashed lines indicate a slope of one. The distributions of transparent points show the mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ for a range of $\log m=8.7_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$, $\dot{m}=0.2_{-0.1}^{+0.5}$ and $\Gamma=2.1\pm0.1$, that follows the typically observed objects (see Section \[sec:observational\_test\]).[]{data-label="fig:single_mass_lx_luv"}](Images/lx_luv_referee_nospin){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:single\_mass\_lx\_luv\] shows an example of a mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ from the model realizations, with $f_{max}=0.5$ and different values of $\mu$ as in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with the same color coding. For the connected solid points, a single typical mass ($\log m=8.7$) is adopted, with increasing $\dot{m}=0.03$, 0.07, 0.17, 0.42, 1 (from left to right in $L_{UV}$). The relation is linear for a given mass, with the dashed lines indicating a slope of one to guide the eye. As qualitatively shown in the illustrative Fig. \[fig:cartoon\], models where $f$ is constant in radius and in accretion state (black points) yield a slope close to one (even higher for the single mass); instead, alternative viscosity prescriptions (red and blue), that change the disk-corona energetic interplay via $f(r)$, show a flatter slope. The underlying transparent points show the mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ for a distribution of $\log m=8.7_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$, $\dot{m}=0.2_{-0.1}^{+0.5}$ and $\Gamma=2.1\pm0.1$, that follows the typically observed objects (see Section \[sec:observational\_test\]).
Observational test: modeling the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ {#sec:observational_test}
===============================================
In the previous section we qualitatively outlined what are the physical mechanisms identified as the origin of the observed slope smaller than one. A more quantitative test is needed to thoroughly investigate all aspects of the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$, including its normalization and intrinsic scatter. The exact value of the slope given by the models not only depends on the unknowns $\mu$, $f_{max}$ and $\alpha_{0}$, but also on the details of the distributions of $m$, $\dot{m}$, $\Gamma$ that are adopted for the calculations. Nonetheless, not all combinations of these three parameters are observed, because they do not exist in nature or we are biased against their detection (for example, the black masses of AGN follow a given mass distribution, some some mass ranges are more probable than others in any observed sample). That is why we select a reference sample of radiatively-efficient broad-line AGN (Section \[sec:sample\]) and model the most likely values for $m$, $\dot{m}$, $\Gamma$ for each source individually, based on the available data.
The reference sample of broad-line AGN {#sec:sample}
--------------------------------------
We built our reference sample starting from the 1787 AGN within the XMM-XXL north survey [@Pierre+2016:XMM-XXL] identified as broad-line AGN (BLAGN) by the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) follow-up [@Menzel+2016:XXM-XXL_boss; @Liu_zhu+2016:XMM-XXL hereafter ]. The X-ray spectral analysis on these sources was performed in with the Bayesian X-ray Analysis software [BXA, @Bucnher+2014:BXA_agnrefmodel], providing $N_H$ values, photon indexes ($\Gamma$) and the rest-frame $2-10\,$keV intrinsic luminosities ($L_{2-10\,keV}$). Furthermore, single-epoch virial black hole masses [$M_{BH}$, e.g. @Shen+2008:virMBH_biases] and continuum luminosities (at 1350, 1700, 3000 and $5100\,\AA$) were obtained on the BOSS spectroscopy with a fitting pipeline . Luminosities were computed in assuming $H_0=70\,$km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$[^2].
Then, we applied some cleaning criteria to avoid, as much as possible, imprecise estimates for the intrinsic (accretion-powered) $L_{X}$ and $L_{UV}$ and to remain consistent with what is computed by the model. Firstly, among the monochromatic luminosity values available in the optical-UV from we adopted $L_{3000\AA}$, obviously inducing a redshift cut in the sample (see Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_sensitivity\] in Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]). Model wise there is no difference in computing $L_{3000\AA}$ or the more standard $L_{2500\AA}$, and @Jin+2012:optX_correlation showed compatible correlations between the X-ray luminosity and each wavelength of the optical spectrum, although their coverage starts from $3700\AA$. We verified a posteriori that this choice does not affect significantly the slope of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ or the conclusions of our work.
Secondly, despite being defined as BLAGN, @Liu_teng+2018:Xobs_type1AGN found that a fraction of these sources shows continuum reddening probably due to intervening dust along the line of sight, not accounted for by our model. @Liu_teng+2018:Xobs_type1AGN defined a slope parameter $\alpha'$ for the optical-UV continuum, to discern between the reddened sources and the bulk of blue BLAGN at each redshift. The contamination from extinction at $L_{3000\AA}$ was minimized by conservatively selecting sources with $\alpha'<-0.5$ [see @Liu_teng+2018:Xobs_type1AGN their Fig. 2].
Moreover, the XMM-XXL survey has a typical exposure time of $\sim10\,$ks per pointing (; [@Pierre+2016:XMM-XXL]). Here, the analysis was restricted to sources with at least 10 counts in the EPIC-pn [@Struder:pn] and EPIC-MOS [@Turner:MOS] cameras on board XMM-Newton [@Jansen:XMM], to exclude sources with extremely low-quality X-ray spectra.
Then, to exclude data contaminated by X-ray absorption, not accounted for in our modeling, we conservatively selected only sources in which the 84th percentile of the $N_H$ posterior distribution was smaller than $10^{21.5}\,$cm$^{-2}$, a value typically adopted to distinguish X-ray obscured and un-obscured sources ([@Merloni+2014:obscuredAGN]; see also [@DellaCeca+2008:AGNprop]).
Finally, we take $L_{2keV}$ as reference for the corona emission in the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. In the model, we computed mock $L_{X,tot}$ with no reflection, so that we could easily extrapolate $L_{2keV}$ assuming a simple power-law spectrum. However, in the reflection component was also included in the calculation of $L_{2-10keV}$, as it is usually observed both in low-$z$ [e.g. @Nandra+2007:Sey_iron] and high-$z$ [e.g. @Baronchelli+2018:refl] spectra [see the average-AGN model in @Bucnher+2014:BXA_agnrefmodel]. Therefore, we consistently excluded from the analysis all the sources with a significant reflection component: given the high errors of the typical $\log R$ fit in [^3], we included only sources in which the 16th percentile was $<-0.2$ and the 84th was $<0.5$. We note that included in the fit also a scattering contribution from ionized material inside the angle of the torus [see @Bucnher+2014:BXA_agnrefmodel], although the fit normalizations are on the order of $10^{-4}$ with respect to the main power-law component.
![$L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation of the 379 bright BLAGN of XMM-XXL. Monochromatic luminosity values are here scaled by 25 dex, to ease the comparison with recent works. The solid black line is the median regression line obtained with emcee, with the corresponding 16th and 84th percentiles represented with the shaded gray area. The dashed black lines show the intrinsic scatter around the median relation.[]{data-label="fig:Lx_Luv_XMMXXL"}](Images/Lx_Luv_XXL_4paper){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The final cleaned subsample, to which we will refer as XMM-XXL, consists of 379 sources with observed $m$ (with median $\log m=8.7_{-0.5}^{+0.4}$), $L_{3000\AA}$, $\Gamma$ (with median $\Gamma=2.1\pm0.1$) and $L_{2keV}$. In Fig. \[fig:Lx\_Luv\_XMMXXL\] we show the $\log L_{X}=\widehat{\alpha}+\widehat{\beta}\log L_{UV}$ relation, with the best-fit linear regression given by:$$\label{eq:best_fit2D}
\log L_{2keV} -25= (-1.25\pm 0.12)\,+(0.54\pm 0.02)\,(\log L_{3000\AA}-25)$$ with intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{intr}=0.27\pm 0.01$. Linear regressions in two (or more) dimensions were performed with emcee [@Foreman-Mackey+2013:emcee], accounting for uncertainties on all variables and an intrinsic scatter using the likelihood provided in @Dagostini2005:fits. The uncertainty in the independent variable(s) is propagated with the derivative $\partial Y/\partial X$ calculated in $X$ ($X_i$), equal to the slope coefficient(s) in the linear case [@DAgostini2003:]. The slope we measure is slightly flatter than what is quoted in the recent literature , although we did not consider all the possible biases of flux-limited samples (however, see Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]). For the main scope of this paper, it is sufficient to have a reference sample cleaned in accord with the physics described within the model.
Methodology of the observational test {#sec:method}
-------------------------------------
In our model $\dot{m}=\lambda_{edd}=L_{bol}/L_{edd}$, although we do not take as reference also $\dot{M}$ or $\lambda_{edd}$ from : the former is interpolated from the mass and a monochromatic optical luminosity , while the latter depends on a disk-luminosity estimate via $L_{bol}$. Both approaches are based on standard-disk assumptions or calculations and using those values within our non-standard disk models would be an inconsistency. One can also estimate $L_{bol}$ applying bolometric corrections (BC) to the observed monochromatic optical-UV luminosities [@Richards+2006:qso_sed; @Runnoe+2012:BC], although the many uncertainties in play [@Krawczyk+2013:BC_caveats; @KilerciEcer2018:BC_caveats] and the high scatter in the BCs [@Richards+2006:qso_sed; @Lusso+2012:BCbothXandBband] discouraged us in relying on this approach. Then, for every source we iteratively obtain the $\dot{m}$ value yielding a model $L_{3000\AA}$ consistent with the observed one within its errors (typically $\sim0.01$dex). This approach is similar to the interpolation method put forward by , although we do it consistently for each different model, which is given by a choice of $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$.
The methodology then consists in fixing $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$ (see Table \[tab:model\_param\] for a summary on the model’s parameters), which will be referred to as the model choice, within a discrete 3D grid in $\mu=[0,0.2,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8,1]$, $\alpha_0=[0.02,0.2]$ and $f_{max}=[0.1,0.2,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9,0.99]$. Then, we take as input $m$, $\Gamma$ and $L_{3000\AA}$ from the observed data, allowing us to solve the equations of the model for each source and compute $\dot{m}$ and $L_{2keV}$ values (see Section \[sec:model\]). For each observed source of the reference sample, every model in the 3D grid can provide a mock entry for the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. A proper comparison requires uncertainties to be assigned on the mocks, as the observed $m$, $\Gamma$ and $L_{3000\AA}$ come with their own measurement and systematic errors, where obviously the $\sim0.4-0.5\,$dex systematics in the mass estimates [e.g. @Shen2013:QSOmass and references therein] play the dominant role. As it is mentioned above, mock $L_{3000\AA}$ values converge to the related observed quantities within their errors, hence we conservatively fixed the mock $\delta L_{3000\AA}$ at the 90th percentile of the uncertainty distribution in the observed $L_{3000\AA}$ (i.e. $\sim0.03\,$dex). In order to compute uncertainties for $\dot{m}$ and $L_{2keV}$, we ran each model 200 times on the same source, extracting the input values ($m$, $\Gamma$ and $L_{3000\AA}$) from a normal distribution with mean and standard deviation taken from the observed quantities and their errors. Then, the uncertainty on $\dot{m}$ and $L_{2keV}$ is taken from the dispersion of the 200 runs.
Results of the observational test {#sec:results}
=================================
![The central panel of each image shows an example of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation for both XMM-XXL (black stars) and the model (blue dots), in which the choice of $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$ is shown in the titles. The black and red solid lines are randomly drawn from the posterior distributions of normalization and slope for XMM-XXL and the model, respectively, with the median regression line thickened. The bottom panels show the residuals given by the difference of observed and mock $\log L_{2keV}$ and the right panels show the related distributions. The errors on the model are show in the bottom right corner of the central panels.[]{data-label="fig:mock_LxLuv"}](Images/mu0_Lx_Luv_best "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}\
![The central panel of each image shows an example of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation for both XMM-XXL (black stars) and the model (blue dots), in which the choice of $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$ is shown in the titles. The black and red solid lines are randomly drawn from the posterior distributions of normalization and slope for XMM-XXL and the model, respectively, with the median regression line thickened. The bottom panels show the residuals given by the difference of observed and mock $\log L_{2keV}$ and the right panels show the related distributions. The errors on the model are show in the bottom right corner of the central panels.[]{data-label="fig:mock_LxLuv"}](Images/mu0dot5_Lx_Luv_best "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}\
![The central panel of each image shows an example of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation for both XMM-XXL (black stars) and the model (blue dots), in which the choice of $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$ is shown in the titles. The black and red solid lines are randomly drawn from the posterior distributions of normalization and slope for XMM-XXL and the model, respectively, with the median regression line thickened. The bottom panels show the residuals given by the difference of observed and mock $\log L_{2keV}$ and the right panels show the related distributions. The errors on the model are show in the bottom right corner of the central panels.[]{data-label="fig:mock_LxLuv"}](Images/mu1_Lx_Luv_best "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
For all the models on the discrete 3D grid in the $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$ parameter space (see Section \[sec:method\] and Table \[tab:model\_param\]), we fit the $L_X$-$L_{UV}$ distribution with a log-linear relation $\log L_{X}=\widehat{\alpha}+\widehat{\beta}\log L_{UV}$. Three examples are shown in Fig. \[fig:mock\_LxLuv\] for $\mu$ corresponding to the known analytic viscosity prescriptions (see Section \[sec:model\]). Ideally, a model should reproduce the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ in both normalization and slope. However, we can start decomposing the problem in two parts: a good match in the normalization ($\widehat{\alpha}$) would state that globally, for a given optical-UV luminosity distribution, the modeled corona emission was strong enough (see Section \[sec:results\_norm\]); instead, if the slope ($\widehat{\beta}$) is matched, then the model accurately describes how the coronal strength varies from lowly- to highly-accreting sources (see Section \[sec:results\_slope\]). Moreover, as it can be seen from the examples in Fig. \[fig:mock\_LxLuv\], our models come with their one intrinsic scatter, given by different $m$ and $\Gamma$ at a fixed $\dot{m}$. This provides precious insights on the nature of the total observed scatter (see Section \[sec:results\_scatter\]).
The normalization of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ {#sec:results_norm}
---------------------------------------
First, we investigate how well the mocks reproduce the data normalization along the vertical axis of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. To do so, we define a score for the goodness of match:$$\label{eq:r2score}
r^2_i=1-\frac{\sum\limits_{i}\Big(y_{data,i}-y_{mock_i}\Big)^2}{\sum\limits_{i}\Big(y_{data,i}-<y_{data}>\Big)^2}$$ The $r^2$score is computed drawing 1000 random samples from the observed $\log L_{2keV}$ within their errors (i.e. $y_{data,i}$), and 1000 random regression lines from emcee’s chains on the mock (i.e. $y_{mock_i}$). Then, the median and the 84th-16th inter-quantile range are quoted from the resulting distribution of 1000 $r^2_i$scores. Negative scores indicate the data are poorly reproduced by the model; an $r^2=0$ would be obtained by a constant value corresponding to the mean of the observed $\log L_{2keV}$ distribution. We can put a quality threshold and keep all the models that yield a positive score.
![$r^2$score, representing the goodness of match between XMM-XXL and mocks (see text), as a function of $f_{max}$. Models with $\mu=0$, 0.5, 1 are color coded in black, red and blue, respectively. The additional dependency on $\alpha_0$ is represented with varying line-types as shown in the legend, when present (it is absent for $\mu=0$). A good match is represented with a score greater than zero. The points include the uncertainties in the score values. The shaded areas represent the results obtained applying the same methodology on a different sample (RM-QSO, Liu et al. in prep), fixing $\alpha_0=0.02$ and using the same colors. []{data-label="fig:r2score_plot"}](Images/r2score_complete){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The $r^2$score as a function of $f_{max}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\], where the choice of $\mu$ is color coded and the additional dependency on $\alpha_0$ is represented with varying line-types (it is minor or absent, as in $\mu=0$). We show for simplicity only values of $\mu$ corresponding to the known analytic viscosity prescriptions (see Section \[sec:model\]). The other values used would accordingly show intermediate results. For each viscosity law there is a preferred $f_{max}$, that fixes the maximum coronal strength in a model. Models with higher $\mu$ need higher normalization $f_{max}$, since they have a comparably weaker X-ray emission, in accord with their lower $\text{<}f\text{>}_{median}$ (see Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\] and Section \[sec:radial\_profiles\]). Nonetheless, the law correspondent to $\mu=1$ does not produce adequately strong coronae even with $f_{max}=0.99$ and can be ruled out (see right image in Fig. \[fig:mock\_LxLuv\]). Furthermore, $\mu=1$ produces a radially flatter X-ray emission profile (see bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]), in contrast with observations that hint for coronae peaking in the inner radii [e.g. @Mosquera+2013:lensedQSO_corona; @Reis+2013:size_reverb_micro; @Wilkins+2016:modeling_Xreverb]. We explore this behavior more quantitatively in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\] showing how the radius of the annulus at which the $2\,$keV emission peaks ($r_{peak}$, or at which it is $90\%$ of the total, $r_{90}$) varies with $\mu$: as $\mu$ increases, most of the corona emission comes from annuli placed at larger and larger radii.
We also verified that our results do not depend on the sample adopted as reference. We performed the same analysis with the RM-QSO sources (Liu et al. in prep; [@Shen+2018:RM-QSO]), on which a similar analysis was performed and on which we applied compatible cleaning criteria and methodology, as described in Sections \[sec:sample\] and \[sec:method\]. The results are shown in the $r^2$score plot (Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\]) with shaded areas, color coded for $\mu$ in the same way and using only $\alpha_0=0.02$. There is generally a good agreement between the two samples, suggesting that our results are not dependent from the different data used. It is worth stressing that the $f_{max}$ value at which each $\mu$ (possibly) matches the observed normalization is degenerate with the assumptions on the accretion efficiency and on the product $\eta\,(1-a_{disk})$. Namely, higher accretion efficiencies and/or a higher fraction of the coronal emission beamed away from the disk would increase the normalization of the $L_X$-$L_{UV}$ relation, and shift all curves of Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\] to the left. This will be further examined in Sections \[sec:impact\_efficiency\] and \[sec:impact\_DC\].
![Top panel: the $2\,$keV-emission $r_{peak}$ ($r_{90}$) as a function of $\mu$ is represented in black (gray). The green shaded area qualitatively shows the inner radii, where the bulk of X-ray emission is supposed to come from according to X-ray reverberation and micro-lensing. For increasing $\mu$, the X-ray emission profile peaks at larger radii. Middle panel: for increasing $\mu$ the models obtain a slope of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ closer to the observed one. The dark-green area represents the reference slope of the cleanest XXM-XXL (Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]), while the light-green refers to the slope quoted in . Bottom panel: intrinsic scatter of the mock $L_X-L_{UV}$ relations as a function of $\mu$. The green area represents a tentative upper limit of the true scatter , that is only due to the physical properties of AGN. For simplicity, all panels show only the results obtained with a single $f_{max}$, corresponding to the highest $r^2$-score (e.g., Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\]), and fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$.[]{data-label="fig:rpeak_and_slope_vs_mu"}](Images/rpeak_and_slope_and_scatter_vs_mu_combined){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The slope of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ {#sec:results_slope}
-------------------------------
Figure \[fig:r2score\_plot\] allows us to track the models (i.e. combinations $\mu$, $\alpha_0$ and $f_{max}$, see Table \[tab:model\_param\]) that broadly reproduce the normalization $\widehat{\alpha}$ of the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. Nonetheless, obtaining the correct normalization is simply a weighting exercise of the energetic outputs of the disk and the corona. It is the slope that carries the exact information on how the disk-corona interplay changes across the different accretion regimes of bright radiatively-efficient AGN (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]). This would require a precise knowledge of the true slope of the the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. The observations suggest a value around $\approx 0.6$ (; ; our Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]) and we can acknowledge this value as reference. Our methodology, however, can be regarded as data-independent, and it would applicable even if future works will update the current knowledge on the exact value of the slope.
In the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\] we show how the modeled slope of the of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ gets closer to the observed one for increasing $\mu$ (i.e. for more damped radial $f$-profiles), for a fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$ and using only the $f_{max}$ corresponding to the highest $r^2$-score. This is because models with increasing $\mu$ have higher logarithmic scatter in $f(r)$, meaning that going from lowly- to highly-accreting sources the span in $\text{<}f\text{>}_i$ is larger, with high-$\dot{m}$ objects having comparably weaker X-ray emission with respect to low-$\dot{m}$ companions (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]). We show this for $\mu=0$, 0.5 and 1, respectively[^4]: $$\label{eq:fmean_m_mdot}
\begin{split}
\log\text{<}f\text{>}&= \log f_{max} \\
\log\text{<}f\text{>}&= (-1.12\pm 0.24)\,-(0.15\pm 0.02)\,\log\dot{m}\,\\
&+\,(0.05\pm 0.03)\,\log m \\
\log\text{<}f\text{>}&= (-1.82\pm 0.36)\,-(0.27\pm 0.03)\,\log\dot{m}\,\\
&+\,(0.07\pm 0.04)\,\log m \\
\end{split}$$ where the steepest dependency from $\dot{m}$ is obtained for larger $\mu$.
This test points in the same direction as the evidence of an X-ray bolometric correction increasing with the accretion rate [e.g. @Wang2004:hotdisccorona_constraints; @Vasudevan+Fabian2007:kbol_1; @Vasudevan+Fabian2009:kbol_2; @Lusso+2010:alphaOX; @Young+2010:alpha_ox_kbol], although we refrain to compare this observable with our regressions [e.g. @Wang2004:hotdisccorona_constraints; @Cao2009:coronamodel; @Liu2009:disc-corona_investigated; @You2012:model_disc_corona; @Liu+2012:corona_model_highL; @Liu+2016:structure_spec_corona_highL], due to the many more uncertainties in play when deriving bolometric luminosities in comparison to the quantities entering in the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ (see the discussion in Section \[sec:method\]).
The scatter of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ {#sec:results_scatter}
---------------------------------
The observed scatter of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ for the sample used in this work is $\sigma_{intr}=0.27\pm 0.01$ (Section \[sec:sample\]). As a matter of fact, this value represents an upper limit to the intrinsic dispersion inherent to the physics of the system, as the observed scatter is affected by a combination of instrumental and calibration issues, UV and X-ray variability, non-simultaneity of the multi-wavelength observations. A lot of effort has been put into trying to quantify as accurately as possible all these contaminants [e.g. @Vagnetti+2013:variab_X_uv; @Lusso2018:instrum_on_variab and references therein], with claims that the intrinsic scatter in the $L_X$-$L_{UV}$ relation is smaller than $\lesssim 0.18-0.20$ . Any successful model should be able to reproduce such a low scatter.
From the examples of mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relations plotted in Fig. \[fig:mock\_LxLuv\], it can already be seen that our models come with their one intrinsic scatter. In our methodology (Section \[sec:method\]), the modeled $\dot{m}$ was tuned to the observed $L_{3000\AA}$, hence the intrinsic scatter of the mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relations is simply the dispersion of the modeled $L_{2keV}$, at a given $\dot{m}$, due to different $m$ and $\Gamma$. We show this more quantitatively in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\]. The models dispersion varies with $\mu$ because changing the viscosity law induces a different logarithmic scatter in $f(r)$ (see Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]) and it also affects the distance (in gravitational radii) from which the bulk of the $L_{2keV}$ is coming (see top panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\]). The resulting $\sigma_{intr}$ of the models is likely a complex combination of these (and possible more) factors. All the models, with the exception of $\mu=0$, lie below the available observational constraints of $\lesssim 0.18-0.20$. This is another successful prediction of our model (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]).
A complete picture: the slope-normalization plane of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ {#sec:results_slope_norm}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous Sections, we decomposed the match in either normalization or slope to have a better understanding on how our disk-corona models can relate to the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. However, the goal would be to have a model that can fully encompass these observables. Hence, in Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\] we display 1-, 2- and 3-sigma contours in the slope-normalization plane ($\widehat{\beta}-\widehat{\alpha}$) of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ for both data and models. All regressions were performed with emcee normalizing both $L_{X}$ and $L_{UV}$ to the median value of XMM-XXL. The data contours are related to the cleanest XMM-XXL version (Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]) and to the RM-QSO sources[^5]. Model contours are shown for $\mu=[0,0.2,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8,1]$ using a single $f_{max}$, corresponding to the highest $r^2$-score (e.g., Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\]) for each $\mu$, and a fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$, for simplicity.
![1-, 2- and 3-sigma contours of the emcee regressions in the slope-normalization ($\widehat{\beta}-\widehat{\alpha}$) plane of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ for both data and models, normalizing all $L_{X}$ and $L_{UV}$ to the corresponding median values of XMM-XXL. Dark green contours are related to the cleanest XMM-XXL sample (Appendix \[sec:Lx\_Luv\_XXL\]) and the light green ones to the RM-QSO sources. The contour of the models are color coded for $\mu=[0,0.2,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8,1]$, as shown in the legend. For simplicity, we report for each $\mu$ only results obtained with a single $f_{max}$, corresponding to the highest $r^2$-score, and fixed $\alpha_0=0.02$. Models that reproduce the observed slope $\widehat{\alpha}$ are also the ones that show weaker coronae (lower normalization $\widehat{\alpha}$).[]{data-label="fig:norm_slope_plane"}](Images/Norm_slope_plane_DATAvsMODEL_density_bestzoom_alternativemus){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\] shows that models reproducing the observed slope, namely the ones with higher $\mu$ (as in middle panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\]), are also the ones that show weaker coronae (lower normalization $\widehat{\alpha}$) and overly extended $L_{2keV}$-emission (i.e. higher $r_{peak}$ and $r_{90}$, top panel of Fig. \[fig:rpeak\_and\_slope\_vs\_mu\]).
The 3D plane: $L_{X}$ vs $L_{UV}$ vs $m$ {#sec:results_3D}
----------------------------------------
As shown by , the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation for AGN is rather a three-dimensional problem, with the mass (or its proxy given by the full-width half-maximum of broad emission lines) playing a significant role as well. The observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}-m$ plane from XMM-XXL can be fit by: $$\begin{split}\label{eq:Lx_Luv_m_XXM}
\log L_{2keV} -25 &= (-0.91\pm 0.13)\,+(0.39\pm 0.03)\,(\log L_{3000\AA} -25) \\
&+(0.23\pm 0.04)\,(\log m -7)
\end{split}$$ and the mock $L_{X}-L_{UV}-m$ from models with $\mu=0$, 0.5 and 1, respectively:$$\begin{split}\label{eq:Lx_Luv_m_models}
\log L_{2keV} -25 &= (-3.49\pm 0.15)\,+(1.08\pm 0.03)\,(\log L_{3000\AA} -25) \\
&-(0.27\pm 0.03)\,(\log m -7) \\ \\
\log L_{2keV} -25 &= (-2.41\pm 0.15)\,+(0.73\pm 0.01)\,(\log L_{3000\AA} -25) \\
&+(0.013\pm 0.004)\,(\log m -7) \\ \\
\log L_{2keV} -25 &= (-2.28\pm 0.08)\,+(0.57\pm 0.02)\,(\log L_{3000\AA} -25) \\
&+(0.14\pm 0.02)\,(\log m -7)
\end{split}$$The comparison in the 3D plane states that the exact dependency is not obtained by any of the models, with $\mu=1$ being the closest in qualitatively retrieving the coefficients for $L_{3000\AA}$ and $m$. We note that the mass is taken from the observations, thus this mismatch states that the luminosities in the model do not depend on the mass in the correct way.
The impact of the accretion efficiency {#sec:impact_efficiency}
--------------------------------------
![Same as Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\], with the addition of empty contours for $\mu=0.4$, 0.5 and 0.6 (color coded in the legend) obtained with maximally spinning black holes (i.e. with $\epsilon_0=0.3$ and $r_0=1.24r_g$). The dashed lines connect them to the non-spinning analogous realizations. Dark-red density spots represent the location of the center of different contours of the standard $\mu=0.5$ case, in which the only difference is the adoption of $\eta$ (downward scattering component) varying among 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6, going from higher to lower $\widehat{\alpha}$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:discussion_efficiency"}](Images/Norm_slope_plane_DATAvsMODEL_NEW){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Throughout this work we adopted an efficiency $\epsilon_0=0.057$, typical of non-rotating black holes [e.g. @Shapiro2005:BH_growth], for simplicity. Nonetheless, a high spin seems to be preferred to model the blurred relativistic iron line, detected both in the local Universe [@Nandra+2007:Sey_iron; @REynolds2013:localAGN_FEspin] and up to $z\sim4$ [e.g. @Baronchelli+2018:refl]. Moreover, flux-limited samples are known to be biased in preferentially detecting high-spinning black holes [@Brenneman+2011:high-spin_bias; @Vasudevan+2016:high-spin_bias2], simply because they are brighter than their non-rotating analogous [see @Reynolds2019:obs_spin].
Then, we tested the model using maximally-spinning black holes, with radiative efficiency 0.3 and ISCO down to $r_0=1.24r_g$ [@Thorne1974:BHs]. This has a major impact on the normalization axis of the $L_X-L_{UV}$. Everything else in the source being equal, in a spinning black hole matter can be accreted down to smaller distances with respect to their non-rotating companions, thus the accretion power in the system is much higher. As a matter of fact, changing the radiative efficiency has an impact on the numerical equation that regulates f(r): for the same $m$ and $\dot{m}$ and $r>3$ the values of $f$ is higher, and the transition radius between $P_{rad}$- and $P_{gas}$-dominated regions moves at lower radii. This self-consistently affects the disk equations via the $(1-\tilde{f})$ factor (see Appendix \[sec:app\_model\]), hence the surface temperature is decreased at higher radii, where most of the disk emission at $3000\AA$ comes from. Then, the modeled $\dot{m}$ value needed to match the observed $L_{3000\AA}$ is higher (see Section \[sec:method\]) and, consequently, $L_{2keV}\propto fQ_+$ is higher. In Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\] we show the model contours in the correlation slope-normalization plane computed for both low and high radiative efficiency, for $\mu=0.4$, 0.5 and 0.6 only. Interestingly, maximally-spinning sources yield a better match with the data contours, in particular for the viscosity law $\mu=0.5$, with $f_{max}=0.9$. For instance, Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\_lxluv\] shows how the data and this high-spin model compare in the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ plane. We want to stress that using only a maximum spin for all sources is an extreme measure, but since the (unknown) observed spin distribution is likely dominated by high-spin values [@Reynolds2019:obs_spin], model contours of a more realistic diverse population of high-spinning sources would be closer to the high-efficiency ones in Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\] rather than to the spin-zero case. We also note that, even if the modeled coronae would be somewhat weaker using a realistic spin distribution, with respect to the maximum-spin case, the model with $\mu=0.5$ can still be realized with a higher $f_{max}=0.99$. Thus, we speculate that the new empty red contours in Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\] consist in a fair approximation of a realistic high-spin population model. The tension with the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ would be significantly relaxed.
![$L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation for the high-spin model with $\mu=0.5$, $\alpha_0=0.02$ and $f_{max}=0.9$ (empty red points, corresponding to the empty red contour in Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\]), with the red line showing best fit slope from emcee. The connected filled points (dark red) show the single-mass trend ($\log m =8.7$) for varying accretion rate ($0.03, 0.07, 0.17, 0.42, 1 $). For a comparison, the black contour shows where the data lie in the plane, with the related best-fit slope (black line).[]{data-label="fig:discussion_efficiency_lxluv"}](Images/Lx_Luv_XXL_4ref_highspin){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
The impact of the downward scattering component {#sec:impact_DC}
-----------------------------------------------
The results shown in Fig. \[fig:r2score\_plot\] are also degenerate with the assumptions on the value of the product $\eta\,(1-a_{disk})$, that is on the assumed downward component of the X-ray emission ($\eta$) and on the disk albedo. The adopted value of $\eta=0.55$ is typical for anisotropic Comptonization in a plane-parallel corona [@Haardt+Maraschi1993:twophase2], although it is unclear how much it would change in different geometries or prescriptions. In a patchy corona [@Haardt+1994ApJ:patchy] $\eta$ would unlikely part significantly from the one in the slab case. The only major difference would rather involve the transmission or absorption by the corona of the radiation reflected by the disk. However, we conservatively excluded from the reference sample adopted in the observational test all the sources with a non-negligible reflection component detected (see Section \[sec:sample\]), allowing us to avoid its complicated modeling. In an outflowing corona [e.g. @Beloborodov+1999:HE_accr; @Malzac+2001:dyn_coronae], the ratio between the downward and the upward flux decreases with the bulk velocity of the corona [e.g. @Janiuk+2000:outflow_corona]. We tried to quantify possible offsets in the $\widehat{\beta}$-$\widehat{\alpha}$ plane due to different values of $\eta$, ranging from $0.6$ (slightly enhanced downward scattering) to $0.4$ (reduced downward scattering, roughly approximating an outflowing corona with $\beta_{bulk}\approx0.1-0.2$, e.g. [@Janiuk+2000:outflow_corona]). We show this in Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\] for the $\mu=0.5$ case, with dark-red density spots ($\eta=0.4$, 0.5 and 0.6 from higher to lower $\widehat{\alpha}$, respectively). Changing the downward component by $\Delta\eta\sim0.1$ induces a significant offset of $\approx0.1\,$dex in $\widehat{\alpha}$ and a minor change in $\widehat{\beta}$.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
The $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ relation has been studied for decades [starting with the better-known $\alpha_{OX}$ parameter, @Tananbaum+1979:alphaOX], its robustness used for bolometric estimates [e.g. @Marconi+2004:locSMBH; @Hopkins+2007:bolQLF; @Lusso+2010:alphaOX] and recently even for cosmology . Nonetheless, there is currently no solid and exhaustive physical explanation for it. In Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\] we outlined the qualitative predictions of our model and in Section \[sec:results\] we obtained that concordance with current data can be obtained with a modified viscosity prescription in the accretion flow ($\mu=0.5$), provided the spin of the sources is high. Here, we briefly discuss whether other competing analytic disk-corona models succeed or not and then we try to investigate the impact of the assumptions in our model on the results.
Comparison with other models
----------------------------
tried to explain this relation with a very simplified, but effective, toy-model. Most of their assumptions are in common with our work (see Section \[sec:limits\_model\]), although our treatment is more complete and physically motivated. The assumption of the MRI amplifying the magnetic field to a lesser extent in $P_{rad}$-dominated regions (; ) is taken to the extreme with a step function for the $f$-profile: all the accretion power is emitted by the disk in $P_{rad}$-dominated regions (i.e. $f(r_{rad})=0$), whereas it is equally distributed between disk and corona in $P_{gas}$-dominated regions (i.e. $f(r_{gas})=0.5$). The resulting predicted slope and normalization of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ are claimed to be consistent with the observations. The former can be confirmed by our analysis, as their $f(r)$ step-function is nothing but an extremely damped $f(r)$ beyond $\mu=1$, whose mock slope of the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ was the closest to the observed one. In the latter case, their match in normalization might be an involuntary artifact: with respect to the power transferred to the corona $f$, the observed luminosity is roughly halved if a downward scattering component is included (i.e. $f (1-\eta)$, with $\eta\approx 0.5$). We verified this running our model with $\mu=0$ and $\alpha_0=0.02$, forcing $f=0$ in the $P_{rad}$-dominated region and fixing both $f=0.50$ and $f=0.99$ in $P_{gas}$-dominated radii. In Fig. \[fig:discussion\_LR\] we show the related contours in the $\widehat{\beta}-\widehat{\alpha}$ plane along with our results of Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\]. This confirms that their step $f$-profile results in a slope consistent with the observed value, albeit producing overly weak coronae (too low normalization in the $\widehat{\beta}-\widehat{\alpha}$). Hence, their toy-model does not reproduce the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$. Moreover, the X-ray emission from their toy-model inevitably peaks at the transition radius between $P_{rad}$- and $P_{gas}$-dominated regions. Indeed, their model with $f_{gas}=0.99$ yields $r_{peak}=142_{\,51}^{\,438}$ and $r_{90}=790_{\,445}^{\,1490}$ (i.e. produces extremely extended coronae).
![Same as Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\] with the addition of a reproduction of ’s toy-model as gray contours.[]{data-label="fig:discussion_LR"}](Images/Norm_slope_plane_DATAvsMODEL_density_bestzoom_alternativemus_WITHLR){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
@Kubota+Done2018:model_lx_luv coupled an outer standard disk with an inner warm Componising region, that produces the soft X-ray excess, and an innermost hot corona for the hard X-ray continuum. Their model fits remarkably well the broadband continua of three sources spanning a wide range of accretion rates. They also claim to reproduce the observed $L_{X}-L_{UV}$, using both the regression line and data points from , although only displaying all the possible sources modeled within a grid of $m=10^6-10^{10}$ and $\dot{m}=0.03-1$ (their Fig. 7 and 8). Nonetheless, first-order normalization matches, even with $m$ and $\dot{m}$ spanning within typical values, can be misleading. A more conclusive test would be, as we do, to match mock and data sources one by one.
Further assumptions and theoretical uncertainties {#sec:limits_model}
-------------------------------------------------
Only models with $\mu\lesssim0.4$ are able to reproduce the observed normalization within the range of possible $f_{max}$ values, whereas for $\mu\gtrsim0.5$ they are off by $\gtrsim0.1-0.2\,$dex along the normalization. In Sections \[sec:impact\_efficiency\] and \[sec:impact\_DC\] we showed how a higher accretion efficiency and/or a different downward scattering component may affect our results in the slope-normalization plane. Their impact would be significant and can possibly ease the tension between data and models: high-spin black holes and/or moderately outflowing coronae would be consistent with the observations. We now try to investigate some other simplifications of our model, likely to have a minor or less quantifiable effect on our conclusions.
### Soft X-ray excess and thermal instability
The XMM-XXL $L_{2keV}$ value was interpolated from the $L_{2-10\,keV}$ fit in after excluding sources with high reflection fraction (Section \[sec:sample\]). The impact of the soft X-ray excess component can be considered negligible in that energy range, thus data points in the $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ are likely not contaminated. However, our models do not include a soft X-ray excess generation mechanism, the monochromatic $L_{2keV}$ being extracted from a power-law spectrum within $0.1-100\,$keV. If a significant fraction of the power dissipated in the corona is actually used by a different mechanism producing the observed soft-excess, namely from a warm corona [e.g. @Petrucci+2018:warm_corona; @Kubota+Done2018:model_lx_luv; @Middei+2018:2coronamodel], the mock $L_{2keV}$ would be overestimated to an unclear extent. Nonetheless, if the soft X-ray excess is produced by blurred relativistic reflection [e.g. @Crummy+2006:blurred_refl; @Garcia+2018:blurred?], the influence of this component on our analysis would have been excluded with our selection criteria (Section \[sec:sample\]).
In Section \[sec:model\], we briefly addressed the disk-instability problem (see Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], top panel) and despite the local stabilizing effect of the iron bump in the opacities, disks with $\mu=0$ (e.g., ) and 0.5 (e.g., ) are globally unstable in $P_{rad}$-dominated regions. An intriguing question may be whether the unstable regions in the disk are responsible for generating the soft-excess, possibly within inhomogeneous flows [e.g. @Merloni+2006:inhom_discs]. As a matter of fact, the higher $\dot{m}$ the wider the region where $P_{rad}$ dominates and the higher the soft-excess strength [e.g. @Boissay+2016:soft_excess_hardX]. Nonetheless, a more thorough investigation of this scenario is beyond the reach of this paper.
### Magnetically-dominated disks
In our model the stress tensor is dominated by Maxwell stresses as confirmed by simulations [e.g., @Hawley+1995:Bstresses; @Sano+2004:MHD_accrdisc; @Minoshima+2015:MRI_gaspress], although the magnetic pressure is bound to be only a fraction of the product $P_{gas}^{\mu}P_{tot}^{1-\mu}$ via $\alpha_0$ at the mid-plane. However, there are theories postulating disks that are $P_{mag}$-dominated also in the denser regions [e.g. @Begelman+Silk2017:magn_elevated and references therein] and not only in the upper layers , possibly solving a few long-standing issues of the standard accretions disk theory [@Dexter+Begelman2019:Bdisk_variab]. Simulations indeed showed that $P_{mag}$ can become an important competitor in supporting the disk vertically [@Bai+Stone2013:accr_disc_MRI_corona; @Salvesen+2016:netpoloidalfield], although heavily depending on the strength of the net vertical magnetic field, the origin of which is not fully understood, yet. If this imposed net vertical field is small (if $\beta_0=P_{tot}/P_{mag}>>1$), the buoyant escape of the toroidal component, amplified by MRI, is faster than its creation and a disk-corona system consistent with our model is formed. However, the evidence of disks that are magnetically-dominated even at the mid-plane is supported by @Jiang+2019:subEdd_disks, that recently performed a global 3D radiation-MHD simulation of two sub-Eddingtion flows. The structure of their simulated disks is significantly different from the standard model and reaches a complexity that our simplified prescriptions are not able to grasp. On the other hand, these simulations could not produce spectra and luminosities, yet. We here rely on the assumption that the energetics of $P_{mag}$-dominated disks are not significantly different from standard thin disks at radii larger than $\sim10 r_g$ [e.g., see @Sadowski2016:Bthisdisks].
### Winds and outflows
In order to see if any known broad absorption line (BAL) quasars were present in our sample, we cross-matched the XMM-XXL catalog (; [@Menzel+2016:XXM-XXL_boss]) with SDSS-DR12 [@Paris+2017:SDSS-DR12], that flagged 29580 BAL QSO after visual inspection. Only two sources among the 379 used in our analysis were flagged, although they were both assigned zero indexes in the common metrics used for a more quantitative measurement of the BAL properties [@Paris+2017:SDSS-DR12]. Hence, our sample has no contaminations from known BALs, although we can investigate the possible impact of un-modeled wind-dominated objects on our work. For instance, @Nomura+2018:linedrivW recently developed a disk model compensating for the mass-loss rates of UV-driven winds, while consistently adjusting the temperature and emission of the underlying disk. They referred to a future work for a more complete modeling of the inner radii and the hard X-ray emission, but the influence on $L_{3000\AA}$ values seems already significant, provided $\dot{m}\gtrsim0.5$. Since winds appear to act only from moderate to Eddington $\dot{m}$, neglecting their presence would have an impact on the modeled $L_{X}-L_{UV}$ slope. The wind carries away kinetic energy reducing the disk emission accordingly, thus for a given observed high $L_{3000\AA}$, our no-wind model would underestimate $\dot{m}$ for the possible outflowing sources contaminating our sample.
### The larger-than-predicted disk argument
One of the most studied issues of the standard disk model is that observed sizes appear to be larger than expected at optical-UV wavelengths, using both microlensing effects [e.g. @Morgan+2010:microlensQSO; @Blackburne+2011:microl_fl_rat; @Jimenez-Vicente+2012:QSO_microl] and flux variability lags across multiple bands in the so-called reprocessing scenario [e.g. @Edelson+2015:swift_reverb_size; @Fausnaugh+2016:delays_size; @Fausnaugh+2018reverb_2sey; @Jiang+2017:lags_panstarrs; @Cackett+2018:reverb_BLR?; @McHardy+2018:lags_caveats], in which often a compact X-ray emitting region (e.g., a lamppost corona) irradiates the disk inducing light-travel lags in the UV-optical bands. However, even combining all these results discordant with the theoretical predictions is not trivial [@Kokubo2018:caveats_lags], particularly if different techniques are used [see @Moreno+2018:variab_techn; @Vio+2018:CARMAissues]. What is more, there are also numerous studies finding consistency with the sizes predicted by the standard theory [e.g. @McHardy+2016:lags_ss?; @Mudd+2018ApJ:sizes-ss73?; @Yu+2018:sizes_standard; @Edelson+2018:swift_reverb_conststent; @Homayouni+2018:sizes_consistent], thus we do not consider necessary to use the larger-than-predicted argument to abandon all the standard prescriptions, yet.
### No-torque inner boundary
For convenience, we adopted the no-torque condition with the stress vanishing at the inner edge. However, the presence of magnetic torques [@Gammie1999magnetic_torque; @Agol+Krolik2000:magnetic_torque] would increase the disk effective temperature and the $Q_+$ emissivity in the innermost radii [@Agol+Krolik2000:magnetic_torque; @Dezen+2018:nonzero_torque] and, if applied to the disk only, it would cause instead a drop in the fraction $f$ . Without a proper MHD treatment, it is unclear how the modeled $L_{2keV}\propto f Q_+$ would be affected, and consequently the $L_X-L_{UV}$ slope.
### The vertical structure
Our model does not properly treat the vertical structure of the disk. The effective temperature is obtained from $T_{eff}\propto T_{mid}/\tau^{1/4}$, where $\tau=h\, \rho \,\kappa$ assumes constant $\rho$ and $\kappa$ along the scale-height. Even keeping the approximation of a constant $\rho$, $\kappa$ should change self-consistently with the decrease in temperature. A more thorough modeling of the disk vertical structure in supermassive black holes was presented by Hubeny and collaborators, taking into account both scattering processes and free-free and bound-free opacities [@Hubeny+2000:nonLTEdiscs; @Hubeny+2001:part2_compton]. Their model also share some of our limits (e.g., stationary disk, $\alpha$-prescription, no-torque boundary, vertical support from thermal pressure only), validating the comparison. The overall SED has lower (higher) fluxes at low (high) frequencies with respect to standard calculations, with the most significant impact on the modeling of the soft-excess [@Done+2012:soft_excess]. The computation of $L_{3000\AA}$ should be affected in a minor way, with a small overestimation on the order of a color correction [e.g. @Done+2012:soft_excess], that is either roughly constant or weakly depending on $m$ and $\dot{m}$ [e.g. @Davis+2018:spec_hardening]. Our conclusions should not be significantly affected, although this would need to be improved for a proper SED modeling and time-lags predictions.
Conclusions
===========
The gap between simulations and observations in AGN needs to be bridged and simplified, but motivated, analytic prescriptions still represent a powerful tool to explain the observed multi-wavelength scaling relations. For instance, the clear correlation observed between monochromatic logarithmic $L_X$ and $L_{UV}$ luminosities has been used for decades [in the shape of the more-known $\alpha_{OX}$ parameter, @Tananbaum+1979:alphaOX] in many applications . Despite this, a conclusive theoretical explanation for the observed correlation is still lacking. Being smaller than one, the observed slope indicates that, going from low- to high-accretion rate AGN, the X-ray emission increases less than the optical-UV emission. Any viable disk-corona model must be able to explain this.
In this work, we tested a self-consistent disk-corona model (Section \[sec:model\], see also ) against the $L_X-L_{UV}$ relation. We were able to identify the possible mechanism regulating the disk-corona energetic interplay, in terms of viscosity prescriptions (e.g., $\mu=0.5$) that naturally lead to an X-ray emission increasing less than the disk emission going to higher accretion rates (see Section \[sec:prediction\_lxluv\]). We also put forward a quantitative observational test (Section \[sec:observational\_test\]), using a reference sample of AGN (Section \[sec:sample\]) observed both in the (rest-frame) UV and in X-rays: taking from each source the observationally determined $m$, $\dot{m}$ and $\Gamma$ we were able to model an analogous mock object (Section \[sec:method\]) producing a set of mock $L_X-L_{UV}$. This allowed us to reach a deep understanding of the physics driving the slope, normalization and scatter of the $L_X-L_{UV}$ (see Section \[sec:results\]).
We find that if the black-hole population is assumed to be non-spinning, results from this test are inconclusive: the viscosity prescriptions reproducing the slope of the observed $L_X-L_{UV}$ relation, also produce overly weak coronae. Interestingly enough, the tension between the strength of the observed and modeled X-ray emission (i.e. in the normalization of the $L_X-L_{UV}$) can be significantly relaxed adopting a more realistic high-spinning black-hole population and/or with moderately-outflowing coronae. We tested the former case adopting the efficiency (and the inner orbit) of maximally-spinning black holes, in which matter is able to accrete further into the potential well, resulting in a much higher accretion power and, consequently, in much stronger coronae (Section \[sec:impact\_efficiency\]). Moreover, if the spin is high the X-ray emission profile peaks closer to the black hole, in even better agreement with X-ray reverberation and microlensing studies [@Mosquera+2013:lensedQSO_corona; @Reis+2013:size_reverb_micro; @Wilkins+2016:modeling_Xreverb]. In particular, the disk-corona model testing maximally-spinning black holes with $\mu=0.5$ (i.e. magnetic stress proportional to the geometric mean of $P_{gas}$ and $P_{tot}$, e.g. see ), $f_{max}=0.9$, $\alpha_{0}=0.02$ (see Table \[tab:model\_param\]) provides the best match with the observations (Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\_lxluv\]), although the modeled slope is still somewhat larger than the observed one (Fig. \[fig:discussion\_efficiency\]). Going beyond this type of exercises, only 3D global radiation-MHD simulations will be able to better disclose the disk-corona physics [e.g. @Jiang+2017:globalSUPEREDD; @Jiang+2019:subEdd_disks], provided a clearer way of approaching the observations will be reached.
We thank the referee for his/her helpful comments. We thank Teng Liu for kindly providing the optical spectral slopes obtained in [@Liu_teng+2018:Xobs_type1AGN]. We are also grateful to Torben Simm for the RM-QSO data and to Elisabeta Lusso and Guido Risaliti for making available to us the data of . RA thanks Damien Coffey, Jacob Ider Chitham and Linda Baronchelli for insightful discussions. We acknowledge the use of the matplotlib package [@Hunter2007:matplotlib].
Disc-corona equations {#sec:app_model}
=====================
We report the equations for $h$, mid-plane $\rho$ (gcm$^{-3}$), $P$ (dyncm$^{-2}$), $T$ (K, at the mid-plane) and the closure equation for $f$. In the radiation pressure dominated regime:
=\_[const]{} k\_0\^[-]{}\[\_0m\]\^[-]{} \[J(r)\]\^ r\^ (1-)\^ &&
T=T\_[const]{}k\_0\^[-]{}\[\_0m\]\^[-]{} \[J(r)\]\^ r\^ (1-)\^ &&
h=9.14J(r)(1-) &&
P=P\_[const]{}k\_0\^[-]{}\[\_0m\]\^[-]{} \[J(r)\]\^ r\^ (1-)\^ &&
\[eq:system\_rad\_mu\] = k\_0\^\[\_0m\]\^ \[J(r)\]\^ r\^[-]{} (1-)\^ &&
where $k_0$ is the proportionality constant between the stress tensor and the magnetic pressure. The constant values depend on $\mu$ as follows:
\_[const]{}=(4.710\^[-68]{})\^ (5.510\^[48]{})\^ (1.510\^[-23]{})\^
T\_[const]{}=(4.710\^[-68]{})\^ (5.510\^[48]{})\^ (1.510\^[-23]{})\^
P\_[const]{}=(4.710\^[-68]{})\^ (5.510\^[48]{})\^ (1.510\^[-23]{})\^
=(4.710\^[-68]{})\^ (5.510\^[48]{})\^ (1.510\^[-23]{})\^
The solutions for gas pressure dominated regions, that are independent on the choice of $\mu$ in the viscosity law, are:
=14.44 k\_0\^[-3/5]{} \^[3/10]{} \[\_0m\]\^[-7/10]{} \[J(r)\]\^[2/5]{} r\^[-33/20]{} (1-)\^[-3/10]{}&&
T=8.0110\^[8]{} k\_0\^[-4/15]{} \^[-1/5]{} \[\_0m\]\^[-1/5]{} \[J(r)\]\^[2/5]{} r\^[-9/10]{} (1-)\^[1/5]{}&&
h=1.7210\^[-2]{} k\_0\^[-7/15]{} \^[-1/10]{} \[\_0m\]\^[-1/10]{} \[J(r)\]\^[1/5]{} r\^[21/20]{} (1-)\^[1/10]{}&&
P=1.9110\^[8]{} k\_0\^[-13/15]{} \^[1/10]{} \[\_0m\]\^[-9/10]{} \[J(r)\]\^[4/5]{} r\^[-51/20]{} (1-)\^[-1/10]{}&&
\[eq:system\_gas\] =5.4110\^[2]{} k\_0\^[-1/5]{} \^[-9/10]{} \[\_0m\]\^[1/10]{} \[J(r)\]\^[4/5]{} r\^[-21/20]{} (1-)\^[9/10]{} &&
The value of $\xi$ can be obtained by studying the continuity of all the above quantities at the boundary between the radiation pressure- to the gas pressure-dominated regions. It corresponds to $\xi\simeq1.00 k_0^{-1/3}$.
In Fig. \[fig:other\_profiles\] we report examples of radial profiles for $\rho$, $P_{tot}$, $\kappa$, $h/r$, $T_{mid}$ and $T_{eff}$. Similar examples for $f$ and $L_{2keV}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\]. Once $f_{max}$ is fixed, the dominant variance among the models is given by the choice of the viscosity law ($\mu$), while $\alpha_0$ plays a minor role. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:alpha\_diff\_minor\], where profiles for $f$ and $L_{2keV}$ show little difference in varying $\alpha_0$ from 0.02 to 0.2.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with radial profiles for the mid-plane $\rho$ (top left), $P_{tot}$ (gas plus radiation, top central), $\kappa$ (top right), $h/r$ (bottom left) and $T$ (both mid-plane and surface, bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:other_profiles"}](Images/rhoprofile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.627\columnwidth"}\
![Same as Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with radial profiles for the mid-plane $\rho$ (top left), $P_{tot}$ (gas plus radiation, top central), $\kappa$ (top right), $h/r$ (bottom left) and $T$ (both mid-plane and surface, bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:other_profiles"}](Images/Ptotprofile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.622\columnwidth"}\
![Same as Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with radial profiles for the mid-plane $\rho$ (top left), $P_{tot}$ (gas plus radiation, top central), $\kappa$ (top right), $h/r$ (bottom left) and $T$ (both mid-plane and surface, bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:other_profiles"}](Images/Opacityprofile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.605\columnwidth"}\
![Same as Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with radial profiles for the mid-plane $\rho$ (top left), $P_{tot}$ (gas plus radiation, top central), $\kappa$ (top right), $h/r$ (bottom left) and $T$ (both mid-plane and surface, bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:other_profiles"}](Images/hprofile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.625\columnwidth"}\
![Same as Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\], with radial profiles for the mid-plane $\rho$ (top left), $P_{tot}$ (gas plus radiation, top central), $\kappa$ (top right), $h/r$ (bottom left) and $T$ (both mid-plane and surface, bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:other_profiles"}](Images/Tem_Tmid_profile_allmus_fmax0d5 "fig:"){width="0.61\columnwidth"}\
![Same as in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\] and \[fig:other\_profiles\]. Here, we highlight the (minor) influence on varying $\alpha_0$ from 0.02 (purple) to 0.2 (orange) in $f$- and $L_{2keV}$-profiles.[]{data-label="fig:alpha_diff_minor"}](Images/fprofile_fmax0d5_alphacomparison.pdf "fig:"){width="0.62\columnwidth"} ![Same as in Fig. \[fig:f\_Lx\_profiles\] and \[fig:other\_profiles\]. Here, we highlight the (minor) influence on varying $\alpha_0$ from 0.02 (purple) to 0.2 (orange) in $f$- and $L_{2keV}$-profiles.[]{data-label="fig:alpha_diff_minor"}](Images/Lxprofile_fmax0d5_alpha_comparison.pdf "fig:"){width="0.64\columnwidth"}
The reference AGN sample {#sec:Lx_Luv_XXL}
========================
![Distribution of $L_{2keV}$ (top panel) and $L_{3000\AA}$ (bottom panel) in the luminosity-redshift plane of the 379 sources of our XMM-XXL sample (red and blue respectively), with respect to the parent sample of BLAGN from (black). The dashed red lines broadly represent the sensitivity of the survey at the related frequency (see the text for a description).[]{data-label="fig:XMM-XXL_sensitivity"}](Images/sensitivity_L2kev "fig:"){width="0.87\columnwidth"}\
![Distribution of $L_{2keV}$ (top panel) and $L_{3000\AA}$ (bottom panel) in the luminosity-redshift plane of the 379 sources of our XMM-XXL sample (red and blue respectively), with respect to the parent sample of BLAGN from (black). The dashed red lines broadly represent the sensitivity of the survey at the related frequency (see the text for a description).[]{data-label="fig:XMM-XXL_sensitivity"}](Images/sensitivity_L3000 "fig:"){width="0.87\columnwidth"}
For the source-by-source modeling of XMM-XXL we used the 379 sources obtained following the methodology outlined in Section \[sec:method\]. In Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_sensitivity\] we show the distribution of $L_{2keV}$ (top panel) and $L_{3000\AA}$ (bottom panel) in the luminosity-redshift plane of the 379 sources (red and blue respectively), with respect to the parent sample of BLAGN from (black). The $L_X-L_{UV}$ slope of this reference sample is $0.54\pm0.02$, from Eq. \[eq:best\_fit2D\]. This is incompatibly flatter than the values quoted in the recent literature, namely $0.64\pm0.02$ or $0.63\pm0.02$ (). The cleaning criteria applied in Section \[sec:sample\] were aimed to exclude low-quality data and to be consistent with the model, while in the above-mentioned literature the possible biases of flux-limited samples were treated carefully in order to reliably use quasars for cosmology .
We investigated whether this inconsistency in the slope would be bridged restricting the analysis to the brightest objects at all redshifts with a very crude and conservative selection. From the sensitivity curve of the XXL-N survey in the $0.5-10\,$keV band at half of the survey area (, their Fig. 3) we obtained the flux limit in that energy band. Then, we interpolated the flux limit at 2keV using the mean photon index of the sample, obtaining the sensitivity curve shown in red in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_sensitivity\]. In @Menzel+2016:XXM-XXL_boss a cut at $r<22.5$mag was applied. We converted this magnitude limit in a luminosity sensitivity only within $0.80\lesssim z\lesssim 1.27$, for which $3000\AA$ was actually detected in the $r$ band. For different redshifts, we first computed a redshift dependent color correction for the other bands ($u$,$g$,$i$ and $z$) performing a linear regression on the difference with the $r$-band magnitude. This provided a magnitude limit for $L_{3000\AA}$ at all redshifts, consistently with the band in which that wavelength was actually detected, from which we obtained the related sensitivity line in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_sensitivity\]. We then divided XMM-XXL in six redshift bins, making sure to have at least 30 counts per bin. For each bin, we excluded all the sources below the limits given by the sensitivity curves on both axis, evaluated at the maximum $z$ of the bin to be conservative (Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_zbins\]). The resulting cleanest subsample reaches accordance with the recent literature of the $L_X-L_{UV}$, with a slope of $0.59\pm0.03$.
![$L_X-L_{UV}$ relation in the redshift bins reported in the sub-titles. The sensitivity surfaces at the minimum, median and maximum redshift of the bin are represented in red with a full area, a dashed line and a shaded area respectively. These surfaces are obtained from the sensitivity lines in Fig. \[fig:XMM-XXL\_sensitivity\] at the above-mentioned redshifts. The sources above the shaded sensitivity area in each $z$-bin give the cleanest XMM-XXL sample. []{data-label="fig:XMM-XXL_zbins"}](Images/Lx_Luv_sensitivity_zbins){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
[^1]: <https://github.com/rarcodia/DiskCoronasim>
[^2]: We will refer to other data throughout the paper and possible discrepancies in luminosities due to different cosmological parameters may occur. Nonetheless, we verified that the biggest difference in luminosity values ($\sim 0.01~$dex) is obtained assuming a Planck with respect to a WMAP release, while using different releases of the same instrument will have a negligible impact ($\lesssim 0.005~$dex).
[^3]: $R$ is the ratio of the normalization of the reflection component with respect to the power-law component.
[^4]: The distributions of mock $\dot{m}$ are very similar across the models, with median values (and related 16th and 84th percentiles) of $0.16_{0.04}^{0.69}$, $0.15_{0.05}^{0.65}$ and $0.14_{0.04}^{0.59}$ for $\mu=0$, 0.5 and 1, respectively. The tails include Eddington or even super-Eddington sources. We note that the uncertainty on the modeled $\dot{m}$, propagated through the ones in the observations, is as large as $\approx0.65\,$dex.
[^5]: \[fnote:balmerRM\]XMM-XXL luminosities were obtained in including a Balmer continuum component in the fit , although for the RM-QSO this component was switched off [@Shen+2018:RM-QSO]. For consistency, a rigid shift of $-0.12\,$dex was applied to the RM-QSO $L_{3000\AA}$ for obtaining the contours displayed in Fig. \[fig:norm\_slope\_plane\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We suggest a new thermodynamic curvature, constructed via adiabatic compressibility, for examining the internal microstructure of charged black holes in an anti-de Sitter (AdS) background. We analyze the microscopic properties of small-large phase transition of black holes with pressure and volume as the fluctuation variables. We observe that strong repulsive interactions dominate among the micro-structures of near extremal small black holes, and the thermodynamic curvature diverges to positive infinity for the extremal black holes. At the critical point, however, thermodynamic curvature diverges to negative infinity.'
author:
- Amin Dehyadegari
- Ahmad Sheykhi
- 'Shao-Wen Wei'
title: 'Microstructure of charged AdS black hole via $P-V$ criticality'
---
Introduction \[Intro\]
======================
Phase transition is a fascinating phenomenon in black holes thermodynamics which has received considerable attentions in recent years. This is mainly motivated by AdS/CFT duality, which states that there exists a correspondence black holes in asymptotically anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime and the conformal field theory living on its boundary [HP,Witten]{}. A significant interest has been arisen for study phase transition of AdS black hole in an extended phase space in which the cosmological constant can be regarded as thermodynamic pressure which can vary [@Dolan; @PV]. In this viewpoint, the mass of black hole is identified as the enthalpy [@enthalpy]. It was shown [@PV] that the four dimensional charged AdS black hole demonstrates the first order (discontinuous) and second order (continuous) phase transitions between the small and large black holes in an extended phase space. This phase transition is analogous to the Van der Waals gas/liquid phase transition, thus, their critical exponents are the same as well. The investigation on the critical behavior of black holes in this context is often referred to as $P$*-*$V$* criticality*" and has widely explored in the literatures [Hendi,Sherkat,Sherkat1,Rabin,Kamrani,DSD1,DSD2,DSDH,Dehghani,BIRPT]{} and references therein. Some interesting phenomena have been observed in the extended phase space of black holes such as *zeroth order* phase transition [@NAAA] and reentrant phase transition [@KerrRPT] as well as triple critical point [@triplep] as well as superfluid like phase transition [@superfluidBH]. More recently, a universality class of the critical behavior of AdS black holes in an extended phase space has been studied by a general approach without specifying the functional form of the spacetime metric [@Majhi].
An alternative approach to investigate critical behavior of black holes is to consider the electric charge ($Q$) of the black hole as a thermodynamical variable while keeping the cosmological constant as a fixed parameter. From the physical point of view, the electric charge of black hole is a natural variable which can take on arbitrary values and it affects the thermodynamic properties of AdS black hole. In this case, it was argued [@VDW1] that there exists a small-large black hole phase transition for the charged black hole in a fixed AdS background. It has been demonstrated [@AAA] that this phase transition is physically conventional in an alternative phase space where the square of the electric charge ($Q^{2}$) is viewed as an independent thermodynamic variable of the black hole system. In this perspective, the new thermodynamic response function correctly signifies stable and unstable regimes and the critical behavior of the black hole resembles with Van der Waals fluid, belonging to the same universality class [@AMajhi]. Phase transition of black holes in an alternative phase space have been explored in different setups [@DS; @Homa; @Arab]. More recently, the authors of Ref. [@ASheykhi] investigated thermodynamic phase structure of Born-Infeld and charged dilaton [@ASheykhi2] black holes in a fixed AdS spacetime by studying the behavior of specific heat.
The theory of covariant thermodynamic fluctuations provides a powerful geometric framework to study properties of underlying thermal system, completely from the thermodynamic viewpoint [@Rup0; @Rup1]. In this context, Ruppeiner defined the Riemannian metric on the equilibrium thermodynamic state space as the second derivatives of entropy. In his series of works [@Rup2; @Rup3; @Rup4], it has been confirmed that thermodynamic curvature (Ricci scalar) arising out of a such metric is related to the microscopic interactions, where the thermodynamic curvature is positive (negative) for the repulsive (attractive) interaction. In addition, thermodynamic curvature diverges at the critical point for pure fluid systems. With regard to this approach, the microscopic behavior and phase transition of various kinds of black holes have been explored [Rup5,Rup6,Rup7,comment]{}. In all these works, thermodynamic curvature has a finite value at the critical point. Recently, a new normalized thermodynamic curvature was proposed to understand the microscopic behavior of charged AdS black hole in an extended phase space where the temperature and volume are treated as fluctuating variables [@Wei1; @Wei2; @Wei3]. In this formalism, thermodynamic curvature is normalized with respect to the heat capacity at constant volume. It was shown that the microstructure of small black hole has a weak repulsive interaction and the thermodynamic curvature goes to infinity at the critical point of phase transition.
In this paper, we offer a new thermodynamic curvature, which is constructed via the adiabatic compressibility, for examining the internal microstructure of charged AdS black holes in an extended phase space with fixed charge. In particular, we analyze the microscopic properties of small-large phase transition of black holes with pressure and volume as the fluctuation variables. Our work differs from [@Wei1; @Wei2] in that we allow the pressure and volume to fluctuate and normalize the thermodynamic curvature by the adiabatic compressibility, while the authors of [@Wei1; @Wei2] considered the temperature and volume as the fluctuating quantities and normalized the thermodynamic curvature by the heat capacity at constant volume. We observe that strong repulsive interactions dominate among the micro-structures of small black holes where the thermodynamic curvature diverges to positive infinity. It is shown that the thermodynamic curvature diverges to negative infinity at the critical point.
The structure of the paper is laid out as follows. We begin in Sec. [Review]{} by giving a brief review of the thermodynamics and critical behavior of the four dimensional charged AdS black holes in the extended phase space. In Sec. \[Rup\], we first introduce the Ruppeiner geometry and obtain the corresponding line element for a thermodynamic system in terms of the entropy and pressure. Then, we use the thermodynamic curvature to investigate in detail the microstructure of charged AdS black hole. Finally, we present some remarks in Sec. \[FR\].
Thermodynamics and phase transition of charged AdS black holes[Review]{}
========================================================================
We start with a brief review on the thermodynamics properties and $P-V$ criticality of Reissner-Nordstrom (RN)-AdS black hole in an extended phase space. The action of Einstein-Maxwell theory in four-dimensional spacetime with a cosmological constant ($\Lambda $) is $$I=\frac{1}{16\pi }\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}\left( \mathcal{R}\text{ }-2\Lambda
-F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right) , \label{Act1}$$where $\mathcal{R}$ is the scalar Riemann curvature, $F_{\mu \nu }$ is the electromagnetic field strength that is defined as $F_{\mu \nu }=\partial
_{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }$ with the gauge field $A_{\mu }$. The negative cosmological constant $\Lambda $ is related to the AdS radius $L $ by the relation, $\Lambda =-3/L^{2}$. In four dimensions, the line element of the spherically symmetric RN-AdS metric is given by [@PV] $$\begin{aligned}
ds^{2} &=&-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega ^{2}, \\
f(r) &=&1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{2}}+\frac{r^{2}}{L^{2}},\end{aligned}$$where $d\Omega ^{2}$ is the metric of the unit two sphere. Herein, the parameters $M$ and $Q$ are, respectively, the mass and charge of black hole where the position of the black hole event horizon ($r_{+}$) is determined as a largest positive real root of $f(r_{+})=0$. The only nonvanishing component of the electromagnetic field tensor is given by $F_{tr}=Q/r^{2}$.
The Hawking temperature of the RN-AdS black hole on an event horizon is obtained as [@PV] $$T=\frac{f^{\prime }(r_{+})}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{4\pi r_{+}}\left( 1+\frac{3r_{+}^{2}}{L^{2}}-\frac{Q^{2}}{r_{+}^{2}}\right) , \label{temp}$$and the entropy is $$S=\pi r_{+}^{2}. \label{entropy}$$By interpreting the cosmological constant as a thermodynamic pressure, $P=-\Lambda /(8\pi )$, and its conjugate quantity as a black hole thermodynamic volume, $V=4\pi r_{+}^{3}/3$, the first law of black hole thermodynamics and the corresponding Smarr formula take the form, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
dM &=&TdS+VdP+\Phi dQ, \label{Msm} \\
M &=&2TS+\Phi Q-2VP,\end{aligned}$$where $\Phi =Q/r_{+}$ is the electric potential measured with respect to the event horizon. In this consideration, the mass ($M$) of the black hole is identified as the enthalpy. Also, the thermodynamic process is carried out in the extended phase space. It is worthwhile to mention that according to Eq. (\[entropy\]) and black hole thermodynamic volume formula, the entropy is only a function of area/volume, i.e. $S=S\left( V\right) $. This feature of the black hole will be used in the next section.
=8.5cm
For the four-dimensional charged AdS black hole, the equation of state, $P=P\left( T,V\right) $, is obtained by using Eq.(\[temp\]) as $$P=\frac{T}{2r_{+}}-\frac{1}{8\pi r_{+}^{2}}+\frac{Q^{2}}{8\pi r_{+}^{4}},
\label{EoS}$$where $r_{+}=\left( 3V/4\pi \right) ^{1/3}$. The behavior of isotherms in the $P$-$V$ diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. We see that the critical point is an inflection point on the isotherm which is characterized by $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\Big|_{T_{c}}=0,\quad \quad \quad \frac{\partial ^{2}P}{\partial V^{2}}\Big|_{T_{c}}=0. \label{CP}$$One obtains the critical quantities as $$T_{c}=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{18\pi Q},\quad P_{c}=\frac{1}{96\pi Q^{2}},\quad
V_{c}=8\sqrt{6}\pi Q^{3}. \notag$$For $T<T_{c}$, an oscillating part of the isotherm denotes unstable region where the isothermal compressibility is negative, i.e. $$\kappa _{{}_{T}}=-\frac{1}{V}\left. \frac{\partial V}{\partial P}\right\vert
_{T}<0.$$This instability is replaced by an isobar (the horizontal line) via the Maxwell equal area construction, $\oint VdP=0$, which means that there exists a first order phase transition between the small black hole and large black hole. The small-large black hole transition region, determined by Maxwell construction, has the following forms [@Smailagic]$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{T}^{2} &=&\widetilde{P}(3-\sqrt{\widetilde{P}})/2, \notag \\
\widetilde{P} &=&\frac{7+6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}-4\sqrt{3+6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}}}{\widetilde{V}^{4/3}},\end{aligned}$$where the reduced thermodynamic variables are defined as $$\widetilde{T}=\frac{T}{T_{c}},\quad \widetilde{P}=\frac{P}{P_{c}},\quad
\widetilde{V}=\frac{V}{V_{c}}. \notag$$It is worthwhile to note that the two phase of small and large black holes cannot be distinguished above the critical point. In the next section, we examine the behavior of charged black hole in the Ruppeiner geometry.
Ruppeiner geometry \[Rup\]
==========================
In this section, we apply the concept of the Ruppeiner thermodynamic geometry as a useful tool to study the microscopic structure of charged AdS black holes. The Ruppeiner geometry arises from the Gaussian thermodynamic fluctuation theory which is constructed on the thermodynamic state space [@Rup1]. In two dimensions, the Riemannian curvature scalar, $R$, (thermodynamic curvature) gives complete information about the Ruppeiner geometry which is connected with the inter-particle interaction in a thermodynamic system. Specially, the positive (negative) sign of the thermodynamic curvature indicates the repulsive (attractive) interaction, while $R=0$ corresponds to no interaction [@Rup2; @Rup3; @Rup4]. In the following, we first derive the thermodynamic fluctuation metric in the ($S$,$P$) coordinates, where a thermodynamic potential is the enthalpy. Then, using the fact that the entropy of the charged AdS black hole only depends on the volume, we investigate the thermodynamic curvature of black hole through the ($P$,$V$) plane.
Ruppeiner metric \[RupM\]
-------------------------
Consider a thermodynamic system characterized by the entropy ($S$), internal energy ($U$) and volume ($V$) such that the line element between two thermodynamic states is [@Rup1] $$\Delta l^{2}=g_{\mu \nu }\Delta x^{\mu }\Delta x^{\nu }, \label{metric1}$$where $x^{\mu }=\left( U,V\right) $ and the metric element $g_{\mu \nu }$ is given by $$g_{\mu \nu }=-\frac{\partial ^{2}S}{\partial x^{\mu }\partial x^{\nu }}.
\notag$$In the entropy representation, the first law of thermodynamics for this system is expressed as follows $$dS=\frac{1}{T}dU+\frac{P}{T}dV, \label{firstlaw}$$where $T$ and $P$ are temperature and pressure, respectively. Using the first law of thermodynamics Eq.(\[firstlaw\]), the line element Eq.([metric1]{}) can be written as $$\Delta l^{2}=\frac{1}{T}\Delta T\Delta S-\frac{1}{T}\Delta P\Delta V.
\label{metric2}$$To express the above line element in ($S$,$P$) coordinates, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta T &=&\frac{\partial T}{\partial S}\Big|_{P}\Delta S+\frac{\partial T}{\partial P}\Big|_{S}\Delta P, \notag \\
\Delta V &=&\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}\Big|_{P}\Delta S+\frac{\partial V}{\partial P}\Big|_{S}\Delta P. \label{metric3}\end{aligned}$$Substituting Eqs.(\[metric3\]) into Eq.(\[metric2\]) and using the Maxwell relation $$\frac{\partial T}{\partial P}\Big|_{S}=\frac{\partial V}{\partial S}\Big|_{P}, \notag$$one obtains the thermodynamic line element $$\Delta l^{2}=\frac{1}{C_{P}}\Delta S^{2}+\frac{V}{T}\kappa _{S}\Delta P^{2},
\label{metric4}$$where $C_{P}=T\left( \partial S/\partial T\right) _{P}$ is the heat capacity at constant pressure and $\kappa _{S}=-1/V\left( \partial V/\partial
P\right) _{S}$ is the adiabatic compressibility. Here, the thermodynamic potential is the enthalpy where the independent variables are entropy and pressure.
Thermodynamic curvature in $P$-$V$ diagram \[Thermodynamic Rupp\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we use Eq. (\[metric4\]) to investigate microstructure of RN-AdS black hole in an extended phase space. Due to the fact that the entropy of black hole only depends on the volume, i.e. $S=(3^{2}\pi
/2^{4})^{1/3}V^{2/3} $, the line element of the Ruppeiner geometry can be written as $$\Delta l^{2}=\frac{1}{C_{P}}(\frac{\pi }{6V})^{2/3}\Delta V^{2}+\frac{V}{T}\kappa _{S}\Delta P^{2}, \label{metric5}$$where the pressure and volume are taken as the fluctuation variables. For the black hole, the adiabatic compressibility ($\kappa _{S}$) vanishes similar to the heat capacity at constant volume, i.e. $C_{V}=T\left(
\partial S/\partial T\right) _{V}=0$ [^1]. Hence, following [Wei1,Wei2]{}, we define a normalized thermodynamic curvature, $R_{N}$, based on the adiabatic compressibility $$\label{NTC}
R_{N}=R\kappa _{S}.$$In what follows, we analyze in detail the behavior of the normalized thermodynamic curvature as function of the pressure and volume. By performing simple calculations, we obtain the normalized thermodynamic curvature $$R_{N}=\frac{16\widetilde{V}^{2/3}(3\widetilde{V}^{2/3}-1)(5-6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}+9\widetilde{P}\widetilde{V}^{4/3})}{(1-2\widetilde{V}^{2/3}+\widetilde{P}\widetilde{V}^{4/3})^{2}(1-6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}-3\widetilde{P}\widetilde{V}^{4/3})}, \label{RN}$$
=8.5cm
=8.5cm
which is expressed in terms of the reduced thermodynamic variables. Remarkably, the $R_{N}$ is independent of the charge of a black hole in Eq.(\[RN\]). It should be noted that if one uses Eq.(\[metric4\]) instead of Eq.(\[metric5\]) for the Ruppeiner line element, the normalized thermodynamic curvature ($R_{N}$), Eq.(\[RN\]), does not change. The overall behavior of the normalized thermodynamic curvature as a function of $P/P_{c}$ and $V/V_{c}$ is illustrated in Fig.\[fig2\]. As can be ascertained from Fig.\[fig2\], the $R_{N}$ goes to negative infinity in certain regions of the plane. From Eq.(\[RN\]), $R_{N}$ diverges along the curves $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}_{div} &=&\frac{2\widetilde{V}^{2/3}-1}{\widetilde{V}^{4/3}},
\label{div1} \\
\widetilde{P}_{div} &=&\frac{1-6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}}{3\widetilde{V}^{4/3}},
\label{div2}\end{aligned}$$The divergent curve in Eq. (\[div2\]) corresponds to the extremal black holes which are at zero temperature. On the other hand, $R_{N}$ obviously vanishes at the following curves $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}_{0} &=&\frac{6\widetilde{V}^{2/3}-5}{9\widetilde{V}^{4/3}},
\notag \\
\widetilde{V}_{0} &=&\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}, \label{vanishing}\end{aligned}$$where the dominant interaction between the microstructure of charged black hole changes from attractive to repulsive and vice versa.
To better understand the behavior of the normalized thermodynamic curvature, we show the diverging (gray dashed line) and vanishing (brown dotted line) curves corresponding to Eqs.(\[div1\]), (\[div2\]) and (\[vanishing\]), respectively, as well as the small-large black hole phase transition (light blue solid line) curve in Fig.\[fig3\]. In Fig.\[fig3\], the critical point is highlighted by a black solid circle and the shaded regions have positive values for $R_{N}$ which imply the domination of repulsive interaction. In the other region, $R_{N}$ is negative which means the microstructure interactions are attractive. As evident from Fig.\[fig3\], $R_{N}$ is negative for the large black hole, while there is a certain range of volume in the small black hole phase ($\widetilde{V}<1$) that has positive $R_{N}$. In this positive region, $R_{N}$ diverges to positive infinity when the gray dashed line is approached from large values of volume. i.e, the microstructure interaction of the small black hole is strongly repulsive. A strongly repulsive interaction also exists in the higher pressure regime (above the critical point) at low volume $\widetilde{V}$. The white region to the left of the gray dashed curve on the left side of the Fig. \[fig3\], where black holes are sufficiently small, is excluded due to the fact that temperature is negative. Since the equation of state (\[EoS\]) may not hold in the transition region (below the light blue solid curve), $R_{N}$ does not give any information about the black hole microstructure. Furthermore, as also seen in Fig.\[fig3\], light blue solid and gray dashed curves coincide at the critical point where the thermodynamic functions of charged black hole are characterized by a set of critical exponents [@PV]. Hence, the normalized thermodynamic curvature diverges to negative infinity ($R_{N}\rightarrow -\infty $) at the critical point. This situation is analogous to fluid in the critical point regime, such as Van der Waals system [@Rup1; @Wei1; @Wei2], where thermodynamic curvature goes to negative infinity at the critical point.
To obtain an explicit expression of $R_{N}$ near the critical point, we expand $R_{N}$, Eq.(\[RN\]), around the critical point using Eq.(\[EoS\]) $$R_{N}=-\frac{9}{2}t^{-2},$$
=8.5cm
where $t=1-\widetilde{T}$ is the deviation from the critical temperature. Therefore, $R_{N}$ has the universal critical exponent $2$ and critical amplitude $-9/2$. Further, it is interesting to investigate the behavior of $R_{N}$ on the transition curve. In this respect, we plotted in Fig.\[fig4\], $R_{N}$ along the transition curve in both the small and the large black holes phases from the critical temperature to zero. One observes from Fig.\[fig4\] that $R_{N}$ in both phases diverges to $-\infty $ at the critical temperature. In the large black hole phase, $R_{N}$ uniformly negative and $\left\vert R_{N}\right\vert $ decreases as the temperature decreases from the critical temperature, which it is small at $\widetilde{T}=0$. While, in the small black hole phase, $R_{N}$ changes sign and becomes positive below $\widetilde{T}=3\sqrt{3}(7-3\sqrt{5})/2\approx 0.7581$. Remarkably, $R_{N}$ diverges to positive infinity as $\widetilde{T}$ tends to zero where strong repulsive interactions dominate.
Final Remarks \[FR\]
====================
In this paper, we proposed a new thermodynamic curvature, by using the adiabatic compressibility, for examining the internal microstructure of charged AdS black holes in an extended phase space. We explored the microscopic properties of small-large black holes phase transition by considering the pressure and volume as the fluctuation variables. We defined a normalized thermodynamic curvature, $R_{N}=\kappa_{S} R$, where $\kappa_{S}$ is the adiabatic compressibility, and studied the behavior of $R_{N}$ as a function of the pressure and volume. The sign of $R_{N}$ determines the repulsive or attractive feature of black holes microstructure. When $R_{N}>0$, the repulsive interaction dominates, while $R_{N}<0$ indicates that the microstructure interactions are attractive. We also observed that a strongly repulsive interaction exists in the higher pressure regime (above the critical point) at low volume. At the critical point however, we have $R_{N}\rightarrow -\infty $, which is analogous to the Van der Waals fluid in its critical point regime.
We are grateful to the Research Council of Shiraz University. A.S. thanks Hermann Nicolai and Max-Planck-Institute for Gravitational Physics, for hospitality. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11675064) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. lzujbky-2019-it21).
[99]{} S. Hawking and D. N. Page, *Thermodynamics of black holes in anti-de sitter space*, Commun. Math. Phys. **87**, 577 (1983).
E. Witten, *Anti-de Sitter Space, Thermal Phase Transition, And Confinement In Gauge Theories*, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **2,** 505 (1998) \[hep-th/9803131\].
B. P. Dolan, *The cosmological constant and the black hole equation of state*, Class. Quant. Grav. **28** , 125020 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.5023\];
B. P. Dolan, *Pressure and volume in the first law of black hole thermodynamics*, Class. Quant. Grav. **28**, 235017 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.6260\].
D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, *P-V criticality of charged AdS black holes*, JHEP **1207,** 033 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.0559\].
D. Kastor, S. Ray, and J. Traschen, *Enthalpy and the Mechanics of AdS Black Holes*, Class. Quant. Grav. **26,** 195011 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.2765\].
S. H. Hendi and M. H. Vahidinia, *Extended phase space thermodynamics and P-V criticality of black holes with a nonlinear source*, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 084045 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.6128\].
M. B. Jahani Poshteh, B. Mirza and Z. Sherkatghanad, *Phase transition, critical behavior, and critical exponents of Myers-Perry black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **88**, 024005 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.4516\].
Z. Sherkatghanad, B. Mirza, Z. Mirzaeyan and S. A. H. Mansoori, *Critical behaviors and phase transitions of black holes in higher order gravities and extended phase spaces*, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D Vol. **26**, 1750017 (2017) \[arXiv:1412.5028\].
R. Banerjee and D. Roychowdhury, *Critical phenomena in Born-Infeld AdS black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 044040 (2012) \[arXiv:1111.0147\]; R. Banerjee, D. Roychowdhury, *Critical behavior of Born Infeld AdS black holes in higher dimensions*, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 104043 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.0118\].
M. H. Dehghani, S. Kamrani, A. Sheykhi, *P-V criticality of charged dilatonic black holes*, Phys. Rev. D. **90**, 104020 (2014) \[arXiv:1505.02386\].
M. H. Dehghani, A. Sheykhi, Z. Dayyani, *Critical behavior of Born-Infeld dilaton black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **93**, 024022 (2016) \[arXiv:1611.08978 \].
Z. Dayyani, A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, *Counterterm method in dilaton gravity and the critical behavior of dilaton black holes with power-Maxwell field*, Phys. Rev. D **95**, 084004 (2017) \[arXiv:1611.00590\].
Z. Dayyani, A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, S. Hajkhalili, *Critical behavior and phase transition of dilaton black holes with nonlinear electrodynamics*, Eur. Phys. J. C **78**, 152 (2018) \[arXiv:1709.06875\]
A. Dehghani, S.H. Hendi, *Charged black hole chemistry with massive gravitons*, Class. Quantum Grav. **37**, 024001 (2020) \[arXiv:1909.00956\].
S. Gunasekaran, R. B. Mann and D. Kubiznak, *Extended phase space thermodynamics for charged and rotating black holes and Born-Infeld vacuum polarizatio*n, JHEP **1211,** 110 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.6251\].
A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi and A. Montakhab, *Novel phase transition in charged dilaton black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **96,** 084012 (2017) \[arXiv:1707.05307\].
N. Altamirano, D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann,*Reentrant phase transitions in rotating anti-de Sitter black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **88,** 101502 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.5756\].
S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, *Triple points and phase diagrams in the extended phase space of charged Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS space*, Phys. Rev. D **90,** 044057 (2014) \[arXiv:1402.2837\].
R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, and E. Tjoa, *Superfluid Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 021301 (2017) \[arXiv:1609.02564\].
B. R. Majhi and S. Samanta, *P-V criticality of AdS black holes in a general framework*, Phys. Lett. B **773**, 203 (2017) \[arXiv:1609.06224\].
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, and R. C. Myers, *Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography*, Phys. Rev. D **60**, 064018 (1999) \[hep-th/9902170\];
A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson, and R. C. Myers, *Holography, thermodynamics and fluctuations of charged AdS black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **60,** 104026 (1999) \[hep-th/9904197\].
A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi and A. Montakhab, *Critical behaviour and microscopic structure of charged AdS black holes via an alternative phase space*, Phys. Lett. B **768,** 235 (2017) \[arXiv:1607.05333\].
A. Dehyadegari, B. R. Majhi, A. Sheykhi, A. Montakhab, *Universality class of alternative phase space and Van der Waals criticality*,Phys. Lett. B **791**, 30 (2019) \[arXiv:1811.12308\].
Z. Dayyani and A. Sheykhi, *Critical behavior of Lifshitz dilaton black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **98**, 104026 (2018) \[arXiv:1805.00368\].
H. Yazdikarimi, A. Sheykhi and Z. Dayyani, *Critical behavior of Gauss-Bonnet black holes via an alternative phase space*, Phys. Rev. D **99**, 124017 (2019) \[arXiv:1903.09020\].
A. Sheykhi, M. Arab, Z. Dayyani, A. Dehyadegari, *Alternative approach towards critical behavior and microscopic structure of the higher dimensional Power-Maxwell black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **101**, 064019 (2020) \[arXiv:1909.11445\].
A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi, *Reentrant phase transition of Born-Infeld-AdS black holes*, Phys. Rev. D **98,** 024011 (2018) \[arXiv:1711.01151\].
A. Dehyadegari, A. Sheykhi, *Critical behavior of charged dilaton black holes in AdS space*, arXiv:2002.08188.
G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamics: A Riemannian geometric model,* *Phys. Rev.* **A 20** (1979) 1608.
G. Ruppeiner, *Riemannian geometry in thermodynamic fluctuation theory, Rev. Mod. Phys.* **67** (1995) 605 \[Erratum: *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **68** (1996) 313\].
G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamic curvature measures interactions, American Journal of Physics* **78** (2010) 1170 \[arXiv:1007.2160\].
G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamic Curvature From the Critical Point to the Triple Point, Phys. Rev.* **E 86** (2012) 021130 \[arXiv:1208.3265\].
H. O. May, P. Mausbach and G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamic Curvature for Attractive and Repulsive Intermolecular Forces, Phys. Rev.* **E 88** (2013) 032123.
G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamic curvature: pure fluids to black holes, J. Phys.: Conf. Series* **410** (2013) 012138 \[arXiv:1210.2011\].
G. Ruppeiner, *Thermodynamic Curvature and Black Holes, Springer Proc. Phys.* **153** (2014) 179 \[arXiv:1309.0901\].
S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, *Insight into the microscopic structure of an AdS black hole from thermodynamical phase transition*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115** (2015) 111302 \[arXiv:1502.00386\]; Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. **116** (2016) 169903.
M. Kord Zangeneh, A. Dehyadegari and A. Sheykhi, *Comment on “Insight into the Microscopic Structure of an AdS Black Hole from a Thermodynamical Phase Transition”*, arXiv:1602.03711.
S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, R. B. Mann, *Repulsive Interactions and Universal Properties of Charged AdS Black Hole Microstructures*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **123** (2019) 071103 \[arXiv:1906.10840\].
S.-W. Wei, Y.-X. Liu, and R. B. Mann, *Ruppeiner Geometry, Phase Transitions, and the Microstructure of Charged AdS Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. D **100** (2019) 124033 \[arXiv:1909.03887\].
S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, *New insights into thermodynamics and microstructure of AdS black holes*, Sci. Bull. **65** (2020) 259 \[2003.00458\].
E. Spallucci and A. Smailagic, Maxwell’s equal area law for charged Anti-de Sitter black holes, Phys. Lett. B **723** (2013) 436 \[arXiv:1305.3379\].
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifzhitz, *Statistical physics*, Pergamon, New York, (1977).
[^1]: The entropy of the Van der Waals fluid system is a function of the temperature and volume i.e. $S=S\left( T,V\right) $ [@Wei2; @Landau]. This would imply that the adiabatic compressibility is non-zero ($\kappa _{S}\neq
0)$ and it has a finite value at the critical point.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report Suzaku observations of the northern half of the Hydra A cluster out to $\sim$ 1.4 Mpc, reaching the virial radius. This is the first Suzaku observations of a medium-size ($kT\sim $3 keV) cluster out to the virial radius. Two observations were conducted, north-west and north-east offsets, which continue in a filament direction and a void direction of the large-scale structure of the Universe, respectively. The X-ray emission and distribution of galaxies elongate in the filament direction. The temperature profiles in the two directions are mostly consistent with each other within the error bars and drop to 1.5 keV at 1.5 $r_{500}$. As observed by Suzaku in hot clusters, the entropy profile becomes flatter beyond $r_{500}$, in disagreement with the $r^{1.1}$ relationship that is expected from accretion shock heating models. When scaled with the average intracluster medium (ICM) temperature, the entropy profiles of clusters observed with Suzaku are universal and do not depend on system mass. The hydrostatic mass values in the void and filament directions are in good agreement, and the Navarro, Frenk, and White universal mass profile represents the hydrostatic mass distribution up to $\sim 2~r_{500}$. Beyond $r_{500}$, the ratio of gas mass to hydrostatic mass exceeds the result of the Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe, and at $r_{100}$, these ratios in the filament and void directions reach 0.4 and 0.3, respectively. We discuss possible deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium at cluster outskirts. We derived radial profiles of the gas-mass-to-light ratio and iron-mass-to-light ratio out to the virial radius. Within $r_{500}$, the iron-mass-to-light ratio of the Hydra A cluster was compared with those in other clusters observed with Suzaku.'
author:
- |
Takuya <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sato</span>, Toru <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sasaki</span>, Kyoko <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matsushita</span>, Eri <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sakuma</span>, Kosuke <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sato</span>,\
Yutaka <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fujita</span>, Nobuhiro <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Okabe</span>, Yasushi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fukazawa</span>, Kazuya <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ichikawa</span>,\
Madoka <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kawaharada</span>, Kazuhiro <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nakazawa</span>, Takaya <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ohashi</span>, Naomi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ota</span>,\
Motokazu <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Takizawa</span>, and Takayuki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tamura</span>
title: Suzaku observations of the Hydra A cluster out to the virial radius
---
Introduction
============
Clusters of galaxies are the largest self-gravitating systems in the Universe, and offer unique information on the process of structure formation governed by cold dark matter (CDM). In addition, these clusters are considered as a laboratory for studying thermal and chemical evolutions of the Universe in which baryons play the most important role. X-ray observations provide valuable information about the structure formation, gas heating and cooling, and metal enrichment of galaxy clusters. Because the dynamical time-scale of clusters is comparable to the Hubble time, cluster outskirts should maintain original records of cluster evolution via accretion of gas and substructures from filaments of the surrounding large-scale structure of the Universe.
Thanks to the low and stable background of the X-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XIS; [@koyama07]), Suzaku [@mitsuda07] was able to unveil for the first time the intracluster medium (ICM) beyond $r_{500}$, a radius within which the mean cluster-mass density is 500 times the cosmic critical density. The accurate calibration of the XIS also allows precise measurements of the ICM temperature [@Sato2011]. Suzaku derived the temperature and entropy profiles of the ICM of several massive clusters up to the virial radius ([@george09]; [@reiprich09]; [@bautz09]; [@kawaharada10]; [@hoshino10]; [@simionescu11]; [@akamatsu11]). From the center to $r_{200}$, a systematic drop in temperature was found by a factor of $\sim$ 3, and the observed entropy profiles become flatter beyond $r_{500}$. These profiles are lower than the entropy profile predicted by the numerical simulations of gravitational collapse ([@tozzi01]; [@voit05]), which is proportional to $r^{1.1}$. @kawaharada10 discovered that beyond $r_{500}$ of the Abell 1689 cluster, the total mass obtained from weak-lensing observations with Subaru is larger than that calculated assuming hydrostatic equilibrium. Therefore, one explanation for the low entropy profiles at cluster outskirts is that infalling matter retained some of its kinetic energy in bulk motion [@bautz09; @george09; @kawaharada10]. Based on Suzaku observations of the Perseus cluster, @simionescu11 proposed a gas-clumping effect as an additional interpretation. @hoshino10 and @akamatsu11 discussed possible deviations of electron temperature from ion temperature to explain the observed lower temperature and entropy profiles. To clarify these effects in the outskirts, dependence on the system mass or on the ICM temperature should be examined. With XMM-Newton observations, @urban11 found a similar flattening of the entropy profile in one direction in the Virgo cluster ($kT$ = 2.3 keV). However, @humphrey11 detected no evidence of flat profiles at large scales ($> r_{500}$) in the relaxed fossil group or in the poor cluster, RXJ 1159+5531. Therefore, more samples of medium-sized clusters are required.
In addition to measuring the temperature and entropy profiles, Suzaku measured the abundance of Fe in the ICM beyond 0.5$r_{180}$ [@fujita08; @tawa08; @simionescu11]. Metal abundances in the ICM also provide important information on the chemical history and evolution of clusters. The ASCA satellite first measured the distribution of Fe in the ICM ([@fukazawa00]; [@finoguenov01]). Recently, spatial distributions of Fe from 0.3 to 0.4 $r_{180}$ have been studied with the XMM-Newton and Chandra satellites ([@vikhlinin05]; [@maughan08]; [@leccardi08]; [@matsushita11]). Since metals are synthesized by supernovae (SNe) in galaxies, the ratios of metal mass in the ICM to the total light from galaxies in clusters or groups, (i.e., metal-mass-to-light ratios) are key parameters in investigating the chemical evolution of the ICM. Suzaku measured the iron-mass-to-light ratios (IMLR) of several clusters and galaxy groups out to 0.2 $\sim$ 0.5 $r_{180}$ ([@matsushita07]; [@komiyama09]; [@sato07]; [@sato08]; [@sato09a]; [@sato09b]; [@sato10]; [@sakuma11]), and with XMM-Newton, the IMLR of the Coma cluster out to 0.5$r_{180}$ was derived [@matsushita2011b]. The IMLR profiles increase with radius, indicating that Fe in the ICM extends farther than stars.
The Hydra A cluster (z = 0.0539) with an ICM temperature of $\sim$3 keV is one of the prototype cool-core clusters in which @mcnamara00 discovered a displacement of X-ray gas in the central region through the radio lobes from the central active galactic nucleus (AGN). This cluster is also known as Abell 780 and remains a major examples of AGN interaction that is studied through radio and X-rays [@taylor1990; @david01; @nulsen02; @nulsen05; @lane04; @wise07; @simonescu09a; @simonescu09b; @kirkpatrick09]. Through Chandra and XMM-Newton observations, a sharp X-ray surface-brightness edge was detected at radii between $4.3'$ and $6'$ (200–300 kpc) and was interpreted as a shock wave caused by an AGN outburst. The abundances of the Hydra A cluster was measured within $\sim$0.3 $r_{180}$ with XMM [@simonescu09b; @matsushita11].
This paper reports the results of two Suzaku observations in the northern half of the Hydra A cluster out to 25$'$($\simeq$1.5 Mpc), which corresponds to the virial radius. The observations were conducted using the XIS. This study reports the first Suzaku observations of a medium-sized cluster with an average temperature of $\sim $3 keV up to the virial radius. The two observed fields continue in a filament direction that continues to the Abell 754 cluster and a void direction of the large-scale structure of the Universe (see Figure \[fig:extended source\]).
In this study, we use the Hubble constant, $H_{\rm 0} = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$. The luminosity distance $D_{\rm L}$ and angular size distance $D_{\rm A}$ to the Hydra A cluster are $D_{\rm L}=240$ Mpc and $D_{\rm A}=217$ Mpc, respectively, and $1'$ corresponds to 66.6 kpc. We use the epoch J2000.0 for the right ascension and declination of the equatorial coordinate system. In addition, we use the solar abundance table by @lod03, in which the solar Fe abundance relative to H is 2.95$\times$10$^{-5}$. Considering a difference in solar He abundance, the Fe abundance yielded by @lod03 is 1.5 times higher than that using the photo-spheric value by @angr. Errors were quoted at a 90% confidence level for a single parameter.
Observation and Data Reduction {#sec:obs}
==============================
Suzaku observations {#sec:suzakuobs}
-------------------
[ccccccc]{} Field name & Target name & Sequence & Observation & RA& Dec& Exposure\
& & number & date & (deg) & (deg) & (ks)\
North-west (filament) & HYDRA A-1 & 805007010 & 2010-11-08 & 139.3723 & -11.9472 & 35.6\
North-east (void) & HYDRA A-2 & 805008010 & 2010-11-09 & 139.6749 & -11.9472 & 34.9\
(80mm, 60mm)[figure1.eps]{}
Suzaku conducted two observations of the Hydra A cluster in November 2010, which was during the Suzaku Phase-V period. The details of the observations are summarized in Table \[tab:ob\]. The first observation, HYDRA A-1, was $12'$ north-west offset from the X-ray peak of the Hydra A cluster with coordinates (RA, Dec) = (139.5236, -12.0955) in degrees. The second observation, HYDRA A-2, was $12'$ north-east offset from the X-ray peak of the Hydra A cluster. The north-west and north-east fields continue into the filament and void structures, respectively (See figure \[fig:extended source\]). Hereafter, we refer to the north-west and north-east offsets as filament and void, respectively.
The XIS, which was operated in its normal mode during the observations, consists of three sets of X-ray CCD (XIS0, XIS1, and XIS3). XIS1 is a back-illuminated (BI) sensor, while both XIS0 and XIS3 are front-illuminated (FI) sensors. Data reduction was done with HEAsoft version 6.11. The XIS event lists created by rev 2.5 pipeline processing were filtered using the following additional criteria: a geomagnetic cutoff rigidity (COR2) $>$6 GV, and an elevation angle $>10^{\circ}$ from the earth limb. The 5$\times$5 and 3$\times$3 editing modes data formats were added. The exposure times after data selection are shown in Table \[tab:ob\].
To obtain the temperature and electron density profiles, we accumulated spectra within annular regions centered on the X-ray peak as shown in Figure \[fig:image\]. Regions around calibration sources and the innermost region within 2$'$ were excluded from the spectral analysis. The reason for this exclusion is that we could not obtain sufficient photon statistics to analyze the spectra (which have multiphase features at the cluster center) because the given area was detected on the edge of a CCD chip in our observation. In addition, Suzaku’s PSF is also insufficient to resolve such a complex structure. However, with their powerful imaging capability, Chandra and XMM observations have unveiled such complex features in the central region. Using the ewavelet tool in SAS[^1], we searched for point-like sources in the Suzaku images in the energy range of 2.0–10.0 keV. In this energy range, the flux levels were approximately $> 2~\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. These point sources were excluded as circular regions with radii of 1$'$ (figure \[fig:image\]). The non X-ray background (NXB) was subtracted from each spectrum using a database of night Earth observations with the same detector area and COR distribution [@tawa08].
We included the degradation of energy resolution due to radiation damage in the redistribution matrix file (RMF) generated by the [xisrmfgen]{} Ftools task. In addition, we created an ancillary response file (ARF) using the [xissimarfgen]{} Ftools task [@ishisaki07]. A decrease in the low-energy transmission of the XIS optical blocking filter (OBF) was also included in the ARF. For filament and void fields, we generated ARF files assuming uniformly extended emission from an enriched region with a 20$'$ radius. We used the XSPEC\_v12.7.0 package and ATOMDB\_v2.0.1 for spectral analysis. Each spectrum was binned and each spectral bin contained a minimum of 50 counts. To avoid systematic uncertainties in the background, we ignored energy ranges above 7 keV and below 0.7 keV. In addition, we excluded the narrow energy band between 1.82 and 1.84 keV in the fits because of the incomplete response around the Si edge.
XMM observations {#sec:xmmobs}
----------------
We used the same data and analysis as that reported by @matsushita11. The XMM-Newton archival data of Hydra A (observation identifier 0109980301) had exposure times of 14.0 ks, 19.1 ks and 22.2 ks for MOS1, MOS2 and PN, respectively, after background flares were screened out. We selected events with patterns smaller than 5 and 13 for the PN and MOS, respectively. Spectra were accumulated in concentric annular regions of $0'$-$0.5'$, $0.5'$-$1'$, $1'$-$1.5'$, $1.5'$-$2'$, $2'$-$3'$, $3'$-$4'$, $4'$-$5'$, $5'$-$6'$, $6'$-$7'$, $7'$-$8'$, and $8'$-$9'$, centered on the X-ray peak of the Hydra A cluster. Here, the X-ray peaks were derived using the ewavelet tool of SAS-v8.0.0, and luminous point sources were excluded. The spectra from MOS1 and MOS2 were added. The background spectrum for each annular region was calculated by integrating blank-sky data in the same detector region. From deep-sky observations with XMM-Newton, we selected the data having background most similar to that of the Hydra A cluster and the faintest Galactic emission, after screening out background flare events from the data and the background, following @katayama04. Next, we scaled the background using a count rate between 10 and 12 keV.
The response matrix file and the ARF corresponding to each spectrum were calculated using SAS-v8.0.0. Further details appear in sections 2 and 3 of @matsushita11.
Data Analysis {#sec:analysis}
=============
Estimation of background spectra {#subsec:bkg}
--------------------------------
[cccc]{} Cosmic X-ray Background & Local Hot Bubble & Milky-Way halo &\
normalization& normalization& normalization&\
& $\times 10^{-3}$ & $\times 10^{-4}$ & $\chi^2$/d.o.f\
$8.92^{+0.72}_{-0.85}$ & $8.93^{+6.02}_{-5.75}$ & $1.83^{+1.85}_{-1.72}$ & 1.04(144/139)\
To derive the radial profiles of the temperature, electron density, and Fe abundance of the ICM, we fitted the NXB-subtracted spectra with a thermal plasma model (APEC: [@smith01]).
We first fitted the spectra in the outermost ring (15$'$–23$'$ region) to determine the local X-ray background. As reported by @Yoshino2009, the background emission of Suzaku XIS can be fitted with a three-component model: two thermal plasma models (APEC; [@smith01]) for the local hot bubble (LHB) and the solar wind charge exchange (SWCX), the Milky Way Halo (MWH), and a power-law model for the extragalactic cosmic X-ray background (CXB). MWH and CXB components were convolved with an photoelectric absorption in the Galaxy, $N_{\rm H}$. Therefore, we adopted the model formula, $apec_{\rm LHB}+wabs\times(apec_{\rm MWH}+power$-$law_{\rm CXB})$ as background. We assumed a zero redshift and a solar abundance for LHB and MWH components. The temperature of the LHB and MWH was fixed at 0.1 keV and 0.3 keV, respectively. The column density of the Galactic neutral hydrogen was fixed at 4.7$\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@kalberla05], and the photon index of the CXB component was fixed at 1.41 [@kushino02]. Using the formula $apec_{\rm LHB}+wabs\times (apec_{\rm ICM}+apec_{\rm MWH}+power$-$law_{\rm CXB})$, we fitted the spectra with a sum of the background components and a single-temperature APEC model for the ICM. Temperature and normalization of the ICM component were allowed to vary, and redshift was fixed at 0.0539. Normalizations of the background components were also left free. The spectra of the filament and void fields were fitted simultaneously, and each parameter of background and abundance of the ICM was assumed to be the same.
Results of the spectral fit are shown in Figure \[fig:bkgfit\]. The resulting parameters for the background and ICM are shown in Table \[tab:bkgtable\] and \[tab:results\], respectively. The normalizations obtained for the CXB and the Galactic components are consistent with those derived by @kushino02 and @Yoshino2009, respectively.
Several blank fields observed with Suzaku contained emission with $kT=0.6-0.8$ keV [@Yoshino2009]. Therefore, we added an APEC component with $kT=0.6$ keV and refitted the outermost spectra. The normalization of the 0.6 keV component had a much smaller value than the other Galactic components, and the temperatures and normalizations of the ICM did not change.
(80mm, 60mm)[figure2.eps]{}
(80mm, 60mm)[figure3a.eps]{} (80mm, 60mm)[figure3b.eps]{}
(80mm, 60mm)[figure3c.eps]{} (80mm, 60mm)[figure3d.eps]{}
(80mm, 60mm)[figure3e.eps]{} (80mm, 60mm)[figure3f.eps]{}
Spectral fits of annular regions {#subsec:single}
--------------------------------
We fitted the XIS spectra in each region of the Hydra A cluster using a single-temperature APEC model for the ICM with the Galactic absorption, $N_{\rm H}$. The spectra of each annular region of the two fields were fitted simultaneously by minimizing the total $\chi^2$ value. Here, the common background model was included for all regions, where the surface brightness of the background components were restricted within the statistical errors derived for the outermost regions. The temperature and normalization of the ICM component were free parameters. The abundances in each annular region in the two fields were assumed to have the same value. $N_{\rm H}$ was fixed to the Galactic value of $4.7\times 10^{20}~{\rm cm^{-2}}$ in the direction of the Hydra A cluster.
The resultant parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:results\], and the best-fit spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:spec\]. The spectra are well represented with the single-temperature model for the ICM and the background.
[cccccccc]{} & &\
(arcmin) & (kpc) & $kT$ (keV) & abundance (solar) & normalization& $kT$ (keV) & normalization& $\chi^{2}$/d.o.f.\
$2'-4'$ & $133-266$& $3.81_{-0.34}^{+0.35}$ & $0.33\pm0.10$ & $0.45_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ & $3.18_{-0.14}^{+0.15}$ & $0.36_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ & $1.22(263/216)$\
$4'-6'$ & $266-400$ & $3.31_{-0.23}^{+0.32}$ & $0.43\pm0.43$ & $0.10_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ & $3.09_{-0.24}^{+0.27}$ & $0.090_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ & $1.09(146/134)$\
$6'-8'$ &$400-533$ & $3.11_{-0.23}^{+0.28}$ & $0.28\pm0.15$ & $0.056_{-0.005}^{+0.004}$ & $3.07_{-0.31}^{+0.38}$ & $0.035_{-0.003}^{+0.003}$ & $1.18(177/150)$\
$8'-10'$ &$533-666$ & $2.60_{-0.27}^{+0.43}$ & $0.18\pm0.13$ & $0.025_{-0.003}^{+0.003}$ & $3.16_{-0.81}^{+0.86}$ & $0.015_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ & $1.18(129/109)$\
$10'-12'$ & $666-799$& $2.54_{-0.36}^{+0.67}$ & $0.38\pm0.38$ & $0.013_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ & $3.46_{-1.60}^{+1.60}$ & $0.0058_{-0.0012}^{+0.0016}$ & $1.07(99/93)$\
$12'-15'$ & $799-997$& $2.36_{-0.44}^{+0.33}$ & $0.30\pm0.19$ & $0.010_{-0.001}^{+0.001}$ & $1.79_{-0.31}^{+0.33}$ & $0.0048_{-0.0012}^{+0.0012}$ & $1.13(170/150)$\
$15'-23'$ & $997-1529$& $1.44_{-0.33}^{+0.47}$ & $0.10\pm0.08$ & $0.0036_{-0.0011}^{+0.0012}$ &$1.39_{-0.42}^{+0.65}$ & $0.0025_{-0.0008}^{+0.0011}$ & $1.19(263/221)$\
Results
=======
Temperature profile {#subsec:kT}
-------------------
(80mm, 60mm)[figure4.eps]{}
Figure \[fig:kT\] shows the radial temperature profiles of the two directions derived from the spectral fits. At a given radius, the temperatures for each direction are consistent within statistical errors, except around $\sim$200 kpc from the center. The region around 200 kpc corresponds to the shock front detected by Chandra and XMM in the filament direction [@simonescu09b; @gitti11]. From 300 kpc to 1200 kpc, the temperatures in each direction decrease with radius in a similar manner down to $\sim$ 1.4 keV.
From ROSAT observations, @ikebe97 found that the spectrum at the central region within 2$'$ exhibits the multiphase feature. Although the central 2$'$ region was excluded in our spectral analysis, we examined the spectral fits with the two-temperature model in regions with $r~>~2'$. The reduced-$\chi^{2}$ for the two-temperature model was not significantly improved in comparison with the single-temperature model.
To determine the hydrostatic mass of Hydra A, we fitted the temperature profile of each direction with the exponential formula, $A \times \exp(-b\times r)$, where $A$ and $b$ are free parameters with units of keV and kpc$^{-1}$, respectively, and $r$ is the distance from the X-ray peak of the cluster center. The resulting fit parameters and best-fit functions are shown in Figure \[fig:kT\]. In the filament direction, the normalization factor $A$ of the exponential model was 18% higher than that in the void direction, which reflects a temperature difference of $\sim$ 200 kpc. The parameter $b$ for both directions is consistent within statistical error.
Deprojected electron density profile {#subsec:ne}
------------------------------------
(80mm, 60mm)[figure5.eps]{}
[ccccccc]{} & &\
Field & $n_{0,1}$ (10$^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$) & $r_{c,1}$ (kpc) & $\beta_{1}$ & $n_{0,2}$ (10$^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$) & $r_{c,2}$ (kpc) & $\beta_{2}$\
void & $6.73\pm0.17$ & $21.3\pm4.7$ & $0.59\pm0.01$ & $2.16\pm0.14$ & $278\pm264$ & $0.95\pm0.07$\
filament & $6.61\pm0.19$ & $22.3\pm5.4$ & $0.62\pm0.01$ & $2.73\pm0.15$ & $193\pm114$ & $0.60\pm0.03$\
[cccc]{} Field & $n_{0}$ (10$^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$) & $r_{c}$ (kpc) & $\beta$\
void & $7.38\pm0.42$ & $160\pm13$ & $0.74\pm0.03$\
filament & $7.98\pm0.50$ & $131\pm10$ & $0.61\pm0.02$\
We calculated three-dimensional electron density profiles from the normalization of the ICM component derived with Suzaku, considering the geometrical volume that contributes to each two-dimensional region. Here, we assumed spherical symmetry within each field. The electron density profile was also obtained using XMM data. To avoid uncertainties in the background, we fitted the annular spectra of XMM MOS with the APEC model in an energy range of 1.6–5.0 keV. Here, the temperature and Fe abundance were left free within the error bars derived by @matsushita11. We fitted the derived emissivity profiles with a double-$\beta$-model, and calculated the three-dimensional radial profile of the electron-density.
Figure \[fig:ne\] shows the electron density profile derived from XMM and Suzaku (this work), Chandra [@david01] and the ROSAT surface-brightness profile scaled with the XMM density profile at 200 kpc [@ikebe97]. The deprojected electron density profile derived from XMM and Suzaku observations agree well with those from ROSAT within 500 kpc and from Chandra within 200 kpc.
At a given distance from the X-ray peak, electron density beyond 400 kpc in the filament direction was systematically higher than that in the void direction, reflecting the difference in normalizations (Table \[tab:results\] and Figure \[fig:spec\]). At 900 kpc, for example, the deprojected electron densities in the filament and void directions were $(2.54\pm0.18)\times10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $(1.76\pm0.21)\times10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively. The electron density dropped to $\sim$10$^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$ around 1200 kpc.
We fitted the density profiles from XMM and Suzaku results with the double-$\beta$ model from 40 to 1200 kpc. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:ne\], and the resulting parameters are given in Table \[tab:nefit\]. From 400 kpc to 1530 kpc, the radial profiles of the electron density are also well represented by a power–law profile with slopes of $\Gamma=1.60\pm0.05$ and $1.72\pm0.07$ in the filament and void directions, respectively. The slope of the electron density in the void direction was slightly steeper than that in the filament direction. Fitting the electron density profiles beyond 100 kpc with the single $\beta$-model resulted in $\beta=$ 0.61 $\pm$ 0.02 and $\beta=$ 0.74 $\pm$ 0.03 for the filament and void directions, respectively. These values are close to the value of 0.68 derived from the ROSAT surface-brightness profile [@ikebe97].
Entropy profiles {#subsec:ent}
----------------
(80mm, 60mm)[figure6.eps]{}
Entropy, which is a useful tool for investigating the thermodynamic history of hot gas in groups and clusters, is defined as $$S = \frac{kT}{n_{e}^{2/3}},$$ where $T$ and $n_{e}$ are the temperature and deprojected electron density, respectively. In Figure \[fig:ent\], we show the entropy profiles of the Hydra A cluster calculated from the derived temperature and electron density profiles shown in Figures \[fig:kT\] and \[fig:ne\]. Entropy in the two directions increased from the center to 800 kpc, or $r_{500}$, which was derived from the Navarro, Frenk ans White(NFW) model fit to the hydrostatic mass described in section \[subsec:mass\]. Between 500 kpc and 800 kpc, the entropy in the void direction was systematically higher than in the filament direction. At the two outermost radial bins (beyond $r_{500}$), the entropies of the two directions agree well. In addition, we calculated the entropy profile by combining the parameters resulting from the fit of the electron density profile from XMM and the temperature profile from Suzaku as indicated by the green line in Figure \[fig:ent\]. The entropy profiles using Suzaku, XMM, and Chandra data are consistent with each other (figure \[fig:ent\]).
The derived entropy profiles were compared with a power-law model with a fixed index of 1.1, which was expected from simulations of the accretion shock heating model ([@tozzi01]; [@ponman03]). From 200 kpc to 500 kpc, the derived entropy profiles agreed well with the $r^{1.1}$ relationship. In contrast, beyond 800 kpc, or $\sim r_{500}$, the entropy profiles in the two directions were systematically lower than the predicted by the $r^{1.1}$ relationship. Inside 200 kpc, the entropy exceeded the model prediction, which attribute to the presence of the cool core boundary [@peres1998] and the shock front around 200 kpc.
Hydrostatic mass {#subsec:mass}
----------------
(80mm, 60mm)[figure7a.eps]{} (80mm, 60mm)[figure7b.eps]{}
We estimated the hydrostatic or gravitational mass assuming the hydrostatic equilibrium given by,
$$\label{eq:hydro}
M_{\rm H.E.}(< r) = -\frac{kT(r)r}{\mu m_{p}G}\left(
\frac{d \ln \rho (r)}{d \ln r} + \frac{d {\ln} kT(r)}{d \ln r}\right),$$
where $M_{\rm H.E.}(< r)$ is the hydrostatic mass within the three-dimensional radius $r$, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\rho$ is the gas density, $kT$ is the temperature, and $\mu m_{p}$ is the mean particle mass of the gas (the mean molecular weight is $\mu=0.62$). Here, we assumed spherically symmetric mass distribution.
On the basis of the temperature and electron density profiles, we calculated the hydrostatic mass of the Hydra A cluster beyond 100 kpc. The temperature gradient of the $i$th shell was calculated from a power-law fit of temperatures of shells $(i-1)$, $i$, and $(i+1)$. We employed the electron density profile from the single-$\beta$ model fit shown in table \[tab:nesinglefit\]. The derived hydrostatic mass is plotted in Figure \[fig:fbaryon\] as diamonds with the integrated gas mass profiles and stellar mass profiles derived in subsection 4.6. The derived mass was calculated for the whole azimuthal angle under the assumption of spherical symmetry using the parameters derived for each direction: thus, the mass in each direction was four times larger than that in the corresponding direction. Although the electron density in the filament direction at a given radius was higher than that in the void direction, the difference in the slopes of the electron density was small. As a result, the hydrostatic masses derived for the two directions agree well. In addition, we calculated the 90% range of hydrostatic mass using the exponential relationship of the temperature profiles and fits of the electron-density profiles with the double-$\beta$ model, which are plotted as dashed lines in Figure \[fig:fbaryon\].
We fitted the derived hydrostatic mass profiles with the following NFW formula, which shows the equilibrium density profile of the dark matter halo [@navarro1996; @navarro1997]; $$M_{\rm NFW}(< r) = 4\pi\delta_{c}\rho_{c}r_{s}^{3}\left[\ln(1+x) -
\frac{x}{1+x}\right], x\equiv r/r_{s},$$ where $M_{\rm NFW}(< r)$ is the mass within a radius $r$, $\rho_{c}$ is the critical baryon density of the Universe, $r_{s}$ is the scaled radius, and $\delta_{c}$ is the characteristic density, that can be expressed in terms of the concentration parameter ($c = r_{200}/r_{s}$) as $$\delta_{c} = \frac{200}{3}\frac{c^{3}}{\ln(1+c) - c/1+c}.$$ Since the hydrostatic masses derived for the two directions agree well, we fitted the two hydrostatic mass profiles with Suzaku and that with Chandra simultaneously, excluding the shock region from 100 kpc to 200 kpc. The parameters derived from the fit are shown in Table \[tab:nfw\]. The quantity $r_{100}$ is equal to $r_{vir}$ in Hydra A cluster, since for our fiducial cosmological model, $\Delta_{vir} = 100$ for halos with a redshift $z = 0.0539$ [@nakamura1997]. We estimated $r_{\Delta}$ for various overdensities: $\Delta =500,\ 200,\ 180$ and 100, and $r_{\Delta}$ derived from fits with the NFW model are $811\pm10$ kpc, $1189\pm96$ kpc, $1243\pm16$ kpc, and $1577\pm22$ kpc, respectively. The $r_{100}$ is close to the outermost ring radius. Possible deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium have been previously discussed to explain the entropy flattening beyond $r_{500}$ [@bautz09; @george09; @kawaharada10]: therefore, we fitted the hydrostatic mass out to $r_{500}$. We were able to obtain almost the same results as shown in Table \[tab:nfw\]. Thus, the NFW model represents the hydrostatic mass out to $r_{100}$ within error bars as shown in Figure \[fig:fbaryon\].
(80mm, 60mm)[figure8.eps]{}
Moreover, we calculated the total mass density profile from the total integrated hydrostatic mass profile in each direction. The density profile was also calculated from the NFW model obtained above. The calculated density profiles were compared with $r^{-2}$ and $r^{-3}$ profiles (Figure \[fig:mass\]). The NFW density profile varied from $r^{-1}$ to $r^{-3}$ with increasing radius. Within $r_{500}$, the densities are well represented by the $r^{-2}$ profile, which is shallower than the asymptotic matter density slope $\rho \propto r^{-3}$. Beyond $r_{500}$, the $r^{-3}$ profile is preferable than the $r^{-2}$ profile.
Region
------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------
$r$ $M_{gas}$ $M_{H.E.}$ $f_{gas}$ $M_{gas}$ $M_{H.E.}$ $f_{gas}$
(kpc) $(10^{14}~M_{\solar})$ $(10^{14}~M_{\solar})$ $(10^{14}~M_{\solar})$ $(10^{14}~M_{\solar})$
$133-266$ $0.052\pm0.001$ $0.39\pm0.04$ $0.13\pm0.01$ $0.052\pm0.001$ $0.36\pm0.02$ $0.15\pm0.01$
$266-400$ $0.11\pm0.01$ $0.72\pm0.07$ $0.15\pm0.02$ $0.11\pm0.01$ $0.68\pm0.06$ $0.16\pm0.02$
$400-533$ $0.19\pm0.02$ $1.06\pm0.09$ $0.17\pm0.02$ $0.17\pm0.02$ $1.03\pm0.13$ $0.17\pm0.03$
$533-666$ $0.26\pm0.03$ $1.27\pm0.21$ $0.21\pm0.04$ $0.24\pm0.03$ $1.43\pm0.39$ $0.17\pm0.05$
$666-799$ $0.35\pm0.05$ $1.35\pm0.35$ $0.26\pm0.08$ $0.30\pm0.04$ $3.03\pm1.41$ $0.10\pm0.05$
$799-997$ $0.46\pm0.07$ $2.04\pm0.37$ $0.22\pm0.05$ $0.38\pm0.06$ $1.66\pm0.31$ $0.23\pm0.06$
$997-1529$ $0.71\pm0.12$ $1.82\pm0.60$ $0.39\pm0.14$ $0.55\pm0.11$ $1.67\pm0.78$ $0.33\pm0.17$
$r_{s}$ (kpc) $r_{200}$ (kpc) $c$
------------------------ --------------- ----------------- ---------------
fitted up to $r_{500}$ $126\pm8$ $1189\pm96$ $9.44\pm0.48$
fitted up to $r_{100}$ $123\pm8$ $1183\pm98$ $9.62\pm0.49$
Gas fraction {#subsec:fraction}
------------
We derived the cumulative gas mass fraction as, $$f_{\rm gas}(< r) = \frac{M_{\rm gas}(< r)}{M_{\rm H.E.}(< r)},$$ where $M_{\rm gas}(< r)$ and $M_{\rm H.E}(< r)$ are the gas mass and hydrostatic mass, respectively, within a sphere of radius $r$. As shown in Figure \[fig:fbaryon\] and Table \[tab:mass\], the gas fraction increased in the outskirts and reached the cosmic mean baryon fraction derived from seven-year data of Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP7; [@komatsu11]) at $\sim 0.5~r_{500}$. At $r_{100}$, $f_{\rm gas}(<r)$ in the filament direction exceeded the result of WMAP7, while the lower limit of $f_{\rm gas}(<r)$ in the void direction reached the WMAP 7 fraction. Adopting the fit of the NFW model to the hydrostatic mass resulted in $f_{\rm gas}(<r)$ in the void and the filament directions at $r_{100}$, exceeding the cosmic baryon fraction by a factor of 2 and 3, respectively. Furthermore, $f_{\rm gas}(<r)$ in the void direction at $r_{180}$ was close to that derived for the north-west direction of the Perseus cluster at $r_{200}$ [@simionescu11]: $r_{180}$ was derived from the NFW model fit of the hydrostatic mass. The radial profile of $f_{\rm gas}(<r)$ of the Abell 1246 cluster with $kT=6.0$ keV exhibited similar behavior as that of the our result of the Hydra A cluster [@sato12].
K-band Luminosity of galaxies and stellar fraction {#subsec:imlr}
--------------------------------------------------
(80mm,60mm)[figure9a.eps]{} (72mm,54mm)[figure9b.eps]{}
(80mm,60mm)[figure10a.eps]{} (80mm,60mm)[figure10b.eps]{}
The ratio of gas mass to stellar luminosity is a key parameter for studying the star formation efficiency in clusters of galaxies. Since almost all metals in the ICM are synthesized in galaxies, the metal-mass-to-light ratio provides a useful measure for studying the ICM chemical evolution. To estimate the gas-mass and Fe-mass-to-light ratios, we calculated the $K$-band luminosity of Hydra A cluster on the basis of the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) catalog, whereby all data is presented in a $\times$ box: the coordinates of objects are shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:extended source\]. The smoothed distribution of galaxies around Hydra A obtained from 2MASS is shown in the right panel in Figure \[fig:extended source\]. The distribution of galaxies is elongated in the filament direction toward the Abell 754 cluster, which exhibited a redshift close to that of Hydra A. In the void direction, the density of galaxies was significantly lower. Toward the south, an additional filament-like distribution of galaxies appeared from the Hydra A cluster. Hydra A itself was discovered to have an apparent magnitude of $m_{K}=11.07$, or $L_{K}=5\times 10^{11}L_{K,\odot}$ using a luminosity distance $D_{L}=240$ Mpc and a foreground Galactic extinction of $A_{K}$ = 0.015 [@schlegel1998]. Among galaxies in the NED data base[^2] with available redshifts, those with heliocentric velocities differ from that of the Hydra A cluster by $>$2000 km/s were excluded from the analysis. The $K$-band surface brightness profile centered on Hydra A is shown in figure \[fig:sfandlf\]. Beyond $\sim$2000 kpc from the cluster center, the $K$-band surface brightness flattened. Therefore, we adopted the region between 2000 kpc and 4000 kpc as a background.
Figure \[fig:sfandlf\] also shows the luminosity function (LF) of galaxies in the Hydra A cluster within $r_{100}$. Here, we used as background the LF of galaxies from 2000 kpc to 4000 kpc from the center of the Hydra A cluster. The completeness limit of galaxies of 2MASS is $K_s$ = 13.5 in apparent magnitude [^3], which corresponds to the $K$-band luminosity, $L_{K}$=$7\times 10^{10}L_{K,\odot}$ for the distance of the Hydra A cluster. The total $K$-band luminosity of galaxies above the 2MASS complete limit and that of all the detected galaxies including those below the limit are 1.5 $\times 10^{12}L_{K,\odot}$ and 2.5 $\times 10^{12}L_{K,\odot}$, respectively. To calculate the total light of the cluster, we evaluate the contribution of fainter galaxies below the 2MASS limit. The LF of galaxies in clusters can be described with the Schechter function as, $$\phi(L) dL = \phi_*\left(\frac{L}{L_*}\right)^\alpha\exp(-L/L_*)d\left(\frac{L}{L_*}\right)$$ where the parameters $L_*$, $\phi_*$, and $\alpha$ are the characteristic luminosity, number densities, and faint-end power-law index, respectively. Upon adopting the $L_*$ of stacked cluster galaxies by @lin03 and integrating the Schechter function below the 2MASS limit, the total $K$-band luminosity becomes 2.2 $\times 10^{12}L_{K, \odot}$, which is smaller than that of all the galaxies detected by 2MASS including those below the complete limit. If we allow $L_*$ to vary, the fit for the LF of the Hydra A cluster improves, as shown in Figure \[fig:sfandlf\], and the total K-band luminosity becomes 2.8 $\times 10^{12}L_{K, \odot}$. Therefore, the simple sum of $K$-band luminosities of the detected galaxies, including those below the 2MASS complete limit is close to that integrated luminosity of the Schechter function. Therefore, we adopted the total $K$-band luminosity of (2.5 $\pm$ 0.3) $\times 10^{12}L_{K, \odot}$.
We collected $K$-band luminosity of galaxies in the north-west and north-east sectors for the filament and void directions, respectively, as well as in the whole azimuthal angle and derived brightness profiles in the $K$-band. For the whole azimuthal angle, we collected galaxies above the 2MASS complete limit and evaluated the contribution of fainter galaxies by integrating the Schechter function. We obtained almost the same radial profile of $K$-band luminosity as that from the simple sum of luminosities of all the galaxies detected with 2MASS. Therefore, for the filament and void directions, we collected all the galaxies detected by 2MASS in each direction and derived radial profile of K-band luminosity. After subtracting the background, we deprojected the brightness profile of galaxies (under the assumption of spherical symmetry) and derived three-dimensional radial profiles of $K$-band luminosity in the filament, void, and whole azimuthal angle.
Figure \[fig:fbaryon\] shows the integrated $K$-band luminosity profiles. As opposed to the integrated luminosity of the whole azimuthal angle, figure \[fig:fbaryon\] uses the four-times luminosity of the filament and void directions. The filament direction shows a systematically higher $K$-band luminosity than that in void direction. The integrated $K$-band luminosity profiles of these two directions become flatter from $\sim$800-1000 kpc, and the contribution of galaxies beyond 1000 kpc is small. The integrated luminosity profile of the whole azimuthal angle is between those in the filament and void directions except for the outermost region around 1200 kpc (Figure \[fig:fbaryon\] and \[fig:extended source\]). This result is attributed to the luminosity of the whole azimuthal angle being affected by the filamentary structure around 1200 kpc in the south of the Hydra-A cluster.
We derived cumulative stellar mass fraction as, $$f_{\rm star}(< r) = \frac{M_{\rm star}(< r)}{M_{\rm H.E.}(< r)}$$ where, $M_{\rm star}(<r)$ is the total stellar mass within $r$, derived from the total K-band luminosity within $r$, under the assumption that the stellar-mass-to-light ratio in the K-band is unity [@Nagino2009]. At a given radius, the $f_{\rm star}(<r)$ in the filament direction is higher by a factor of 2–3 than that in the void direction, reflecting the concentration of galaxies in the filament direction (Figure \[fig:fbaryon\]). Beyond $r_{500}$, $f_{\rm star}(<r)$ is smaller than $\sim$ 1%, and does not contribute to the baryon fraction. We also derived the stellar mass fraction using the whole azimuthal angle using the NFW mass for the filament and void directions. Although the stellar fraction continues to decrease with radius in the filament and the void directions, the stellar fraction in whole azimuthal directions shows a minimum at $\sim r_{500}$, and increases with radius by a factor of $\sim$1.5 from $r_{500}$ to $r_{100}$.
Using the integrated $K$-band luminosity profile, we calculated the [gas-mass-to-light ratio]{} in the filament and void directions (Figure \[fig:gasratio\]). The radial profile of the gas-mass-to-light ratio in the two directions increased with radius out to $r_{100}$. We also calculated the gas-mass-to-light ratio in the whole azimuthal angle, using the stellar luminosity in the whole azimuthal angle and the gas mass in the void direction which agrees that for the whole azimuthal angle derived by ROSAT [@ikebe97].
(80mm,60mm)[figure14.eps]{}
Discussions
===========
The Hydra A cluster is the first medium-sized cluster observed with Suzaku out to the virial radius. Suzaku observed the northern half of the cluster, and we derived radial profiles of temperature, electron density, entropy, hydrostatic mass, and K-band stellar luminosity in the filament and void directions. Temperature and entropy carry important information about the thermal history of the ICM. In subsection \[subsec:comparisonkT\], we compare these profiles of the Hydra A cluster and other clusters observed with Suzaku and XMM to study their dependence on the system mass or on average ICM temperature. Next, we discuss possible explanations for entropy flattening and the higher gas-mass-to-hydrostatic-mass ratio at cluster outskirts. Discrepancies between electron and ion temperatures are discussed in subsection \[subsec:thermodynamics\], deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium and the gas-clumping effect are discussed in subsections \[subsec:hydro\] and \[subsec:cm\]. We also derive IMLR of the Hydra A cluster out to the virial radius in subsection \[subsec:imlr\] to constrain the star formation history in the cluster.
Comparison of temperature and entropy profiles with other systems {#subsec:comparisonkT}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(80mm, 60mm)[figure11.eps]{}
Figure \[fig:scalekt\] compares the temperature profiles of the Hydra A cluster and several clusters observed with Suzaku, scaled with average temperature, $<kT>$, and $r_{200}$. Here, $r_{200} = 2.77h^{-1}_{70}~\sqrt[]{\langle kT\rangle /10~{\rm keV}}/E(z)$ Mpc, with $E(z)=(\Omega_{M}(1+z)^{3}+1-\Omega_{M})^{1/2}$ [@henry09]. Then, $r_{200}$ of the Hydra A cluster is 1.48 Mpc. Within 0.5$r_{200}$, the temperature profiles agree with the scaled temperature relationship by @pratt07, which is derived from a sample of 15 clusters observed with XMM out to $\sim r_{500}$. In contrast, beyond 0.5$r_{200}$, the observed temperatures scatter by a factor of two, and tend to be lower than the XMM relationship. In the scaled temperature profiles, there was no evidence of any significant dependence on the average ICM temperature, or system mass. Some variation in the temperature profiles should reflect the azimuthal variation as observed in Abell 1689 [@kawaharada10] and Abell 1246 [@sato12].
(80mm, 60mm)[figure12.eps]{}
In figure \[fig:scaledent\], we compare the entropy profile of the Hydra A cluster with other clusters observed with Suzaku; these profiles are scaled with the average ICM temperature and $r_{200}$ by @henry09. Here, we used the weighted average of the radial profiles of different directions of each cluster. Contrary to the expected $r^{1.1}$ relationship, these profiles become flat beyond 0.5$r_{200}$. Except for PKS-0745 [@george09], the scaled entropy profiles of these clusters were universal with ICM temperatures above 3 keV and did not depend on the ICM temperature. For the PKS-0745 cluster, @eckert11 determined that the ROSAT surface-brightness profile is statistically inconsistent (7.7$\sigma$) with Suzaku results beyond $r_{200}$ and that the difference is likely explained by the existence of additional foreground components at the low Galactic latitude of the source. These components were not considered in the Suzaku background modeling.
Ion-electron relaxation in the Hydra A cluster {#subsec:thermodynamics}
----------------------------------------------
One interpretation for the flattening of the entropy profile is that caused by deviations in electron and ion temperatures [@hoshino10; @akamatsu11]. The time-scale for thermal equilibration between electrons and ions through Coulomb scattering is given by $$t_{ei} \sim 0.14\left(\frac{n_{e}}{10^{-4}~\rm{cm^{-3}}}\right)^{-1}
\left(\frac{kT}{1.5~\rm{keV}}\right)^{3/2} \rm{Gyr}$$ ([@takizawa1998a]; [@takizawa1998b]; [@takizawa1999]; [@akahori10]). Considering this time-scale and the shock propagation speed, the radial length above which the electron temperature is significantly lower than the ion temperature is proportional to the square of the ICM temperature [@takizawa1999]. On the other hand, $r_{200}$ is proportional to the square root of the ICM temperature. Therefore, some dependence on the mean ICM temperature is expected in the temperature and entropy profiles. However, there is no systematic dependence on the average ICM temperature in the temperature and entropy profiles, as shown in figure \[fig:scalekt\] and figure \[fig:scaledent\]. Furthermore, if the ICM temperature is underestimated and the actual entropy profile of the Hydra A cluster follows the $r^{1.1}$ relationship, a flat ICM temperature profile is necessary, i.e., $r^{\sim 0}$ out to $r_{100}$, considering the electron density profile of $r^{-(1.6\sim 1.7)}$ beyond 400 kpc. However, the flat temperature profile contradicts to the results of numerical hydrodynamical simulations, where negative gradients of the temperature profiles outside cool core regions are naturally produced [@Borgani2002; @burns10; @nagai11]. Therefore, for the Hydra A cluster, it is difficult to explain the flattening of the observed entropy profiles by deviations of ion-electron temperatures.
Deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium {#subsec:hydro}
---------------------------------------
The remaining interpretation for the flattening of the entropy profiles at the cluster outskirt is deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium, because when the gas-clumping effect is significant, we also expect that the ICM also deviates from hydrostatic equilibrium. Then, infalling matter may have retained some of its kinetic energy in the form of bulk motions, and the thermal energy deficit in the ICM yields lower entropy. Furthermore, the underestimate of the gravitational mass and/or gas clumping leads to an overestimation of the baryon fraction. Recent numerical simulations by @vazza09 and @nagai07 have shown that the kinetic energy of bulk motion carries $\sim$ 30% of the total energy around the virial radius. With simulations, @nagai11 showed that beyond $r_{200}$, gas clumping leads to an overestimation of the observed gas density and causes flattening of the entropy profile. If the hydrostatic mass was underestimated by 130% in the filament direction and 100% in the void direction, the baryon fractions at $r_{100}$ would have the same value as that of WMAP7, although the observed gas fraction calculated from the hydrostatic mass in the void direction is consistent with the WMAP7 result within error bars.
The distributions of the ICM and galaxies in the Hydra A cluster elongate in the filament direction. If the ICM is under hydrostatic equilibrium in a non-spherical dark matter halo, the X-ray emission and dark matter halo elongate in the same direction. Numerical simulations by @burns10 determined that gas, galaxies, and dark matter continue in the filament direction due to the accretion of gas and subclusters. Then, it is reasonable that the dark matter halo also elongates in the filament direction. However, the hydrostatic mass in the void and filament directions of the Hydra A cluster are in good agreement. These results indicate that deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium should be more significant in the filament direction than in the void direction.
The clumping effect will also be higher in the filament direction, since smaller systems are thought to be accreted from this direction. For the Hydra A cluster, we were not able to detect clump candidates with Suzaku. The spectra of detected point sources are consistent with those of background active galactic nuclei. Considering the luminosities of detected point sources, the luminosity of clumps should be smaller than a few 10$^{41}\ {\rm erg\ s^{-1}}$, which corresponds to cores of groups of galaxies. Therefore, if clumps are significant, their scales should be smaller than those of small groups of galaxies.
The concentration-mass relationship {#subsec:cm}
-----------------------------------
From numerical simulations, a weak variation in the concentration is expected from low-mass to high-mass clusters, reflecting differences in the formation epochs of low-mass and high-mass halos ([@navarro1997]; [@bullock01]; [@dolag04]). @pointecouteau05, @ettori11 and @okabe10 investigated the relationship between the concentration parameter and the cluster mass, or the concentration-mass ($c-M$) relationship. The results are compatible with the intrinsic dispersion of theoretical predictions. Figure \[fig:lensmass\] compares the $c-M$ relationship of the Hydra A cluster and other clusters observed with weak-lensing [@okabe10], and clusters observed with XMM by @ettori11. An assumption of cluster dynamical state or hydrostatic equilibrium is not required in the weak-lensing results. The distribution of the $c-M$ relationship of these clusters agrees well with the relation expected from the numerical simulations by @duffy08, although @ettori11 found that relatively low-mass systems tend to have higher concentration parameters.
The hydrostatic mass in the Hydra A cluster of the filament and void directions are represented with the same NFW mass model with $c_{\rm vir}=9-10$ and $M_{\rm vir}=(2.2\pm0.4)$ $\times 10^{14}~M_{\odot}$. As shown in Figure \[fig:lensmass\], this $c_{\rm vir}-M_{\rm vir}$ relationship of the Hydra A cluster was outside $\sigma(\log_{10}c)=0.1$ within which most clusters from numerical simulations are distributed @duffy08. If the hydrostatic mass was underestimated and the baryon fraction using the gravitational mass beyond $r_{500}$ of the Hydra A cluster is the same as the cosmic mean baryon fraction in the two observed directions, the fits with the NFW model yielded smaller values of $c_{\rm vir}$ and higher values $M_{\rm vir}$ as shown in Figure \[fig:lensmass\]. In this case, the derived value of $M_{\rm vir}$ in the filament direction became higher than that in the void direction. This result also indicates that the ICM in the outskirts of Hydra A deviates from hydrostatic equilibrium, and the X-ray emission and dark matter halo elongate in the same direction.
(80mm, 60mm)[figure13.eps]{}
Metal-Mass-to-Light Ratios out to the virial radius {#subsec:imlr}
---------------------------------------------------
(80mm,60mm)[figure15.eps]{}
We derived integrated IMLR, mass-to-light ratio for Fe, out to the virial radius for the first time. Here, we show the IMLR profile for the whole azimuthal angle to compare other clusters observed with Suzaku. Within 0.3 $r_{200}$ and beyond 0.3 $r_{200}$, we used the Fe abundances obtained by @matsushita11 and this work, respectively. Here, within 8$'$–15$'$, or 0.35–0.65 $r_{200}$, we used the weighted average of the Fe abundance at the three radial bins in this region. The error bars of the mass-to-light ratio include the errors in both the abundance and the K-band luminosity caused by the uncertainty in the contribution of fainter galaxies below the 2MASS threshold (see section \[subsec:imlr\] for details). Figure \[fig:imlr\] shows the cumulative IMLR profile of the Hydra A cluster. The IMLR profile increases with radius within 0.4–0.5 $r_{200}$, and becomes flatter beyond 0.5 $r_{200}$ with the value of $\sim 0.01~ M_\odot/L_{K,\odot}$, which reflects the flattening of the gas-mass-to-light ratio beyond $r_{500}$. For the void and filament directions, the IMLR profiles should increase with radius beyond $r_{500}$.
At $r_{200}$, the cumulative IMLR was 0.007–0.01 $M_\odot/L_{K,\odot}$. A previously reported theoretical model predicts that the oxygen-mass-to-light ratio (OMLR) of a cluster is a sensitive function of the slope of the initial mass function (IMF) [@Renzini2005]. Here, the oxygen mass is a sum of that trapped in stars and that in the ICM. By adopting a Salpeter IMF with a slope of 2.35, the expected value of the OMLR is $\sim0.1~ M_\odot/L_{B,\odot}$. In contrast, a top-heavy IMF with a slope of 1.35 overproduces metals more than that with a factor of 20. For the Hydra A cluster, by adopting the ratio of stellar-mass-to-light ratio 4–6 in the B-band and K-band [@Nagino2009; @matsushita2011b], the IMLR in the B-band becomes 0.03–0.06 $M_\odot/L_{B,\odot}$ and the cumulative OMLR within the virial radius becomes $\sim $0.1–0.3 $\left(A_{\rm O}/A_{\rm Fe}\right) M_\odot/L_{B,\odot}$. Here, $A_{\rm O}$ and $A_{\rm Fe}$ are abundances of O and Fe in solar units, respectively. Beyond $r_{500}$ of the Hydra A cluster, the integrated stellar mass is only several percent of the integrated gas mass. Thus, even by considering the difference of stellar metallicity and the abundance of the ICM, most of the metals in the cluster are in the ICM. Therefore, for cases with solar O/Fe ratio, the OMLR is similar to the expectations reported by @Renzini2005, assuming a Salpeter IMF in the Hydra A cluster. In contrast, by adopting the O/Fe ratio from a nucleosynthesis model of SN II with metallicity $=0.02$, as reported by @Nomoto2006, the OMLR within the virial radius becomes 0.3–1.0 $M_\odot/L_{B,\odot}$ in the Hydra A cluster. This value is larger than the expectation from the Salpeter IMF, and is consistent with a flatter IMF slope.
In Figure \[fig:imlr\], the cumulative IMLR profile of the Hydra A cluster was compared with those of other groups and clusters, including Coma (8 keV; [@matsushita2011b]), Centaurus (4 keV; [@sakuma11]), and AWM 7 clusters (3.6 keV; [@sato08]), as well as NGC 1550 (1.2 keV; [@sato10]) and NGC 5044 groups (1.0 keV; [@komiyama09]). Within $0.5r_{200}$, the cumulative IMLR profile of the Hydra A cluster increased with radius by a factor of two higher than for other systems. No systematic dependence on the ICM temperature was evident for clusters with temperatures higher than 2 keV, although beyond 0.1$r_{200}$, a group of galaxies shows a significantly smaller IMLR The stellar and gas-mass fractions within $r_{500}$ depend on the total system mass [@lin03; @lin04; @Vik06; @Sun09; @Gio09]. These studies determined that within $r_{500}$ the stellar-to-total-mass ratios of the groups are much larger than those in the clusters, whereas the gas-mass fraction increases with the system mass. The observed higher stellar mass fraction and the lower gas mass fraction within $r_{500}$ in poor systems are occasionally interpreted as proof that the star formation efficiency depends on the system mass. However, as shown in Figure \[fig:gasratio\], the gas is more extended than the stars in a cluster within $r_{500}$. The gas density profiles in the central regions of groups and poor clusters were observed to be shallower than those in the self-similar model, and the relative entropy level was correspondingly higher than that in rich clusters [@Ponman99; @ponman03; @Sun09]. Then, the difference in the ratio of gas-mass-to-stellar-mass may reflect differences in distributions of gas and stars, which in turn reflects the history of energy injection from galaxies to the ICM. To study the fractions of stars and gas in clusters of galaxies, and its dependence on the system mass, we need measurements of gas and stellar mass beyond $r_{500}$ of other clusters.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
We presented the results of the Suzaku observation of the Hydra A galaxy cluster, which is the first medium-sized cluster (temperature $\sim$ 3 keV) observed with Suzaku out to the virial radius. Two observations were conducted, north-west and north-east offsets, which continue in a filament direction and a void direction of the large-scale structure of the Universe, respectively. We investigated possible azimuthal variations in temperature, electron density, entropy and total mass profiles. Our analysis revealed that distributions of X-ray emission and galaxies elongate in the filament direction. The entropy profiles become flatter beyond $r_{500}$ in contrast to the $r^{1.1}$ relationship expected from the shock heating model of the ICM. The entropy profiles are universal in clusters observed with Suzaku when scaled with the averaged temperature of each cluster. The hydrostatic masses in the two directions agree and the NFW universal matter profile represents the hydrostatic mass distribution obtained up to $1.8~r_{500}$, with $c_{\rm vir}=9-10$ and $M_{\rm vir}=(2.2\pm0.4)\times 10^{14}M_{\odot}$. The gas fraction, $M_{\rm gas} (<r)/M_{\rm H.E.} (<r)$ significantly exceeds the cosmic mean baryon fraction of WMAP7 beyond $\sim r_{500}$. The flattening of the entropy profile and higher gas fraction contradict expectations based on numerical simulations. An underestimate of gas temperature due to the discrepancy between ion and electron temperatures gives higher entropy and smaller gas fraction at cluster outskirts. However, a flat or increasing temperature profile is required. If bulk motions caused by infalling matter from filaments of clusters are higher than that of numerical simulations, and if the ICM deviates from the hydrostatic equilibrium, the entropy becomes smaller and the gas fraction is overestimated. In addition, we obtained IMLR up to the virial radius for the first time, and compared our results with other clusters and groups. The IMLR profile is consistent within 0.5 $r_{200}$ with other clusters, and become flatter from 0.5 $r_{200}$ to $r_{200}$.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N., 1989, , 53, 197
Akahori, T., & Yoshikawa, K. 2010, , 62, 335
Akamatsu, H., Hoshino, A., Ishisaki, Y., et al. 2011, , 63, 1019
Balogh, M. L., Christlein, D., Zabludoff, A. I., & Zaritsky, D. 2001, , 557, 117
Bautz, M. W., et al. 2009, , 61, 1117
Borgani, S., Governato, F., Wadsley, J., et al. 2002, , 336, 409
Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., & Dekel, A. 2001, , 321, 559
Burns, J. O., Skillman, S. W., & O’Shea, B. W., 2010, , 721, 1105
David, L. P., et al. 2001, , 557, 546
Dolag, K., Bartelmann, M., Perrotta, F., Baccigalupi, C., Moscardini, L., Meneghetti, & M., Tormen, G. 2004, , 416, 853
Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, , 390, L64
Eckert, D., Molendi, S., Gastaldello, F., & Rossetti, M. 2011, , 529, A133
Ettori, S., Gastaldello, F., Leccardi, A., et al. 2010, , 524, A68
Ettori, S., Gastaldello, F., Leccardi, A., Molendi, S., Rossetti, M., Buote, D., & Meneghetti, M. 2011, , 526, 1
Evrard, August E., Metzler, Christopher A. & Navarro, Julio F. 1996, , 469, 494
Finoguenov, A., Arnaud, M. & David, L. P. 2001, , 555, 191
Fukazawa, Y., Makishima, K., Tamura, T., Nakazawa, K., Ezawa, H., Ikebe, Y., Kikuchi, K. & Ohashi, T. 2000, , 313, 21
Fujita, Y., Tawa, N., Hayashida, K., et al. 2008, , 60, 343
George, M. R., et al. 2009, , 395, 657 Giodini, S., et al. 2009, , 703, 982
Gitti, M., Nulsen, P. E. J., David, L. P., McNamara, & B. R., Wise, M. W. 2011, , 732, 13
Gonzalez, A. H., Zaritsky, D., & Zabludoff, A. I. 2007, , 666, 147
Henry, J. P., Evrard, A. E., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., & Mahdavi, A. 2009, , 691, 1307
Hoshino, A., et al. 2010, , 62, 371
Humphrey, P. J., Buote, D. A., Brighenti, F., et al. 2011, arXiv:1106.3322
Ikebe, Y., Makishima, K., Ezawa, H., et al. 1997, , 481, 660
Ishisaki, Y., et al. 2007, , 59, 113
Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B. Hartmann, D., Arnal, E. M., Bajaja, E., Morras, R., & P[ö]{}ppel, W. G. L. 2005, , 440, 775
Kawahara, H. 2010, , 719, 1926
Kawaharada, M., et al. 2010, , 714, 423
Kaiser, N. 1991, , 383, 104
Katayama, H., Takahashi, I., Ikebe, Y., Matsushita, K., & Freyberg, M. J. 2004, , 414, 767
Kirkpatrick, C. C., Gitti, M., Cavagnolo, K. W., McNamara, B. R., David, L. P., Nulsen, P. E. J., & Wise, M. W. 2009, , 707, L69
Komatsu, E., et al. 2011, , S192, 18
Komiyama, M., Sato, K., Nagino, R., Ohashi, T. & Matsushita, K. 2009, , 61, 337
Koyama, K., et al. 2007, , 59, 23
Kushino, A., Ishisaki, Y., Morita, U., Yamasaki, N. Y., Ishida, M., Ohashi, T., & Ueda, Y. 2002, , 54, 327
Lane, W. M., Clarke, T. E., Taylor, G. B., Perley, R. A., & Kassim, N. E. 2004, , 127, 48
Leccardi, A. & Molendi, S. 2008, , 487, 461
Lin, Y.-T., Mohr, J. J., & Stanford, S. A. 2003, , 591, 749
Lin, L. T., & Mohr, J., J. 2004, , 617, 879
Lodders, K. 2003, , 591, 1220
Makishima, K. et al. 2001, , 53, 401
Markevitch, M., Forman, W. R., Sarazin, C. L. & Vikhlinin, A. 1998, , 503, 77
Matsushita, K. et al. 2007a, , 59, 327
Matsushita, K. 2011, , 527, A134
Matsushita, K., Sato, T., Sakuma, E., & Sato, K., submitted to PASJ
Maughan, B. J. et al. 2008, , 387, 998
McNamara, B. R. et al. 2000, , 534, L138
Mitsuda, K., et al. 2007, , 59, 1
Molnar, S. M., et al. 2009, , 696, 1640
Myrium, G., et al. 2011, , 732, 13
Nagai, D., & Lau, E. T. 2011, , 731, 10
Nagai, D., Vikhlinin, A., & Krvtsov, A. V. 2007, , 655, 98
Nagino, R., & Matsushita, K. 2009, , 501, 157
Nakamura, T. T., & Suto, Y. 1997, Prog. Theor. Phys. 97, 49
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493
Nomoto, K., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Kobayashi, C., & Maeda, K. 2006, Nuclear Physics A, 777, 424
Nulsen, P. E. J., David, L. P., McNamara, B. R., Jones, C., Forman, W. R., & Wise, M. W. 2002, , 568, 163
Nulsen, P. E. J., McNamara, B. R., Wise, M. W., & David, L. P. 2005, , 628, 629
Okabe, N., et al. 2010, , 60, 1133
Peres, C. B., Fabian, A. C., Edge, A. C., Allen, S. W., Johnstone, R. M., & White, D. A. 1998, , 298, 416
Pratt, G. W., B[ö]{}hringer, H., Croston, J. H., Arnaud, M., Borgani, S., Finoguenov, A., & Temple, R. F. 2007, , 461, 71
Pointecouteau, E., Arnaud, M., & Pratt, G. W. 2005, , 435, 1
Ponman, T. J., Cannon, D. B., & Navarro, J. F. 1999, , 397, 135
Ponman, T. J., Sanderson, A. J. R., & Finoguenov, A. 2003, , 343, 331
Reiprich, T. H., et al. 2009, , 501, 899
Renzini, A. 2005, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, Edited by E. Corbelli and F. Palle, INAF Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri, Firenze, Italy; H. Zinnecker, Astrophysikalisches Potsdam, Germany. Astrophysics and Space Science Library Volume 327. Published by Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, p.221
Ryu, D., et al. 2003, , 593, 599
Sakuma, E., Ota, N., Sato, K., Sato, T., & Matsushita, K. 2011, , 63, 979
Sato, K. et al. 2007, , 59, 299
Sato, K., Matsushita, K., Ishisaki, Y., Yamasaki, N. Y., Ishida, M., Sasaki, S. & Ohashi, T. 2008, , 60, 333
Sato, K., Matsushita, K., Ishisaki, Y., Yamasaki, N. Y., Ishida, M. & Ohashi, T. 2009a, , 61, 353
Sato, K., Matsushita, K. & Gastaldello, F. 2009b, , 61, 365
Sato, K., Kawaharada, M., Nakazawa, K., Matsushita, K., Ishisaki, Y., Yamasaki, N. Y. & Ohashi, T. 2010, , 62, 1445
Sato, T., Matsushita, K., Ota, N., Sato, K., Nakazawa, K. & Sarazin, C. L. 2011, , 63, 991
Sato K., Matsushita, K., Yamasaki, N. Y., Sasaki, S., & Ohashi, T., submitted to PASJ
Schelegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Simionescu, A., Werner, N., B[ö]{}hringer, H., Kaastra, J. S., Finoguenov, A., Br[ü]{}ggen, M. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2009, , 493, 409
Simionescu, A., Roediger, E., Nulsen, P. E. J., Br[ü]{}ggen, M., Forman, W. R., B[ö]{}hringer, H., Werner, N., & Finoguenov, A. 2009, , 495, 721
Simionescu, A., et al. 2011, Science, 331, 1576
Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, , 556, L91
Sun, M., Voit, G. M., Donahue, M., Jones, C., Forman, W., & Vikhlinin, A. 2009, , 693, 1142
Takizawa, M., & Mineshige, S. 1998, , 499, 82
Takizawa, M. 1998, , 509, 579
Takizawa, M. 1999, , 520, 514
Tamura, T., et al. 2008, , 60, 317
Tawa, N. 2008, PhD Thesis, University of Osaka
Tawa, N., et al. 2008, , 60, S11
Taylor, G. B., Perley, R. A., Inoue, M., Kato, T., Tabara, H., & Aizu, K. 1990, , 360, 41
Tozzi, P., & Norman, C. 2001, , 546, 63
Trentham, N., & Mobasher, B. 1998, , 299, 488
Urban, O., Werner, N., Simionescu, A., Allen, S. W., & Boehringer, H. 2011, , 414, 2101
Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., Kritsuk, A., Wagner, R., Gheller, C., & Norman, M. 2009, , 504, 33
Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., Murray, S. S., Jones, C., Forman, W. & Van Speybroeck, L. 2005, , 628, 655
Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., Jones, C., Markevitch, M., Murray, S. S., & Van Speybroeck, L. 2006, , 640, 691
Voit, G. M., Kay, S. T., & Bryan, G. L. 2005, , 364, 909
Wise, M. W., McNamara, B. R., Nulsen, P. E. J., Houck, J. C., & David, L. P. 2007, , 659, 1153
Yoshino, T., et al. 2009, , 61, 805
Zhang, Y.-Y., Okabe, N., Finoguenov, A., et al. 2010, , 711, 1033
[^1]: http://xmm.esa.int/sas/
[^2]: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/
[^3]: See http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/second/doc/explsup.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that all hierarchically hyperbolic groups have finite asymptotic dimension. One application of this result is to obtain the sharpest known bound on the asymptotic dimension of the mapping class group of a finite type surface: improving the bound from exponential to at most quadratic in the complexity of the surface. We also apply the main result to various other hierarchically hyperbolic groups and spaces. We also prove a small-cancellation result namely: if $G$ is a hierarchically hyperbolic group, $H\leq G$ is a suitable hyperbolically embedded subgroup, and $N\triangleleft H$ is “sufficiently deep” in $H$, then $G/{\widehat{N}}$ is a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic group. This new class provides many new examples to which our asymptotic dimension bounds apply. Along the way, we prove new results about the structure of HHSs, for example: the associated hyperbolic spaces are always obtained, up to quasi-isometry, by coning off canonical coarse product regions in the original space (generalizing a relation established by Masur–Minsky between the complex of curves of a surface and Teichmüller space).'
address:
- 'Lehman College and The Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, New York, USA'
- 'Dept. of Pure Maths and Math. Stat., University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK'
- 'ETH, Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- Jason Behrstock
- 'Mark F. Hagen'
- Alessandro Sisto
bibliography:
- 'hhs\_asdim.bib'
title: 'Asymptotic dimension and small-cancellation for hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and groups'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction {#sec:intro .unnumbered}
============
Motivated by the observation that a suitable CAT(0) cube complex, equipped with a collection of hyperbolic graphs encoding the relationship between its hyperplanes, has many properties exactly parallel to those of the mapping class group, equipped with the collection of curve graphs of subsurfaces, we introduced the class of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces, abbreviated HHS, as a notion of “coarse nonpositive curvature” which provides a framework for studying these two seemingly disparate classes of spaces/groups.
The class of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces consists of metric spaces whose geometry can be recovered, coarsely, from projections onto a specified collection of hyperbolic metric spaces; the axioms governing these spaces and projections are modelled on the relation between the subsurface projections between the curve graph of a surface and the curve graph of its subsurfaces, i.e., the mapping class group of a surface is the archetypal HHS (see [@MasurMinsky:I; @MasurMinsky:II; @BKMM:consistency]). The hyperbolic spaces onto which one projects are partially ordered so that there is a unique maximal element and numerous elements that are minimal in every chain in which they appear. Relaxing the hyperbolicity requirement for these minimal spaces, one obtains the notion of a *relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space*, abbreviated RHHS. These notions are reviewed in Section \[sec:preliminaries\] of this paper and a detailed discussion can be found in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I] and [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II].
Asymptotic dimension {#asymptotic-dimension .unnumbered}
--------------------
The *asymptotic dimension* of a metric space is a well-studied quasi-isometry invariant, introduced by Gromov [@Gromov:asymptotic], which provides a coarse version of the topological dimension. Early motivation for studying asymptotic dimension was provided by Yu, who showed that groups with finite asymptotic dimension satisfy both the coarse Baum-Connes and the Novikov conjectures [@Yu:novikov]. It is now known that asymptotic dimension provides coarse analogues for many properties of topological dimension, see [@BellDranishnikov:asdim_1] for a recent survey. Using very different techniques a number of groups and spaces have been shown to have finite asymptotic dimension, although good estimates on this dimension have proved difficult in many cases: curve graphs [@BellFujiwara:asdim_curve_graph; @BestvinaBromberg:asdim], mapping class groups [@BBF:quasi_tree], cubulated groups [@Wright:asdim], graph manifold groups [@Smirnov:asdimgraphmfld], and groups hyperbolic relative to ones with finite asymptotic dimension [@Osin:asdim].
One of our main results is the following very general result, which in addition to covering many new cases, provides a unified proof of finite asymptotic dimension for almost all the cases just mentioned:
\[thmi:asdim\] Let ${{\mathcal X}}$ be a uniformly proper HHS. Then $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}<\infty$. In particular, any HHG has finite asymptotic dimension.
Theorem \[thmi:asdim\] is proven in Section \[sec:main\_asdim\_theorem\], where we establish the slightly stronger Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\], which obtains explicit bounds on the dimension.
In special cases where there is a hierarchical structure with a known bound on the asymptotic dimension of the various ${{\mathcal C}}U$, we can obtain fairly effective bounds on this dimension, as we now show in the case of the mapping class group.
Bestvina–Bromberg–Fujiwara established finiteness of the asymptotic dimension of mapping class group [@BBF:quasi_tree], but without providing explicit bounds. Bestvina–Bromberg then improved on their prior work to obtain an explicit bound on the asymptotic dimension which is exponential in the complexity of the surface [@BestvinaBromberg:asdim]. Bestvina–Bromberg conjectured that the asymptotic dimension of the mapping class group is equal to its virtual cohomological dimension (and, in particular, linear in the complexity of the surface).
Here, using the hierarchically hyperbolic structure on the mapping class group of a surface, constructed in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II], Section \[sec:main\_asdim\_theorem\] we show that a careful application of Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\] yields the following which improves the sharpest bounds from exponential to quadratic:
\[cori:MCG\] Let $S$ be a connected oriented surface of finite type of complexity $\xi(S)\geq 2$. Then $\operatorname{asdim}\MCG(S)\leq 5\xi(S)^2$.
For convenience, we omit from the statement the case of connected oriented surfaces of finite type and complexity at most one (i.e., $S^2$ with at most 4 punctures and $S^1\times S^1$ with at most 1 puncture); this is not omitting any cases of interest since such mapping class groups are either finite, $\mathbb Z$, or virtually free, and hence their asymptotic dimensions are 0 or 1.
The notion of a hierarchically hyperbolic structure plays a central role in establishing the bound in Corollary \[cori:MCG\]. Indeed, our proof of Theorem \[thmi:asdim\] relies on the fact that “coning off” an appropriate collection of subspaces of an HHS yields a new HHS of lower complexity, and the bound we eventually obtain is in terms of a uniform bound on the asymptotic dimensions of the hyperbolic spaces in the HHS structure, which is obtained separately in Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\].
To establish this bound for general (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic spaces, we generalize the “tight geodesics” strategy of Bell–Fujiwara [@BellFujiwara:asdim_curve_graph], who proved that the asymptotic dimension of the curve graph of a surface of finite type is finite. Bell–Fujiwara’s work relies on a finiteness theorem of Bowditch [@Bowditch:tight], which does not provide an explicit bound on the asymptotic dimension.
In the case of the mapping class group, we do not use such upper bounds. Instead, in the proof of Corollary \[cori:MCG\], we sidestep Section \[sec:tight\] and the “tight geodesics” method completely and instead use the linear bound (in terms of complexity) on the asymptotic dimension of the curve graph provided by Bestvina-Bromberg in [@BestvinaBromberg:asdim] when we invoke Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\]. The structure of the proof of Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\] allows this, and depends in an essential way on the notion of a hierarchically hyperbolic space. Interestingly, even though the notion of an HHS generalizes known structures in the mapping class group, the present work can not be employed in the mapping class group case without appeal to the full generality of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces. Roughly, this is because our approach involves coning off certain subspaces of a (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic space to produce a hierarchically hyperbolic space of lower complexity, enabling induction. Although this procedure keeps us in the category of being an HHS, being a mapping class group is not similarly closed under this coning operation.
In [@BBF:quasi_tree], the asymptotic dimension of the mapping class group is shown to be finite as a consequence of the fact that the asymptotic dimension of Teichmüller space $\mathcal T(S)$ is finite. Our method gives an improved bound on $\operatorname{asdim}(\mathcal T(S))$, where $\mathcal T(S)$ is given either the Teichmüller metric or the Weil–Petersson metric:
\[cori:teich\] Let $S$ be a connected oriented surface of finite type of complexity $\xi(S)\geq 1$. Then $\operatorname{asdim}(\mathcal T(S))\leq 5\xi(S)^2+\xi(S)$.
Pre-existing bounds on the asymptotic dimension of the associated collection of hyperbolic spaces can be used to bound the asymptotic dimension of some other HHS without recourse to Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\]. For example, in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I], we showed that if ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a CAT(0) cube complex admitting a collection of convex subcomplexes called a *factor system*, then ${{\mathcal X}}$ admits a hierarchically hyperbolic structure in which the associated hyperbolic spaces are uniformly quasi-isometric to simplicial trees, and thus have asymptotic dimension $\leq1$. This holds in particular when ${{\mathcal X}}$ embeds convexly in the universal cover of the Salvetti complex of a right-angled Artin group $A_\Gamma$ associated to a finite simplicial graph $\Gamma$. Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\] then provides $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq\sum_{\ell=0}^{|\Gamma^{(0)}|}K_\ell$, where $K_\ell\leq\ell$ is the maximum size of a clique appearing in a subgraph of $\Gamma$ with $\ell$ vertices. This reproves finiteness of the asymptotic dimension for such complexes, as established by Wright [@Wright:asdim].
We also recover the following result of Osin [@Osin:asdim]:
\[cori:rel\_hyp\] Let the group $G$ be hyperbolic relative to a finite collection $\mathcal P$ of peripheral subgroups such that $\operatorname{asdim}P<\infty$ for each $P\in\mathcal P$. Then $\operatorname{asdim}G<\infty$.
It is easy to verify that $(G,\mathfrak S)$ is a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space, where $\mathfrak S$ consists of $G$ together with the set of all conjugates of elements of $\mathcal P$; each of these conjugates is nested in $G$ and the conjugates are pairwise-transverse (the orthogonality relation is empty); see [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]. The result then follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\].
Quotients of hierarchically hyperbolic groups {#subsec:intro_quotients .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the first examples of hierarchically hyperbolic groups were mapping class groups and many cubical groups [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I]; many further constructions and combination theorems were then provided in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]. In Section \[sec:HHG\_quotient\] we provide many new examples of (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic groups, which arise as quotients of hierarchically hyperbolic groups by suitable subgroups, using small-cancellation techniques closely related to the theory developed in [@DGO]. In the aforementioned paper, the authors introduced the notion of *hyperbolically embedded subgroup* of a group and extended the relatively hyperbolic Dehn filling theorem [@Osin:peripheral; @GrovesManning:dehn], thereby constructing many interesting quotients of groups such as mapping class groups. In particular, they showed that mapping class groups are SQ-universal, i.e. for every hyperbolic surface $S$ and for every countable group $Q$ there exists a quotient of $\MCG(S)$ containing an isomorphic copy of $Q$. Roughly speaking, we prove that Dahmani-Guirardel-Osin’s construction of quotients preserves (relative) hierarchical hyperbolicity when applied to a (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic group.
We say that the group $H$ is *hierarchically hyperbolically embedded* if $G$ can be generated by a set $\mathcal T$ so that: $\mathcal T\cap H$ generates $H$, and ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ is quasi-isometric to the ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal element of $\mathfrak S$, and $H$ is hyperbolically embedded in $(G,\mathcal T)$ in the sense of [@DGO]. Theorem \[thmi:quotients\] is a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm:quotients\] below. The proof of Theorem \[thmi:quotients\] relies heavily on the “small-cancellation” methods of [@DGO].
\[thmi:quotients\] Let $(G,\mathfrak S)$ be an HHG and let $H{\hookrightarrow_{_{hh}}}(G,\mathfrak S)$ be *hierarchically hyperbolically embedded*. Then there exists a finite set $F\subset H-\{1\}$ such that for all $N\triangleleft H$ with $F\cap N=\emptyset$, the group $G/{\widehat{N}}$ is a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic group. If, in addition, $H/N$ is hyperbolic, then $G/{\widehat{N}}$ is hierarchically hyperbolic.
Here ${\widehat{N}}$ denotes the normal closure of $N$ in $G$. We remark that acylindrically hyperbolic groups contain plenty of hyperbolically embedded subgroups, and in particular they contain hyperbolically embedded virtually $F_2$ subgroups [@DGO Theorem 6.14]. Moreover, hierarchically hyperbolic groups are “usually” acylindrically hyperbolic, in the sense that any non-elementary hierarchically hyperbolic group $G$ so that $\pi_S(G)$ is unbounded is acylindrically hyperbolic, where $S$ is the ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal $S\in\mathfrak S$.
Theorem \[thmi:quotients\] provides many new examples of hierarchically hyperbolic groups, and hence, via Theorem \[thmi:asdim\], expands the class of groups known to have finite asymptotic dimension. For example:
\[cori:kill\_pA\] Let $S$ be a surface of finite type and let $f\in\MCG(S)$ be a pseudo-Anosov element. Then there exists $N$ such that $\MCG(S)/\langle\langle f^{kN}\rangle\rangle$ is a hierarchically hyperbolic group for all integers $k\geq 1$ and has asymptotic dimension at most $5\xi(S)^2$.
Corollary \[cori:kill\_pA\] has an exact analogue in the world of cubical groups.
\[cori:kill\_rank\_one\] Let $X$ be a compact special cube complex with universal cover $\widetilde X$ and let $G$ act properly and cocompactly on $\widetilde X$. Let $g\in G$ be a rank-one element, no nonzero power of which stabilizes a hyperplane. Then there exists $N$ such that for all integers $k\geq 1$, the group $G/\langle\langle g^{kN}\rangle\rangle$ is hierarchically hyperbolic and hence has finite asymptotic dimension.
Since the proofs of Corollaries \[cori:kill\_pA\] and \[cori:kill\_rank\_one\] are very similar, we only give that of Corollary \[cori:kill\_rank\_one\].
As shown in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I; @BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II], $G$ is a hierarchically hyperbolic group, where the top-level associated hyperbolic space is quasi-isometric to the intersection graph of the hyperplane carriers in $\widetilde X$. As shown in [@Hagen:boundary], the given $g$ acts loxodromically on this graph, and thus the maximal elementary subgroup containing $g$ is hierarchically hyperbolically embedded in $G$, see [@antolin2015commensurating Corollary 3.11] or [@hull2013small Corollary 4.14] (which both refine [@DGO Theorem 6.8]). Finally, apply Theorem \[thmi:quotients\].
Note that $G$ need not be virtually special to satisfy the hypotheses of Corollary \[cori:kill\_rank\_one\] (for example, the non-virtually special examples of Burger-Mozes and Wise [@BurgerMozes; @Wise:CSC] act geometrically on the universal cover of the product of two finite graphs), so the corollary can not be proved via cubical small-cancellation theory or related techniques (see [@Wise:quasiconvex_hierarchy]) followed by an application of the results of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I]. Stronger versions of Corollary \[cori:kill\_pA\] and Corollary \[cori:kill\_rank\_one\] exist, where one kills more complex subgroups.
After we posted the initial version of this paper, it was shown in [@HagenSusse:cubical] that any proper CAT(0) cube complex admitting a proper, cocompact group action is a hierarchically hyperbolic space (and the group in question a hierarchically hyperbolic group). Hence the conclusion of Corollary \[cori:kill\_rank\_one\] holds with the “special” hypothesis. This is also true for the above-mentioned asymptotic dimension result.
\[remi:new\_cubes\]
Factored spaces {#factored-spaces .unnumbered}
---------------
In section \[sec:factored\] we give a construction which we call a *factored space*. Roughly, the factored space, ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}$, associated to a hierarchically hyperbolic space $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is obtained by collapsing particularly subsets of ${{\mathcal X}}$ which are isomorphic to direct products. In Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\] we prove that this construction yields a new HHS.
One particularly interesting consequence of this construction is the following corollary which is a special case of Corollary \[cor:cone\_off\_all\_F\]. This result generalizes [@MasurMinsky:I Theorem 1.2] where it is proven that the the curve graph of a surface is quasi-isometric to Teichmüller space after collapsing the thin parts, and, also, [@MasurMinsky:I Theorem 1.3] where the mapping class group is considered and the multicurve stabilizers are collapsed.
\[thm:coarse\_factors\] Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be hierarchically hyperbolic and let $S\in\mathfrak S$ be the unique ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal element. Then ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}$ is quasi-isometric to $\pi_S({{\mathcal X}})\subseteq{{\mathcal C}}S$.
This result implies that if $(G,\mathfrak S)$ is a hierarchically hyperbolic group, then ${{\mathcal C}}S$ is quasi-isometric to the coarse intersection graph of the “standard product regions.”
This result can be interpreted as stating that hierarchically hyperbolic structures always arise from a coarse version of the “factor system” construction used in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I] to endow CAT(0) cube complexes with hierarchically hyperbolic structures.
Structure of the paper {#subsec:structure .unnumbered}
----------------------
In Section \[sec:preliminaries\], we review basic facts about asymptotic dimension and about hierarchical spaces and groups, including (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic ones. In Section \[sec:factored\], we introduce a coning construction which shows that the top-level hyperbolic space associated to a hierarchically hyperbolic space is quasi-isometric to the space obtained by coning off the “standard product regions.” This construction, which we use in the inductive proof of Theorem \[thmi:asdim\], is of independent interest and generalizes a construction we had originally included in the first version of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]. Finiteness of the asymptotic dimension of the hyperbolic spaces associated to a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space, is proved in Section \[sec:tight\]. In Section \[sec:ball\_preimage\], we prove one of the key propositions needed in the induction argument for Theorem \[thmi:asdim\]. In Section \[sec:main\_asdim\_theorem\], we prove Theorem \[thmi:asdim\] and its corollaries, and finally we prove Theorem \[thmi:quotients\] in Section \[sec:HHG\_quotient\].
Acknowledgments {#subsec:acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors thank the organizers of the conferences *Manifolds and groups* (Ventotene, September 2015) and the *Théorie géométrique et asymptotique des groupes et applications* (CIRM, September 2015), where our initial discussions took place. The authors thank Carolyn Abbott for helpful feedback. The authors also thank the referee for numerous comments that improved the exposition.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
Background on asymptotic dimension {#defn:asdim_background}
----------------------------------
Let $({{\mathcal X}},{\textup{\textsf{d}}})$ be a metric space. There are several equivalent definitions of the *asymptotic dimension* of ${{\mathcal X}}$ (see e.g. [@BellDranishnikov:Bedlewo] or [@BellDranishnikov:asdim_1] for comprehensive surveys). We say that $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}} \leq n$ if for each $D>0$, there exist $B\geq0$ and families $\mathcal U_0,\ldots,\mathcal U_n$ of subsets which form a cover of ${{\mathcal X}}$ such that:
1. for all $i\leq n$ and all $U\in\mathcal U_i$, we have $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}(U)\leq B$;\[item:bounded\]
2. for all $i\leq n$ and all $U,U'\in\mathcal U_i$, if $U\neq U'$ then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(U,U')>D$.\[item:d\_disjoint\]
A function $f\colon [0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ such that for each sufficiently large $D$, there is a cover of ${{\mathcal X}}$ as above that satisfies part for the given $D$ and satisfies part with $B=f(D)$ is an *$n$–dimensional control function* for ${{\mathcal X}}$.
We say ${{\mathcal X}}$ *has asymptotic dimension $n$ (with control function $f$)*, when $n$ is minimal so that $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq n$ (and $f$ is an $n$–dimensional control function).
A family of metric spaces, $\{({{\mathcal X}}_i,{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_i)\}_{i\in I}$, *has $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}_i \leq n$ uniformly* if for all sufficiently large $D\geq0$, there exists $B\geq0$ such that for each $i\in I$, there are sets $\mathcal
U_0^i,\ldots,\mathcal U^i_n$ of subsets of ${{\mathcal X}}_i$, collectively covering ${{\mathcal X}}_i$, so that:
1. for all $i\in I$, all $0\leq j\leq n$, and all $U\in\mathcal U_j^i$, we have $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}(U)\leq B$;
2. for all $i\in I$, all $0\leq j<k\leq n$, and all $U,U'\in\mathcal U_j^i$, if $U\neq U'$ then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(U,U')>D$.
As above, $f\colon [0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ is an *$n$–dimensional control function* for $\{{{\mathcal X}}_i\}$ if for each $i$, and each sufficiently large $D$, we can choose the covers above so that if the second condition is satisfied for $D$, then the first is satisfied with $B=f(D)$.
Equivalently, $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq n$ if for all $r\geq0$ there exists a uniformly bounded cover of ${{\mathcal X}}$ such that any $r$–ball intersects at most $n+1$ sets in the cover [@BellDranishnikov:asymptotic_groups], and $\{{{\mathcal X}}_i\}$ has $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}_i\leq n$ uniformly if for each $r$ the covers can be chosen to consist of sets bounded independently of $i$. We will use this formulation in Section \[sec:tight\].
We will require the following theorems of Bell–Dranishnikov:
\[thm:fibration\_theorem\] Let $\psi{\colon}{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal Y}}$ be a Lipschitz map, with ${{\mathcal X}}$ a geodesic space and ${{\mathcal Y}}$ a metric space. Suppose that for each $R>0$, the collection $\{\psi^{-1}(B(y,R))\}_{y\in{{\mathcal Y}}}$ has $\operatorname{asdim}\psi^{-1}(B(y,R))\leq n$ uniformly. Then $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal Y}}+n$.
\[thm:union\_theorem\] Let ${{\mathcal X}}$ be a metric space and assume that ${{\mathcal X}}=\bigcup_{i\in I}{{\mathcal X}}_i$, where $\{{{\mathcal X}}_i\}_{i\in I}$ satisfies $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}_i\leq n$ uniformly. Suppose that for each $R$ there exists $Y_R\subset{{\mathcal X}}$, with $\operatorname{asdim}Y_R\leq n$, such that for all distinct $i,i'\in I$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}({{\mathcal X}}_i-Y_R,{{\mathcal X}}_{i'}-Y_R)\geq R$. Then $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq n$.
Background on hierarchical spaces {#subsec:hierarchical_prelim}
---------------------------------
We recall our main definition from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]:
In Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] below, we use the notation ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(-,-)$ to denote distance in a space ${{\mathcal C}}W$, where $W$ is in an index set $\mathfrak S$. We will follow this convention where it will not cause confusion. However, in Section \[sec:HHG\_quotient\], where there are multiple HHS structures and spaces in play, we generally avoid this abbreviation. Similarly, where it will not cause confusion, we write, e.g. ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,y)$ to mean ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\pi_W(x),\pi_W(y))$, where $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, and $W\in\mathfrak S$, and $\pi:{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal C}}W$ is a projection. We emphasise that, throughout the text, e.g. ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,y)$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}W}(\pi_W(x),\pi_W(y))$ mean the same thing.
\[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] The $q$–quasigeodesic space $({{\mathcal X}},{\textup{\textsf{d}}})$ is a *hierarchical space* if there exists an index set $\mathfrak S$, and a set $\{{{\mathcal C}}W:W\in\mathfrak S\}$ of geodesic spaces $({{\mathcal C}}U,{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U)$, such that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. **(Projections.)**\[item:dfs\_curve\_complexes\] There is a set $\{\pi_W{\colon}{{\mathcal X}}\rightarrow2^{{{\mathcal C}}W}\mid W\in\mathfrak S\}$ of *projections* sending points in ${{\mathcal X}}$ to sets of diameter bounded by some $\xi\geq0$ in the various ${{\mathcal C}}W\in\mathfrak S$. Moreover, there exists $K$ so that each $\pi_W$ is $(K,K)$–coarsely Lipschitz.
2. **(Nesting.)** \[item:dfs\_nesting\] $\mathfrak S$ is equipped with a partial order ${\sqsubseteq}$, and either $\mathfrak
S=\emptyset$ or $\mathfrak S$ contains a unique ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal element; when $V{\sqsubseteq}W$, we say $V$ is *nested* in $W$. We require that $W{\sqsubseteq}W$ for all $W\in\mathfrak S$. For each $W\in\mathfrak S$, we denote by $\mathfrak S_W$ the set of $V\in\mathfrak S$ such that $V{\sqsubseteq}W$. Moreover, for all $V,W\in\mathfrak S$ with $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$ there is a specified subset $\rho^V_W\subset{{\mathcal C}}W$ with $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}W}(\rho^V_W)\leq\xi$. There is also a *projection* $\rho^W_V\colon {{\mathcal C}}W\rightarrow 2^{{{\mathcal C}}V}$. (The similarity in notation is justified by viewing $\rho^V_W$ as a coarsely constant map ${{\mathcal C}}V\rightarrow 2^{{{\mathcal C}}W}$.)
3. **(Orthogonality.)** \[item:dfs\_orthogonal\] $\mathfrak S$ has a symmetric and anti-reflexive relation called *orthogonality*: we write $V{\bot}W$ when $V,W$ are orthogonal. Also, whenever $V{\sqsubseteq}W$ and $W{\bot}U$, we require that $V{\bot}U$. Finally, we require that for each $T\in\mathfrak S$ and each $U\in\mathfrak S_T$ for which $\{V\in\mathfrak S_T:V{\bot}U\}\neq\emptyset$, there exists $W\in \mathfrak S_T-\{T\}$, so that whenever $V{\bot}U$ and $V{\sqsubseteq}T$, we have $V{\sqsubseteq}W$. Finally, if $V{\bot}W$, then $V,W$ are not ${\sqsubseteq}$–comparable.
4. **(Transversality and consistency.)** \[item:dfs\_transversal\] If $V,W\in\mathfrak S$ are not orthogonal and neither is nested in the other, then we say $V,W$ are *transverse*, denoted $V{\pitchfork}W$. There exists $\kappa_0\geq 0$ such that if $V{\pitchfork}W$, then there are sets $\rho^V_W\subseteq{{\mathcal C}}W$ and $\rho^W_V\subseteq{{\mathcal C}}V$ each of diameter at most $\xi$ and satisfying: $$\min\left\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
W}(\pi_W(x),\rho^V_W),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
V}(\pi_V(x),\rho^W_V)\right\}\leq\kappa_0$$ for all $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$.
For $V,W\in\mathfrak S$ satisfying $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$ and for all $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$, we have: $$\min\left\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
W}(\pi_W(x),\rho^V_W),\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}V}(\pi_V(x)\cup\rho^W_V(\pi_W(x)))\right\}\leq\kappa_0.$$
The preceding two inequalities are the *consistency inequalities* for points in ${{\mathcal X}}$.
Finally, if $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W)\leq\kappa_0$ whenever $W\in\mathfrak S$ satisfies either $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$ or $V{\pitchfork}W$ and $W\not{\bot}U$.
5. **(Finite complexity.)** \[item:dfs\_complexity\] There exists $n\geq0$, the *complexity* of ${{\mathcal X}}$ (with respect to $\mathfrak S$), so that any set of pairwise–${\sqsubseteq}$–comparable elements has cardinality at most $n$.
6. **(Large links.)** \[item:dfs\_large\_link\_lemma\] There exist $\lambda\geq1$ and $E\geq\max\{\xi,\kappa_0\}$ such that the following holds. Let $W\in\mathfrak S$ and let $x,x'\in{{\mathcal X}}$. Let $N=\lambda{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{_W}(\pi_W(x),\pi_W(x'))+\lambda$. Then there exists $\{T_i\}_{i=1,\dots,\lfloor
N\rfloor}\subseteq\mathfrak S_W-\{W\}$ such that for all $T\in\mathfrak
S_W-\{W\}$, either $T\in\mathfrak S_{T_i}$ for some $i$, or ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
T}(\pi_T(x),\pi_T(x'))<E$. Also, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
W}(\pi_W(x),\rho^{T_i}_W)\leq N$ for each $i$.
7. **(Bounded geodesic image.)** \[item:dfs:bounded\_geodesic\_image\] For all $W\in\mathfrak S$, all $V\in\mathfrak S_W-\{W\}$, and all geodesics $\gamma$ of ${{\mathcal C}}W$, either $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}V}(\rho^W_V(\gamma))\leq E$ or $\gamma\cap{\mathcal N}_E(\rho^V_W)\neq\emptyset$.
8. **(Partial Realization.)** \[item:dfs\_partial\_realization\] There exists a constant $\alpha$ with the following property. Let $\{V_j\}$ be a family of pairwise orthogonal elements of $\mathfrak S$, and let $p_j\in \pi_{V_j}({{\mathcal X}})\subseteq {{\mathcal C}}V_j$. Then there exists $x\in {{\mathcal X}}$ so that:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{V_j}(x,p_j)\leq \alpha$ for all $j$,
- for each $j$ and each $V\in\mathfrak S$ with $V_j{\sqsubsetneq}V$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{V}(x,\rho^{V_j}_V)\leq\alpha$, and
- if $W{\pitchfork}V_j$ for some $j$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,\rho^{V_j}_W)\leq\alpha$.
9. **(Uniqueness.)** For each $\kappa\geq 0$, there exists $\theta_u=\theta_u(\kappa)$ such that if $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\geq\theta_u$, then there exists $V\in\mathfrak S$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)\geq \kappa$.\[item:dfs\_uniqueness\]
If there exists $\delta\geq0$ such that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic for all $U\in\mathfrak S$, then $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is *hierarchically hyperbolic*. If there exists $\delta$ so that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic for all non–${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal $U\in\mathfrak S$, then $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is *relatively hierarchically hyperbolic*.
We require the following proposition from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]:
\[prop:rho\_consistency\] There exists $\kappa_1$ so that the following holds. Suppose that $U,V,W\in\mathfrak S$ satisfy both of the following conditions: $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$ or $U{\pitchfork}V$; and $U{\sqsubsetneq}W$ or $U{\pitchfork}W$. Then, if $V{\pitchfork}W$, then $$\min\left\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
W}(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
V}(\rho^U_V,\rho^W_V)\right\}\leq\kappa_1$$ and if $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$, then $$\min\left\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{
W}(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W),\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}V}(\rho^U_V\cup\rho^W_V(\rho^U_W))\right\}\leq\kappa_1.$$
\[notation:E\] Given a hierarchical space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, let $E$ be the maximum of all of the constants appearing in Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] and Proposition \[prop:rho\_consistency\]. Moreover, if ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ is $\delta$–(relatively) HHS, then we choose $E\geq\delta$ as well.
\[notation:orth\_set\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a hierarchical space and let $\mathcal U\subset\mathfrak S$. Given $V\in\mathfrak S$, we write $V{\bot}\mathcal U$ to mean $V{\bot}U$ for all $U\in\mathcal U$.
We can now prove the following lemma, analogous to Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:
\[lem:orth\_close\] Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be a hierarchical space and let $W\in\mathfrak S$ and let $U,V\in\mathfrak S_W-\{W\}$ satisfy $U{\bot}V$. Then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W)\leq 2E$.
Apply partial realization (Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]..
The following lemma, which is [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Lemma 2.5], is used in Section \[sec:tight\]:
\[lem:passing\_up\] Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be a hierarchical space. For every $C\geq0$ there exists $N$ with the following property. Let $V\in\mathfrak S$, let $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, and let $\{S_i\}_{i=1}^{N}\subseteq \mathfrak S_V-\{V\}$ be distinct and satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{S_i}(x,y)\geq E$. Then there exists $S\in\mathfrak S_V$ and $i$ so that $S_i{\sqsubsetneq}S$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{S}(x,y)\geq C$.
In this paper, we primarily work with relatively HHS. The main results from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] that we will require are realization, the distance formula, and the existence of hierarchy paths (Theorems \[thm:realization\],\[thm:distance\_formula\],\[thm:hierarchy\_paths\] below), whose statements require the following definitions:
\[defn:consistent\_tuple\] Let $\kappa\geq0$ and let ${\vec{b}}\in\prod_{U\in\mathfrak S}2^{{{\mathcal C}}U}$ be a tuple such that for each $U\in\mathfrak S$, the $U$–coordinate $b_U$ has diameter $\leq\kappa$. Then ${\vec{b}}$ is *$\kappa$–consistent* if for all $V,W\in\mathfrak S$, we have $$\min\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(b_V,\rho^W_V),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(b_W,\rho^V_W)\}\leq\kappa$$ whenever $V{\pitchfork}W$ and $$\min\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,\rho^V_W),\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_V(b_V\cup\rho^W_V)\}\leq\kappa$$ whenever $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$.
\[defn:hierarchy\_path\] A path $\gamma\colon I\to{{\mathcal X}}$ is a *$(D,D)$–hierarchy path* if $\gamma$ is a $(D,D)$–quasigeodesic and $\pi_U\circ\gamma$ is an unparameterized $(D,D)$–quasigeodesic for each $U\in\mathfrak S$.
\[thm:realization\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a hierarchical space. Then for each $\kappa\geq1$, there exists $\theta=\theta(\kappa)$ so that, for any $\kappa$–consistent tuple ${\vec{b}}\in\prod_{U\in\mathfrak S}2^{{{\mathcal C}}U}$, there exists $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,b_V)\leq\theta$ for all $V\in\mathfrak S$.
Observe that uniqueness (Definition implies that the *realization point* for ${\vec{b}}$ provided by Theorem \[thm:realization\] is coarsely unique. The following theorem is Theorem 6.7 in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II], which is proved using the corresponding statement for hierarchically hyperbolic spaces ([@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Theorem 4.5]):
\[thm:distance\_formula\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space. Then there exists $s_0$ such that for all $s\geq s_0$, there exist $C,K$ so that for all $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, $${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\asymp_{K,C}\sum_{U\in\mathfrak
S}{{{\left\{\kern-.7ex\left\{{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\right\}\kern-.7ex\right\}}_{s}}}.$$
(The notation ${{{\left\{\kern-.7ex\left\{A\right\}\kern-.7ex\right\}}_{B}}}$ denotes the quantity which is $A$ if $A\geq B$ and $0$ otherwise.)
The following closely-related statement is Theorem 6.8 of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]:
\[thm:hierarchy\_paths\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space. Then there exists $D\geq0$ such that for all $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, there is a $(D,D)$–hierarchy path in ${{\mathcal X}}$ joining $x,y$.
### Hierarchical quasiconvexity, gates, and standard product regions {#subsubsec:HQSP}
The next definition slightly generalizes Definition 5.1 of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] (which it was stated for the case of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces):
\[defn:hier\_quasi\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a $\delta$–relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space, and let ${{\mathcal Y}}\subseteq{{\mathcal X}}$. Then ${{\mathcal Y}}$ is *hierarchically quasiconvex* if there exists a function $k\colon [0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ such that:
- for each $U\in\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space, the subspace $\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})\subseteq{{\mathcal C}}U$ is $k(0)$–quasiconvex;
- for each (${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal) $U\in\mathfrak S$ for which ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is not $\delta$–hyperbolic, either ${{\mathcal C}}U={\mathcal N}^{{{\mathcal C}}U}_{k(0)}(\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}}))$ or $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}(\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}}))\leq k(0)$;
- for all $\kappa\geq0$ and all $\kappa$–consistent tuples ${\vec{b}}$ for which $b_U\subset\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$ for all $U\in\mathfrak S$, each realization point $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$ for which ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\pi_U(x),b_U)\leq\theta(\kappa)$ satisfies ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,{{\mathcal Y}})\leq
k(\kappa)$ (where $\theta(\kappa)$ is as in Theorem \[thm:realization\]) .
In this case, we say ${{\mathcal Y}}$ is *$k$–hierarchically quasiconvex* and refer to $k$ as a *hierarchical quasiconvexity function* for ${{\mathcal Y}}$.
Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be relatively hierarchically hyperbolic and let ${{\mathcal Y}}\subseteq{{\mathcal X}}$ be $k$–hierarchically quasiconvex. Given $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$ and $U\in\mathfrak S$, let $p_U(x)$ be defined as follows. If $U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic, then $p_U(x)$ is the coarse projection of $\pi_U(x)$ on $\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$ (which is defined since $\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$ is $k(0)$–quasiconvex). If $\pi_U\colon {{\mathcal Y}}\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ is $k(0)$–coarsely surjective, then $p_U(x)$ is the set of all $p\in\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,p)\leq k(0)$ (which is nonempty). Otherwise, $\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$ has diameter at most $k(0)$, and we let $p_U(x)=\pi_U({{\mathcal Y}})$. The tuple $(p_U(x))_{U\in\frak S}$ is easily checked to be $\kappa=\kappa(k(0))$–consistent, and we apply the realization theorem (Theorem \[thm:realization\]) and the uniqueness axiom to produce a coarsely well-defined point ${\mathfrak g}_{{{\mathcal Y}}}(x)\in{{\mathcal Y}}$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U({\mathfrak g}_{{{\mathcal Y}}}(x),p_U(x))$ is bounded in terms of $k$ for all $U$. The (coarsely well-defined) map ${\mathfrak g}_{{{\mathcal Y}}}\colon{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal Y}}$ given by $x\mapsto{\mathfrak g}_{{{\mathcal Y}}}(x)$ is the *gate map* associated to ${{\mathcal Y}}$.
Important examples of hierarchically quasiconvex subspaces of the relatively HHS ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ are the *standard product regions* defined as follows (see [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Section 5] for more detail). For each $U\in\mathfrak S$, let $\mathfrak S_U$ denote the set of $V\in\mathfrak S$ with $V{\sqsubseteq}U$, and let $\mathfrak S_U^{\bot}$ denote the set of $V\in\mathfrak S$ such that $V{\bot}U$, together with some $A_U\in\mathfrak S$ such that $V{\sqsubseteq}A_U$ for all $V$ with $V{\bot}U$. Then there are uniformly hierarchically quasiconvex subspaces $\mathbf F_U,\mathbf E_U\subseteq{{\mathcal X}}$ such that $(\mathbf F_U,\mathfrak S_U),(\mathbf E_U,\mathfrak S_U^{\bot})$ are relatively hierarchically hyperbolic spaces and the inclusions $\mathbf F_U,\mathbf E_U\hookrightarrow{{\mathcal X}}$ extend to a uniform quasi-isometric embedding $\mathbf F_U\times \mathbf E_U\to{{\mathcal X}}$ whose image $\mathbf P_U$ is hierarchically quasiconvex. We call $\mathbf P_U$ the *standard product region* associated to $U$ and, for each $e\in \mathbf E_U$, the image of $\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}$ is a *parallel copy of $\mathbf F_U$ (in ${{\mathcal X}}$)*. The relevant defining property of $\mathbf P_U$ is: there exists $\alpha$, depending only on ${{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S$ and the output of the realization theorem, so that for all $x\in \mathbf P_U$ (and hence each parallel copy of $\mathbf F_U$), we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^U_V)\leq\alpha$ whenever $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$ or $U{\pitchfork}V$. Moreover we can choose $\alpha$ so that, if $U{\bot}V$, then $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}(\pi_U(\mathbf F_V\times\{e\}))\leq\alpha$ for all $e\in\mathbf E_V$.
\[rem:gates\] Let ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ be a relatively HHS and let $U\in\mathfrak S$. The gate map ${\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to \mathbf P_U$ can be described as follows. For each $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$ and $V\in\mathfrak S$, we have:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}(x)),\rho^U_V)\leq\alpha$ if $V{\pitchfork}U$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$;
- $\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}(x))=\pi_V(x)$ otherwise.
For each $e\in \mathbf E_U$, the gate map ${\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}}\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to \mathbf F_U\times\{e\}$ is described by:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}}(x)),\rho^U_V)\leq\alpha$ if $V{\pitchfork}U$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$;
- $\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}}(x))=\pi_V(x)$ if $V{\sqsubseteq}U$;
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}}(x)),\pi_V(e))\leq\alpha$ if $V{\bot}U$.
Likewise, for each $f\in \mathbf F_U$, the gate map ${\mathfrak g}_{\{f\}\times \mathbf E_U}\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to \{f\}\times \mathbf E_U$ is described by:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\{f\}\times \mathbf E_U}(x)),\rho^U_V)\leq\alpha$ if $V{\pitchfork}U$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$;
- $\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\{f\}\times \mathbf E_U}(x))=\pi_V(x)$ if $V{\bot}U$;
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{\{f\}\times \mathbf E_U}(x)),\pi_V(f))\leq\alpha$ if $V{\sqsubseteq}U$.
\[rem:standard\_product\_regions\] In [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Section 5.2], standard product regions are constructed in the context of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces. However, the construction uses only the hierarchical space axioms and realization (Theorem \[thm:realization\]), so that $\mathbf F_U,\mathbf E_U,\mathbf P_U$ can be constructed in an arbitrary hierarchical space. The way we have defined things, the assertion that these subspaces are hierarchically quasiconvex requires ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ to be relatively hierarchically hyperbolic. It is easy to see, from the definition, that the explanation of hierarchical quasiconvexity from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] (for HHS) works in the more general setting of relatively HHS.
\[defn:tot\_orth\] Given a hierarchical space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, we say that $\mathcal U\subset\mathfrak S$ is *totally orthogonal* if $U{\bot}V$ for all distinct $U,V\in\mathcal U$.
Recall from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Lemma 2.1] that there is a uniform bound, namely the complexity, on the size of totally orthogonal subsets of $\mathfrak S$. Observe that if $\mathcal U$ is a totally orthogonal set in the relatively HHS ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, then $\bigcap_{U\in\mathcal U}\mathbf P_U$ coarsely contains $\prod_{U\in\mathcal U}\mathbf F_U$.
### Partially ordering relevant domains {#subsubsec:partial_order}
Given a hierarchical space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, a constant $K\geq0$, and $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, we say that $U\in\mathfrak S$ is *$K$–relevant (for $x,y$)* if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\geq K$. In Section 2 of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II], it is shown that when $K\geq100E$, then any set ${\mathbf{Rel}}_{max}(x,y,K)$ of pairwise ${\sqsubseteq}$–incomparable $K$–relevant elements of $\mathfrak S$ can be partially ordered as follows: if $U,V\in{\mathbf{Rel}}(x,y,K)$, then $U\preceq V$ if $U=V$ or if $U{\pitchfork}V$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\rho^V_U,y)\leq E$. (This was done in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] in the context of hierarchically hyperbolic spaces, but the arguments do not use hyperbolicity and thus hold for arbitrary hierarchical spaces.)
### Automorphisms and (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic groups {#subsubsec:aut}
Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be a hierarchical space. An *automorphism* $g$ of $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is a map $g\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal X}}$, together with a bijection $g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}\colon \mathfrak S\to\mathfrak S$ and, for each $U\in\mathfrak S$, an isometry $g{^{*}}(U)\colon {{\mathcal C}}U\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ so that the following diagrams coarsely commute whenever the maps in question are defined (i.e., when $U,V$ are not orthogonal):
$
\begin{diagram}
\node{{{\mathcal X}}}\arrow[3]{e,t}{g}\arrow{s,l}{\pi_U}\node{}\node{}\node{{{\mathcal X}}'}\arrow{s,r}{\pi_{g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(U)}}\\
\node{{{\mathcal C}}(U)}\arrow[3]{e,t}{g{^{*}}(U)}\node{}\node{}\node{{{\mathcal C}}(g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(U))}
\end{diagram}
$
and
$
\begin{diagram}
\node{{{\mathcal C}}U}\arrow[4]{s,l}{\rho^U_V}\arrow[7]{e,t}{g{^{*}}(U)}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{{{\mathcal C}}(g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(U))}\arrow[4]{s,r}{\rho^{g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(U)}_{g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(V)}}\\
\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\\
\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\\
\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\\
\node{{{\mathcal C}}V}\arrow[7]{e,t}{g{^{*}}(V)}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{}\node{{{\mathcal C}}(g{^{\tiny{\diamondsuit}}}(V))}
\end{diagram}
$
The finitely generated group $G$ is *hierarchical* if there is a hierarchical structure $(G,\mathfrak S)$ on $G$ (equipped with a word-metric) so that the action of $G$ on itself by left multiplication is an action by HS automorphisms (with the above diagrams uniformly coarsely commuting). If $(G,\mathfrak S)$ is a (relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic space, we say that $(G,\mathfrak S)$ (or just $G$) is a *(relatively) hierarchically hyperbolic group \[(R)HHG\]*.
Very rotating families {#subsec:rotating_families}
----------------------
In Section \[sec:HHG\_quotient\], we will make use of the *very rotating families* technology introduced in [@DGO]. All of the notions we need in that section are defined there, and we refer the reader to [@DGO] or [@Guirardel_notes] for additional background.
Factored spaces {#sec:factored}
===============
Given a hierarchical space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, we say $\mathfrak U\subseteq\mathfrak S$ is *closed under nesting* if for all $U\in\mathfrak U$, if $V\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$, then $V\not{\sqsubseteq}U$.
\[defn:factored\_space\] Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be a hierarchical space. A *factored space* ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ is constructed by defining a new metric $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ on ${{\mathcal X}}$ depending on a given subset $\mathfrak U \subset\mathfrak S$ which is closed under nesting. First, for each $U\in\mathfrak U$, for each pair $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ for which there exists $e\in {\bf E}_{U}$ such that $x,y\in {\bf
F}_{U}\times \{e\}$, we set ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x,y)=\min\{1,{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\}$. For any pair $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ for which there does not exists such an $e$ we set ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x,y)={\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)$. We now define the distance $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ on ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$. Given a sequence $x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k\in{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$, define its length to be $\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x_{i+1})$. Given $x,x'\in{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$, let $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,x')$ be the infimum of the lengths of such sequences $x=x_0,\ldots,x_k=x'$.
Given a hierarchical space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, and a set $\mathfrak
U\subseteq\mathfrak S$ closed under nesting, let $\psi {\colon}{{\mathcal X}} \to
{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ be the set-theoretic identity map. Observe that:
\[prop:identity\_Lipschitz\] The map $\psi{\colon}{{\mathcal X}} \to {\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ is Lipschitz.
This follows from the definition of $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ and the fact that ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a quasigeodesic space.
\[defn:hat\_space\] Let $\mathfrak U_{1}$ denote the set of ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal elements of $\mathfrak S$. The *hat space* ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}={\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1}$ is the factored space associated to the set $\mathfrak U_{1}$.
Recall that a $\delta$–relatively HHS is an HS X S, such that for all $U\in\mathfrak S$, either ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic or $U\in\mathfrak U_{1}$.
\[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\] Fix a $\delta$–relatively HHS, X S, and let $\mathfrak
U\subset \mathfrak S$ be closed under ${\sqsubseteq}$ and contain each $U\in\frak U_1$ for which ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is not $\delta$–hyperbolic. The space $({\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\mathfrak S-
\mathfrak U)$ is an HHS, where the associated ${{\mathcal C}}(*), \pi_{*}, \rho_{*}^{*},
{\sqsubseteq},{\bot},{\pitchfork}$ are the same as in the original structure.
We must verify each of the requirements of Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]. First observe that by the definition of $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ and the fact that $({{\mathcal X}},{\textup{\textsf{d}}})$ is a quasigeodesic space, $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}})$ is also a $(K,K)$–quasigeodesic space for some $K$.
**Projections:** By our hypothesis on $\mathfrak U$, we have that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic for each $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$, so it remains to check that $({\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}},\mathfrak S-\frak U)$ is a hierarchical space. The projections $\pi_U\colon {{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak
U}\to 2^{{{\mathcal C}}U}$ are as before (more precisely, they are compositions of the original projections $\pi_U\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ with the set-theoretic identity ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U}\to{{\mathcal X}}$, but we will abuse notation and call them $\pi_U$).
Fix $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$. By Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]., there exists $K$, independent of $U$, so that $\pi_U$ is $(K,K)$–coarsely Lipschitz. Let $x,y\in{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ and let $x=x_0,\ldots,x_\ell=y$ be a sequence with $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\geq\sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x_{i+1})-1$. Note that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\leq\sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x_{i+1})$.
Let $I_1$ be the set of $i\in\{0,\ldots,\ell-1\}$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x_{i+1})={\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x_i,x_{i+1})$, let $I_2$ be the set of $i$ for which $x_i,x_{i+1}$ lie in a common parallel copy of $\mathbf F_V$, where $V{\pitchfork}U$ or $V{\sqsubsetneq}U$ and $V\in\mathfrak U$, and let $I_3$ be the set of $i$ so that $x_i,x_{i+1}$ lie an a common parallel copy of $\mathbf F_W$, where $W{\bot}U$ and $W\in\mathfrak U$. Note that we do not need to consider the case where $W\in\mathfrak U$ and $U{\sqsubseteq}W$, since $W\in\mathfrak U$ and $\mathfrak U$ is closed under nesting. Then $${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\leq\sum_{i\in I_1}\left[K{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x_{i+1})+K\right]+ 2\alpha|I_2|+\alpha|I_3|.$$
The third term comes from the fact that, given $i\in I_3$ and $W{\bot}U$ the associated element of $\mathfrak U$ with $x_i,x_{i+1}\in\mathbf F_W\times\{e\}$ for some $e\in\mathbf E_W$, we have that $\pi_U(\mathbf F_W)$ has diameter at most $\alpha$, so ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x_{i+1})\leq\alpha$. Combining the above provides the desired coarse Lipschitz constant $C$.
**Nesting, orthogonality, transversality, finite complexity:** The parts of Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] that only concern $\mathfrak S$ and the relations ${\sqsubseteq},{\bot},{\pitchfork}$ continue to hold with $\mathfrak S$ replaced by $\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$. The complexity of $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\frak S-\frak U)$ is obviously bounded by that of ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$. (Note that the fact that $\mathfrak U$ is closed under nesting is needed to ensure that for all $W\in\frak S-\frak U$ and $U{\sqsubsetneq}W$, there exists $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$ so that $T{\sqsubseteq}V$ for each $T$ with $T{\sqsubsetneq}W$ and $T{\bot}U$.)
**Consistency:** Since the projections $\pi_*$ and relative projections $\rho^*_*$ have not changed, consistency holds for $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\mathfrak S-\frak U)$ since it holds for ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$.
**Bounded geodesic image and large links:** The bounded geodesic image axiom holds for $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\mathfrak S-\frak U)$ since it holds for ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ and is phrased purely in terms of geodesics in the various ${{\mathcal C}}(*)$ and relative projections $\rho^*_*$. The same applies to the large link axiom.
**Partial realization:** Since for each $U\in\mathfrak S$, we have $\pi_U({{\mathcal X}})=\pi_U({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U})$, and since we have not changed any of the projections $\pi_*$ or relative projections $\rho^*_*$, the partial realization axiom for ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ implies that for $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U},\frak S-\frak U)$.
**Uniqueness:** This is done in Lemma \[lem:cone\_off\_uniqueness\] below.
\[defn:friendly\] For $U,V\in\mathfrak S$, we say that $U$ is *friendly* to $V$ if $U{\sqsubseteq}V$ or $U{\bot}V$. Note that when $U$ is *not* friendly to $V$, then $\rho^V_U$ is a uniformly bounded subset of ${{\mathcal C}}U$.
In the proof of Lemma \[lem:cone\_off\_uniqueness\], we will need to “efficiently” jump between product regions $P_U, P_V$. Heuristically, the pairs of points that are “closest in every ${{\mathcal C}}W$” are of the form $p,q$ for some $p\in{\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}(\mathbf P_V)$ and $q={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_V}(p)$, and these are the ones we study in the following lemma. In particular, we are interested in the distance formula terms for such pairs $p,q$.
\[lem:friendly\] Let $U,V\in\mathfrak S$ and let $p\in{\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}(\mathbf P_V)$. For $q={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_V}(p)$, the following holds. If $W\in\mathfrak S$ satisfies ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(p,q)\geq10^3\alpha E$ then $W$ is not friendly to either of $U$ or $V$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W)\geq500\alpha E$.
If $W{\sqsubseteq}V$ or $W{\bot}V$, then $\pi_W(p),\pi_W(q)$ coarsely coincide by the definition of gates. Hence $W$ is not friendly to $V$. Suppose now that $W$ is friendly to $U$. Choose $p_0\in \mathbf P_V$ so that $p={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_U}(p_0)$. Since $W$ is not friendly to $V$ and $p_0,p\in \mathbf P_V$, the $W$–coordinates of $p_0,q$ both coarsely coincide with $\rho^V_W$. Hence, since $W$ is friendly to $U$, the $W$–coordinate of $p$ also coarsely coincides with $\rho^V_W$, contradicting ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(p,q)\geq10^3\alpha E$. Hence $W$ is not friendly to $U$. The final assertion follows from the fact that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(p,\rho^U_W),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(q,\rho^V_W)\leq E$.
\[lem:irrelevant\_and\_unfriendly\] Suppose that $W\in\mathfrak S$ and $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,y)\leq100\alpha$, while ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)\geq100\alpha$ for some $V\in\mathfrak S$. Suppose that $W$ is not friendly to $V$. Then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^V_W,x)\leq200\alpha E$.
First suppose $W{\pitchfork}V$. The lower bound on ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)$ implies that either ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^W_V)>E$ or ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(y,\rho^W_V)>E$. In the first case, an application of consistency yields the desired conclusion. In the second case, apply consistency and the upper bound on ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,y)$.
Next suppose $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$. If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^V_W,x)\leq200\alpha E$, then the bound on ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(x,y)$ implies that geodesics from $\pi_W(x)$ to $\pi_W(y)$ would remain $E$–far from $\rho^V_W$. But then consistency and bounded geodesic image would imply that $\pi_V(x),\pi_V(y)$ lie $\leq E$–close, a contradiction.
\[lem:cone\_off\_uniqueness\] For all $\kappa\geq0$, there exists $\theta=\theta(\kappa)$ such that for all $x,y\in{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ with $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\geq\theta$, there exists $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\geq\kappa$.
Let $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ and let $M=\max_{V\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)+1$. We may assume $\alpha\geq E$.
We declare $U\in\mathfrak S$ to be *relevant* if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\geq100\alpha$. Let $\mathfrak R^{max}$ be the set of relevant $T\in\mathfrak U$ not properly nested into any relevant element of $\mathfrak U$.
**Counting and ordering relevant elements:** By Lemma \[lem:passing\_up\], there exists $N=N(100\alpha+\kappa)$ so that if $V_1,\ldots,V_{N+1}\in\mathfrak R^{max}$, then there exists $T\in\mathfrak S$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_T(x,y)\geq100\alpha+\kappa$ and $V_i{\sqsubsetneq}T$ for some $i$. The latter property would ensure that $T\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$, since $\mathfrak R^{max}$ consists of maximal relevant elements of $\mathfrak U$. Now, if there is such a $T$, then we are done: we have found $T\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_T(x,y)\geq\kappa$. Hence we may assume that $|\mathfrak R^{max}|\leq N$, where $N\geq1$ depends only on $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$, the constant $\alpha$, and the desired $\kappa$.
By definition, if $U,V\in\mathfrak R^{max}$, then $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\bot}V$. Hence, let $U\preceq V$ if either $U=V$ or $U{\pitchfork}V$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y,\rho^U_V)\leq E$. As discussed in Section \[subsubsec:partial\_order\], $\preceq$ is a partial ordering on $\mathfrak R^{max}$, and $U,V$ are $\preceq$–incomparable if and only if they are orthogonal. Let $V_1,\ldots,V_k$, with $k\leq N$, be the elements of $\mathfrak R^{max}$, numbered so that $i\leq j$ if $V_i\preceq V_j$.
**A sequence to estimate $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)$:** The idea is to jump from $x$ to $P_{V_1}$, then from $P_{V_1}$ to $P_{V_2}$ and so on until we get to $y$. The most “efficient” way of jumping between product regions is described in Lemma \[lem:friendly\], which justifies the definition of the following sequence of points.[^4] Let $x_0=x,x_0'={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_1}}(x),x_k={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_k}}(x),x'_k={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_k}}(y)$ and, for $1\leq i\leq k-1$, let $x_i\in{\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_i}}(\mathbf P_{V_{i+1}})$ and $x'_i={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_{i+1}}}(x_i)$.
There exists $e\in\mathbf E_{V_{i+1}}$ and $f\in\mathbf F_{V_{i+1}}$ so that $x'_i\in\mathbf F_{V_{i+1}}\times\{e\}$ and $x_{i+1}\in\{f\}\times\mathbf E_{V_{i+1}}$. Let $z_{i+1}={\mathfrak g}_{\{f\}\times\mathbf E_{V_{i+1}}}(x'_i)$. Observe that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x'_i,z_{i+1})=1$.
**Bounding ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)$:** If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x_{i}')\geq10^3\theta E$ for some $U\in\mathfrak S$, then $V_i{\pitchfork}V_{i+1}$ by Lemma \[lem:friendly\] and [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I Lemma 2.11]. We now bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)$ for each of the possible types of $U\in\mathfrak S$.
First suppose that $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$. Then $U\not{\sqsubseteq}V_i$ and $U\not{\sqsubseteq}V_{i+1}$ since $\mathfrak U$ is closed under nesting. If $V_i{\sqsubsetneq}U$, then since $V_i$ is $100\alpha>E$–relevant for $x,y$, consistency and bounded geodesic image imply that $\rho^{V_i}_U$ lies $E$–close to any geodesic in ${{\mathcal C}}U$ from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(y)$. The same is true for $\rho^{V_{i+1}}_U$ if $V_{i+1}{\sqsubsetneq}U$. If $V_i{\pitchfork}U$, then consistency implies that $\rho^{V_i}_U$ lies $E$–close to $\pi_U(x)$ or $\pi_U(y)$, so that $\rho^{V_i}_U$ again lies $E$–close to any geodesic from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(y)$. Hence, if neither of $V_i,V_{i+1}$ is orthogonal to $U$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)\leq 2(E+\alpha)+M\leq10^3\alpha EM$. If $U{\bot}V_i$, then Lemma \[lem:friendly\] implies that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x'_i,x_i)\leq10^3\alpha E$. We conclude that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x'_i,x_i)\leq10^3\alpha EM$ whenever $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$.
Next, suppose $U\in\mathfrak U$ and $1\leq i\leq k-1$. If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)>10^3\alpha E$, then Lemma \[lem:friendly\] implies that $U$ is not friendly to $V_i$ or $V_{i+1}$. Moreover, since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\rho^{V_i}_U,\rho^{V_{i+1}}_U)\geq500\alpha E$ by the same lemma, Lemma \[lem:irrelevant\_and\_unfriendly\] implies that $U$ is relevant, so $U{\sqsubseteq}U'$ for some ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal relevant $U'\in\mathfrak U$. Now, $U{\pitchfork}V_i,V_{i+1}$ and $U{\sqsubseteq}U'$, so $U'\not\in\{V_i,V_{i+1}\}$. Similarly, we cannot have $U'{\bot}V_i,V_{i+1}$. Finally, $V_i,V_{i+1},U'$ are pairwise ${\sqsubseteq}$–incomparable, so all are in $\mathfrak R^{max}$ and are pairwise $\preceq$–comparable. Note that we can extend $\preceq$ to $\mathfrak R^{max}$ and observe that $\preceq$ is a partial order on $\{U,V_i,V_{i+1}\}$.
If $U'\preceq V_i$, then by definition ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U'}(y,\rho^{V_i}_{U'})\leq E$. Since $U'$ is relevant, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U'}(x,\rho^{V_i}_{U'})>E$, so consistency implies that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{V_i}(x,\rho^{U'}_{V_i})\leq E$. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{V_i}(\rho^{U'}_{V_i},y)\geq50E$. Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]. implies that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{V_i}(\rho^{U'}_{V_i},\rho^U_{V_i})\leq E$, so consistency implies that $U\prec V_i$. Since $U\prec V_{i+1}$, by transitivity of $\prec$, we have that $\rho^{V_{i+1}}_U$ coarsely coincides with $\pi_U(y)$. But then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U}(\rho^{V_i}_U,\rho^{V_{i+1}}_U)\leq 2E$, a contradiction. A similar argument rules out $V_{i+1}\prec U'$, whence $V_i\prec U'\prec V_{i+1}$. However, this contradicts the way we numbered the elements of $\mathfrak R^{max}$. Thus ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x_i')\leq 10^3\alpha E$, as desired.
It remains to bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_0,x'_0)$ for $U\in\mathfrak U$ (the case $i=k$ is identical to the case $i=0$). Suppose that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_0,x'_0)\geq10^3\alpha E$. The definition of the gate ensures that we cannot have $U{\sqsubseteq}V_1$ or $U{\bot}V_1$, so $U$ is not friendly to $V_1$. Moreover, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_0,\rho^{V_1}_U)\geq500\alpha E$ since $\rho^{V_1}_U$ coarsely coincides with $\pi_U(x_0')$. If $U$ is irrelevant, then Lemma \[lem:irrelevant\_and\_unfriendly\] implies that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_0,\rho^{V_1}_U)\leq200\alpha E$, a contradiction, so $U$ is relevant and $U\prec V_1$. Also, $U$ is nested in some $U'\in\mathfrak R^{max}$. Since $U{\sqsubseteq}U'$ and $U$ is not friendly to $V_1$, we have that $U,U'{\pitchfork}V_1$ and $U',V_1$ are $\prec$–comparable. Thus $V_1\prec U$. Since $\rho^U_{V_1},\rho^{U'}_{V_1}$ coarsely coincide, we have that $\rho^{U'}_{V_1}$ is far from $x_0$, so that $U'\prec V_1$, which is impossible. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_0,x'_0)\leq 10^3\alpha E$.
For any $\mu'\geq 10^3\alpha E$, we have shown that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)\leq\mu' M$ when $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)\leq\mu'$ when $U\in\mathfrak U$, for $0\leq i\leq k$.
**Bounding $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)$:** We have produced a uniform constant $\mu'$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)\leq\mu' M$ when $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_i,x'_i)\leq\mu'$ when $U\in\mathfrak U$, for $0\leq i\leq k$. Hence, by the distance formula (Theorem \[thm:distance\_formula\]) with threshold $\mu'+1$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x'_i)\leq\mu NM$ for some uniform $\mu$. Thus $\sum_{i=0}^k{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x'_i)\leq (k+1)\mu NM\leq 2\mu N^2M.$ (Recall that $N$ depends only on $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$, the set $\mathfrak U$, and the input $\kappa$.)
Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)&\leq&\sum_{i=0}^k{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x'_i)+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}[{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x'_i,z_{i+1})+\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z_{i+1},x_{i+1})]\\
&\leq& 2\mu N^2M + N+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z_{i+1},x_{i+1}).\\\end{aligned}$$
Fix $0\leq i\leq k-1$, let $\mathbf E=\mathbf E_{V_{i+1}}$ and $\mathbf F=\mathbf F_{V_{i+1}}$, for convenience. Consider the hierarchical space $(\mathbf E,\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}})$, where $\mathfrak S^{{\bot}}_{V_{i+1}}$ consists of all those $U\in\mathfrak S$ with $U{\bot}V_{i+1}$ together with some $A\in\mathfrak S$ such that $A{\sqsubsetneq}S$ and each $U$ orthogonal to $V_{i+1}$ satisfies $U{\sqsubseteq}A$. Let $\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}=\mathfrak U\cap\mathfrak S_{V_{i+1}}^{\bot}$ and consider the factored space $({\widehat{\mathbf E}}_{\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}},\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E})$, whose metric we denote $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf E}$. Observe that $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z_{i+1},x_{i+1})\leq \epsilon\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf E}(z_{i+1},x_{i+1})+\epsilon$ for some uniform $\epsilon$, since $\mathbf E\to{{\mathcal X}}$ is a uniform quasi-isometric embedding and any two points lying on a parallel copy of some $\mathbf F_U$ in $\mathbf E$ also lie on such a parallel copy in ${{\mathcal X}}$.
Now, by induction on complexity, there exists a “uniqueness function” $f:{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, independent of $i$, so that $({\widehat{\mathbf E}}_{\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}},\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E})$ has the following property: if $e,e'\in\mathbf E$, then $$\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(e,e')\leq \epsilon f\left(\max_{U\in\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(e,e')\right)+\epsilon.$$ Indeed, in the base case, either $\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}=\emptyset$, and $\mathbf E$ is uniformly bounded in ${{\mathcal X}}$ (and hence its $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$–diameter is uniformly bounded) or $\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}=\emptyset$ and $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf E}$ coarsely coincides with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ on $\mathbf E$, whence $f$ exists by uniqueness in $\mathbf E$ (with metric ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ and HS structure $\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}$).
\[claim:baby\_hierarchy\] There exists $\eta=\eta({\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}})$ such that for all $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U$ and $1\leq i\leq k-1$, there exists $x_i\in{\mathfrak g}_{P_{V_i}}(P_{V_{i+1}})$ so that $\pi_U(x_i)$ lies $\eta$–close to a geodesic from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(y)$.
Theorem \[thm:hierarchy\_paths\] provides a $D$–discrete $D$–hierarchy path $\gamma$ joining $y$ to $x$, where $D$ depends only on ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$. We may assume that $D\leq\alpha$, since $\alpha$ was chosen in advance in terms of ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ only. The proof of Proposition 5.16 of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] (which does not use hyperbolicity of the various ${{\mathcal C}}U$), provides a constant $\eta'$ so that, for each $i$, there exists a maximal subpath $\gamma_i$ of $\gamma$ lying in ${\mathcal N}_{\eta'}(\mathbf P_{V_i})$, with initial point $x'_i$. Moreover, $\pi_U(x'_i)$ uniformly coarsely coincides with $\rho^{V_i}_U$ when $V_i{\sqsubsetneq}U$ or $V_i{\pitchfork}U$. Let $y_i\in\mathbf P_{V_{i+1}}$ lie $\eta''$–close to the terminal point of $\gamma_{i+1}$. We claim that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_i}}(y_i),x'_i)$ is uniformly bounded. Indeed, by definition $\pi_U({\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_i}}(y_i))$ coarsely coincides with $\rho^{V_i}_U$, and hence with $\pi_U(x)$, when $U{\pitchfork}V_i$ or $V_i{\sqsubseteq}U$, and coincides with $\pi_U(y_i)$ when $U{\sqsubseteq}V_i$ or $U{\bot}V_i$. Our choice of $x'_i,y_i$ ensures that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x'_i,y_i)$ is uniformly bounded for such $U$, so our claim follows from the distance formula. Taking $x_i={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_i}}(y_i)$ completes the proof, since $x'_i$, and hence $x_i$, lies uniformly close to any geodesic from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(y)$ in any $\delta$–hyperbolic ${{\mathcal C}}U$, by the definition of a hierarchy path.
We now choose specific values of $x_i,x'_i,z_i$ satisfying the above defining conditions. First, as before, $x_0=x,x'_0={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_1}}(x)$, while $x_k={\mathfrak g}_{\mathbf P_{V_k}}(y)$ and $x'_k=y$. For $1\leq i\leq k-1$, let $x_i$ be a point provided by Claim \[claim:baby\_hierarchy\]. Then let $x'_i={\mathfrak g}_{P_{V_{i+1}}}(x_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq k-1$, as before, and define the points $z_i$ as above.
\[claim:gate\_bound\] There exists a function $f'{\colon}{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, independent of $i$, so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(z_{i+1},x_{i+1})\leq f'(M)$ for all $U\in\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}$.
Let $U\in\mathfrak S^{\bot}_{V_{i+1}}-\mathfrak U_{\mathbf E}$. By the definition of gates, for $1\leq i\leq k-1$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(z_{i+1},x_i)\leq\alpha$ so, since $\pi_U(x_i)$ lies $\eta$–close to a geodesic from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(y)$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(z_{i+1},\{x,y\})\leq \eta+\alpha$. Likewise, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x_{i+1},\{x,y\})\leq \eta$. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(z_{i+1},x_{i+1})\leq M+2\eta+\alpha$.
Claim \[claim:gate\_bound\] and the above discussion imply that, if $M\leq\kappa$, we have $$\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\leq 2\mu N^2\kappa + N + \epsilon Nf(f'(\kappa)) + N\epsilon,$$ which completes the proof.
${{\mathcal C}}(*)$ as a coarse intersection graph {#subsec:coarse_inter}
--------------------------------------------------
We conclude this section by highlighting a particularly interesting application of Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\], one of the tools we developed for proving the results about asymptotic dimension. [^5]
\[cor:cone\_off\_all\_F\] Given a relatively HHS ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$, the space ${\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}_{\mathfrak S - \{S\}}$ is quasi-isometric to $\pi_S({{\mathcal X}})\subseteq{{\mathcal C}}S$, where $S\in\mathfrak S$ is ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal.
By Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\], $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak S-\{S\}},\{S\})$ is a hierarchically hyperbolic space, and the claim follows from the distance formula (Theorem \[thm:distance\_formula\]).
\[rem:cone\_off\_product\_regions\] If we had constructed ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak S-\{S\}}$ by “coning off” $\mathbf P_U$ for each $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$, instead of coning off each parallel copy of each $\mathbf F_U$, then Corollary \[cor:cone\_off\_all\_F\] would continue to hold.
In many examples of interest, $\pi_S$ is coarsely surjective, so that Corollary \[cor:cone\_off\_all\_F\] yields a quasi-isometry ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak S-\{S\}}\to{{\mathcal C}}S$. Moreover, if ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ is an HHS, then (as described in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II; @DurhamHagenSisto:HHS_IV]), ${{\mathcal X}}$ admits an HHS structure obtained by replacing each ${{\mathcal C}}U$ with a hyperbolic space quasi-isometric to $\pi_U({{\mathcal X}})$, so in particular ${{\mathcal C}}S$ becomes quasi-isometric to the space obtained by coning off each parallel copy of each $\mathbf F_U, U\neq S$. If, as is the case for hierarchically hyperbolic *groups* ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal G}},\frak {S})}}$, the parallel copies of the various $\mathbf F_U$ coarsely cover ${{\mathcal X}}$, this provides a hierarchically hyperbolic structure in which ${{\mathcal C}}S$ is a coarse intersection graph of the set of $\mathbf
F_U$ with $U{\sqsubsetneq}S$ for which there is no $V$ with $U{\sqsubsetneq}V{\sqsubsetneq}S$. This is a coarse version of what happens, for example, when ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a CAT(0) cube complex with a factor system and we can take ${{\mathcal C}}S$ to be the *contact graph* of ${{\mathcal X}}$ (see [@Hagen:quasi_arb; @BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I]).
Asymptotic dimension of the ${{\mathcal C}}U$ {#sec:tight}
=============================================
In this section ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$ is a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space with the additional property that ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a *uniformly locally-finite discrete geodesic space*, i.e.,
1. there exists $r_0>0$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\geq r_0$ for all distinct $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$;\[item:discrete\_1\]
2. there is a function $p\colon [0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ so that $|B(x,r)|\leq p(r)$ for all $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$;\[item:proper\_1\]
3. there exists $r_1$ so that for all $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$, there exists $n$ and $\gamma\colon \{0,n\}\to{{\mathcal X}}$ so that $\gamma(0)=x,\gamma(n)=y$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\gamma(i),\gamma(i+1))$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\gamma(i),\gamma(i+1))\leq r_1$ for all $i$.\[item:geodesic\_1\]
If ${{\mathcal X}}$ satisfies and (but not necessarily ), then ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a *$(r_0,r_1)$–discrete geodesic space*.
The following notion is motivated by work of Bowditch; see [@Bowditch:tight Section 3].
\[defn:tight\] The $\delta$–hyperbolic space $F$ is *$(C,K)$–tight* if there exists a map $\beta\colon F^2\to 2^F$ so that:
1. for every $x,y\in F$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{Haus}([x,y],\beta(x,y))\leq C$, where $[x,y]$ is any geodesic from $x$ to $y$;\[item:beta\_close\_to\_geodesic\]
2. for every $x,y,z\in F$ with $y$ on a geodesic from $x$ to $z$, if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y,\{x,z\})\geq r+C$ for some $r\in\mathbb R^+$ then $B(y,2\delta+2C)\cap \bigcup_{x'\in B(x,r),z'\in B(z,r)} \beta(x',z')$ has cardinality at most $K$.\[item:property\_B\]
Notice that for $x,y,z,r$ as in \[item:property\_B\], if $x'\in B(x,r),z'\in B(z,r)$ then $\beta(x',z')$ intersects $B(y,2\delta+2C)$ by $\delta$–hyperbolicity and part \[item:beta\_close\_to\_geodesic\] of Definition \[defn:tight\].
Let $\xi$ denote the complexity of $\mathfrak S$, i.e., the length of a longest ${\sqsubseteq}$–chain. By Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]., $\xi<\infty$. The aim of this section is to prove:
\[thm:tight\_geodesics\] Let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be a $\delta$–relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space, where ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a uniformly locally-finite discrete geodesic space. Suppose moreover that $\pi_U:{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ is uniformly coarsely surjective, where $U$ varies over all elements of $\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space. Then there exist $C,K\geq 0$ so that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $(C,K)$–tight for every $U\in\mathfrak S$ for which ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic.
Throughout this proof we use the identification of ${{\mathcal C}}S$ with the coned-off space ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}$, as established in Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\]. Our assumption on coarse surjectivity of the projections $\pi_U$ implies that, for each $U\in\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space, we may (by an initial change in the constants from Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]), assume that $\pi_U$ is actually surjective.
Fix a constant $D$, as provided by Theorem \[thm:hierarchy\_paths\], so that every pair of points of ${{\mathcal X}}$ can be joined by a $D$–hierarchy path. For $S$ the ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal element of $\mathfrak S$, we will show that ${{\mathcal C}}S$ is $(C,K)$–tight, where $C,K$ depend only on $D,E$, the complexity $\xi$ of $\mathfrak S$, and the function $p$ which quantifies the local-finiteness. To see that this suffices, recall that for each $U\in\mathfrak S$, there is a hierarchically quasiconvex subspace $\mathbf F_U$ with a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic structure $(\mathbf F_U,\mathfrak S_U)$ in which $U$ is ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal.
For $M\geq 0$ and $x,y\in {{\mathcal X}}$, define $$\beta_M(x,y)=\{z\in{{\mathcal X}}: \hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z,[x,y])\leq M, {\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(z,\{x,y\})\leq M\ \forall U\in\mathfrak S- \{S\}\}.$$
For sufficiently large $M$, the map $\beta_M\colon ({{\mathcal C}}S)^2\to 2^{{{\mathcal C}}S}$ satisfies property , by the definition and Claim \[claim:geodesic\_close\_to\_beta\] below.
\[claim:geodesic\_close\_to\_beta\] For each sufficiently large $M$ there exists $K_1$ so that for each $x,y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ and $z\in[x,y]$ we have $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z,\beta_M(x,y))\leq K_1$.
We distinguish two cases. First, suppose that there exists $U\in{\mathbf{Rel}}(x,y,10E)$ for which $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\rho^U_S,z)\leq 10DE$, and take a ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal $U$ with such property. Then consider $z'={\mathfrak g}_{P_U}(x)$. Clearly, $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z,z')$ is uniformly bounded, and we now show $z'\in\beta_M(x,y)$, provided that $M$ is large enough. In order to do so, we uniformly bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\{x,y\},z)$ for each $V\in\mathfrak S- \{S\}$. If $V$ is either nested into $U$ or orthogonal to $U$, then we are done by the definition of gate. Otherwise, $\pi_V(z')$ coarsely coincides with $\rho^U_V$, so we have to show that either $\pi_V(x)$ or $\pi_V(y)$ coarsely coincides with $\rho^U_V$. Suppose by contradiction that this is not the case. If $U{\pitchfork}V$, then consistency implies that $\pi_U(x),\pi_U(y)$ both coarsely coincide with $\rho^V_U$, so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\leq 3E$ contradicting the choice of $U$. If $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$, then any geodesic from $\pi_V(x)$ to $\pi_V(y)$ stays far from $\rho^U_V$ since, by maximality of $U$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)<10E$. In particular, by bounded geodesic image and consistency we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)<10E$, a contradiction.
[tight\_claim\_1\_case\_2.pdf]{} (50,19)[$\downarrow$]{} (78,26)[${{\mathcal X}}$]{} (6,25)[${{\mathcal C}}U_1$]{} (90,25)[${{\mathcal C}}U_2$]{} (46,0)[${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}\cong {{\mathcal C}}S$]{} (52,19)[$\pi_S$]{} (26,27)[$x$]{} (50,24)[$z'$]{} (73,27)[$y$]{} (60,25)[$\gamma$]{} (73,10)[$y$]{} (26,10)[$x$]{} (50,8)[$z$]{} (46,12)[$z'$]{} (52,12.5)[$\rho^{U_1}_S$]{} (63,7)[$\rho^{U_2}_S$]{} (1,10)[$\pi_{U_1}(x)$]{} (12,10)[$\pi_{U_1}(y)$]{} (5,18)[$\pi_{U_1}(z')$]{} (84,5)[$\pi_{U_2}(x)$]{} (90,9)[$\pi_{U_2}(y)$]{} (86,17)[$\pi_{U_2}(z')$]{}
Suppose now that there does not exist any $U\in{\mathbf{Rel}}(x,y,10E)$ so that $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\rho^U_S,z)\leq 10DE$. Consider a hierarchy path $\gamma$ from $x$ to $y$. Since $\pi_S$ is coarsely Lipschitz, there exists $z'\in\gamma$ so that $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(z,z')\leq 5DE$. We claim $z'\in\beta_M(x,y)$ for sufficiently large $M$. In fact, for any $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$ (notice that if such $U$ exists then $\hat {{{\mathcal X}}}$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic) either $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\rho^U_S,z')\leq 5E$, so $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(\rho^U_S,z)\leq 5DE+5E\leq 10DE$, in which case $U$ is irrelevant and we are done by hypothesis, or $\rho^U_S$ lies $5E$–far from a geodesic from $\pi_S(z')$ to one of $\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)$. In this case, we can apply bounded geodesic image to conclude. See Figure \[fig:tight\_claim\_1\_case\_2\].
We now prove Property \[item:property\_B\]. Let $x,y,z\in {{\mathcal X}}$ with $y$ on a (discrete) $\hat d$–geodesic from $x$ to $z$, and suppose $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y,\{x,z\})\geq r+K_1$ for some $r\geq K_1+2\delta+100E$. Let $$T=B^{{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}}(y,2\delta+2K_1)\cap \left(\bigcup_{x'\in B^{\hat{{{\mathcal X}}}}(x,r),z'\in B^{\hat{{{\mathcal X}}}}(z,r)} \beta_M(x',z')\right).$$
Moreover, let $\mathcal U=\mathcal U(x,y,z)$ be the set of all $U\in\mathfrak S$ satisfying the following conditions:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,z)\geq 10M+10^3E$,
- $U\neq S$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_S(\rho^U_S,y)\leq 2\delta+2K_1+50E$,
- whenever $V\in\mathfrak S$ satisfies ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,z)\geq 10M+10^3E$ and $U{\sqsubsetneq}V {\sqsubsetneq}S$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^U_V,\{x,z\})\leq 100E+10M$.
We will see in what follows that for $y'\in T$ it is sufficient to have information about $\pi_U(y')$ for $U\in\mathcal U$ to coarsely reconstruct all $\pi_V(y')$. Moreover, we will bound the cardinality of $\mathcal U$.
For $y'\in T$, denote $\mathcal U(y')=\{U\in\mathcal U: {\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y')\leq M+10E\}$, and let $\mathcal B$ be the set of all subsets of $\mathfrak S$ of the form $\mathcal U(y'),y'\in T$.
\[claim:bound\_U\_i\] There is $K_3=K_3(E,K_1,M)$ with $|\{y'\in T:\mathcal U(y')=\mathcal U_i\}|\leq p(K_3)$ for all $\mathcal U_i\in\mathcal B$.
Fix $y',y''\in T$ with $\mathcal U(y')=\mathcal U(y'')$. We bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y',y'')$ by bounding ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')$ for all $U\in \mathfrak S$.
Let $U\in\mathfrak S$. If $U\in\mathcal U$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')\leq 2M+10E$ since $U(y')=U(y'')$ (and the fact that each of $\pi_U(y'),\pi_U(y'')$ coarsely coincides with either $\pi_U(x)$ or $\pi_U(z)$ in ${{\mathcal C}}U$). We now analyze the other cases, but for technical reasons we change the constants from the definition of $\mathcal U$.
If $U=S$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')\leq 4\delta+4K_1$. Assume $U\neq S$ from now on.
If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,z)< 10M+150E$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')\leq 20M+200E$.
If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_S(\rho^U_S,y)> 2\delta+2K_1+10E$, then no geodesic from $y'$ to $y''$ in ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}$ passes $E$–close to $\rho^U_S$, so consistency and bounded geodesic image again yield ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')\leq 10E$.
Finally, suppose that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,z)\geq 10M+150E$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_S(\rho^U_S,y)\leq 2\delta+2K_1+10E$, but that there exists $V\in\mathfrak S$ satisfying ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,z)\geq 10M+10^3E$, $U{\sqsubsetneq}V {\sqsubsetneq}S$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^U_V,\{x,z\})> 50E+10M$. Consider a ${\sqsubseteq}$-maximal $V$ with this property. We claim that $V\in\mathcal U$. In fact, $\rho^V_S$ coarsely coincides with $\rho^U_S$, yielding the second condition in the definition of $\mathcal U$. Moreover, for any $W\in\mathfrak S$ with $V{\sqsubsetneq}W{\sqsubsetneq}S$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^V_W,\{x,z\})\leq 100E+10M$, for otherwise $V$ would not be maximal (we are once again using that $\rho^V_W$ coarsely coincides with $\rho^U_W$).
Now, since $\mathcal U(y')=\mathcal U(y'')$ we have that $\pi_V(y'),\pi_V(y'')$ are both close to one of $\pi_V(x),\pi_V(z)$. Hence, $\pi_U(y')$ must $10E$–coarsely coincide with $\pi_U(y'')$ because geodesics in ${{\mathcal C}}V$ from $\pi_V(y')$ to $\pi_V(y'')$ stay $E$–far from $\rho^U_V$.
We conclude that for all $U\in\mathfrak S$, we have, say, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y',y'')\leq 500ME\delta K_1$, so the distance formula (Theorem \[thm:distance\_formula\]) provides a uniform $K_3=K_3(M,E,K_1)$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal X}}}(y',y'')\leq K_3$, and the claim follows from the definition of $p$.
\[claim:tight\_claim\_2\] There exists $K_4=K_4(E,M)$ so that $|\mathcal B|\leq 2^{K_4^\xi}$.
By definition, if $U\in\mathcal U$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_S(\rho^U_S,y)\leq 2\delta+2K_1+50E$. Choose $a,b\in{{\mathcal X}}$ such that $a$ is $E$–close to a ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}$–geodesic from $y$ to $z$ and satisfies $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y,a)\in[2\delta+2K_1+60E,2\delta+2K_1+80E]$, while $b$ is $E$–close to a ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}$–geodesic from $x$ to $y$ and satisfies $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y,b)\in[2\delta+2K_1+60E,2\delta+2K_1+80E]$. Then $\rho^U_S$ does not lie $E$–close to a geodesic from $a$ to $z$ or from $x$ to $b$, so consistency and bounded geodesic image yield ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,z)\leq E$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,b)\leq E$. Thus ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(b,a)\geq10M+98E\geq E$, so Lemma \[lem:passing\_up\] yields $K_5=K_5(M,E)$ so that there are at most $K_5$ such $U$ that are ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal.
Fix $U\in\mathcal U-\{S\}$ to be ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal and consider all $V\in\mathfrak S$ such that $V{\sqsubsetneq}U$ and such that the following conditions are satisfied:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,z)\geq 10M+10^3E$,
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_S(\rho^V_S,y)\leq 2\delta+2K_1+50E$,
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\rho^V_U,x)\leq 100E+10M$.
(Note that any $V\in\mathcal U$ nested into $U$ satisfies either these conditions or the same conditions with $z$ replacing $x$ in the third one.) By partial realization and the first and third conditions above, there exists $a_U\in{{\mathcal X}}$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a_U,x)\leq 10M+200E$ and $\rho^U_V$ fails to come $E$–close to every geodesic from $\pi_U(x)$ to $\pi_U(a_U)$ for all $V$ as above. Hence, for each $V$ as above, bounded geodesic image and consistency imply that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a_U,x)\leq 10M+200E$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(a_U,x)\geq10M+9E$. Let $\mathcal V_0$ be the set of all ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal $V{\sqsubsetneq}U$ contained in $\mathcal U$. By Lemma \[lem:passing\_up\] and maximality, there exists $K_6=K_6(10M+200E)$ so that $|\mathcal V_0|\leq K_6$.
For each $V\in\mathcal V_0\cap\mathcal U$, choose $a_V$ as above, so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(a_V,x)\leq 10M+200E$ and, any element $W$ of $\mathcal U$ properly nested into $V$ and satisfying ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^W_V,x)\leq 100E+10M$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(a_V,x)\geq10M+9E$. Then, exactly as above, we find that there are at most $K_6$ such $W$ that are ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal and properly nested in $V$. Proceeding inductively, we see that there are at most $K_6^{\xi-1}$ elements $T$ of $\mathcal U$ satisfying ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\rho^T_U,x)\leq 100E+10M$ and properly nested into $U$, while an identical discussion bounds the set of $T\in\mathcal U$ properly nested in $U$ and satisfying ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(\rho^T_U,z)\leq 100E+10M$. Hence $|\mathcal U|\leq 2K_5K_6^{\xi-1}$, so, letting $K_4=\max\{2K_5,K_6\}$, we get $|\mathcal B|\leq 2^{K_4^\xi}$.
Claim \[claim:bound\_U\_i\] and Claim \[claim:tight\_claim\_2\] together imply that $|T|\leq p(K_3)\cdot 2^{K_4^\xi}$ for uniform $K_4$, so ${{\mathcal C}}S$ is $(K_1,p(K_3)\cdot 2^{K_4^\xi})$–tight.
\[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\] Let ${{\mathcal X}}$ be a uniformly locally-finite discrete geodesic space and let $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ be $\delta$–relatively hierarchically hyperbolic. Suppose moreover that $\pi_U:{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ is uniformly coarsely surjective, where $U$ varies over all elements of $\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space. Then there exist $\lambda,\mu=\lambda(\delta,D,E,p),\mu(\delta,D,E,p)$, independent of $\xi$, so that $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal C}}U\leq\lambda\cdot 2^{\mu^\xi}$ uniformly, whenever $U\in\mathfrak S$ has the property that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic.
By Theorem \[thm:tight\_geodesics\], there exist $C,\lambda',\mu$ so that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $(C,\lambda'\cdot 2^{\mu^\xi})$–tight for each $U\in\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space. We now argue roughly as in the proof of [@BellFujiwara:asdim_curve_graph Theorem 1].
Fix $r\in{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}},x_0\in{{\mathcal C}}U,$ and $\ell\in{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}$ with $\ell\geq10\delta+C$. For each $n\geq1$, let $$A_n=\{x\in{{\mathcal C}}U:10(n-1)(r+\ell)\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,x_0)\leq10n(r+\ell)\},$$ so that $\cup_nA_n={{\mathcal C}}U$. Let $S_n=\{x\in{{\mathcal C}}U:{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,x_0)=10n(r+\ell)\}$. Given $n\geq 3$, define subsets $B^i_n\subset A_n$ as follows: and for each $s_i\in S_{n-2}$ and $x\in A_n$, set $x\in B^i_n$ if and only if there exists $\beta(x,x_0)$ lying at Hausdorff distance $C$ from a geodesic joining $x_0$ to $x$ that passes through $s_i$. For $n\in\{1,2\}$, define $B_n^1=A_n$. Then the sets $\{B_n^i\}$ cover ${{\mathcal C}}U$. Observe that $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}B^i_n\leq100C(r+\ell)$ for each $n,i$.
Hence $\{B^i_n\}$ is a uniformly bounded cover of ${{\mathcal C}}U$. We now check that its $\frac{r}{2}$–multiplicity is at most $2\lambda'\cdot 2^{\mu^\xi}$, from which the claim follows. Our claim is a consequence of the following statement: for $n\geq1$, there are $\leq\lambda'\cdot 2^{\mu^\xi}$ elements of $\{B_n^i\}$ intersecting any $\frac{r}{2}$–ball $\mathcal B$ in ${{\mathcal C}}U$.
Indeed, the claim is clear when $n\leq 2$, so assume $n\geq3$. Choose distinct $B_n^i,B_n^j$ intersecting $\mathcal B$, with the intersections respectively containing points $y_i,y_j$. Hence we have geodesics $[x_0,y_i],[x_0,y_j]$, respectively joining $x_0$ to $y_i,y_j$ and passing through $s_i,s_j$, and paths $\beta_i=\beta(x_0,y_i)$ and $\beta_j=\beta(x_0,y_j)$ at Hausdorff distance $\leq C$ from $[x_0,y_i],[x_0,y_j]$. Choose $s_i'\in\beta_i,s_j'\in\beta_j$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_i,s_i'),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_j,s'_j)\leq C$. Since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(y_i,y_j)\leq r$, because $y_i,y_j\in\mathcal B$, we see that $s'_i,s'_j$ both lie in $\bigcup_{x'\in B(x_0,r),z'\in
B(y_i,r)}\beta(x',z')$.
Now, $s_i$ lies on a geodesic from $x_0$ to $y_i$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_i,\{x_0,y_i\})\geq r+C$ by definition. Hyperbolicity and the definition of $S_{n-2}$ imply that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_i,s_j)\leq 2\delta$, whence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_j',si),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(s_i',s_i)\leq 2\delta+2C$, i.e., $s_i',s_j'\in B(s_i,\delta+2C)\cap\bigcup_{x'\in B(x_0,r),z'\in
B(y_i,r)}\beta(x',z')$. This intersection is bounded by Property of tightness, thus completing the proof.
Asymptotic dimension of ball-preimages under $\psi{\colon}{{\mathcal X}}\to{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}$ {#sec:ball_preimage}
========================================================================================================
Fix a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space ${\ensuremath{({{\mathcal X}},\frak {S})}}$. Let $\mathcal O$ be the set of totally orthogonal subsets of $\mathfrak
U_{1}\subseteq\mathfrak S$. We set $\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ to be the minimal uniform asymptotic dimension of the collection $\{\Pi_{V\in\mathfrak V} \mathbf F_{V}: \mathfrak
V\in\mathcal O\}$. Our goal is to prove:
\[prop:build\_A\] For every $R\geq 0$, there exists a hierarchical quasiconvexity function $k$ and a control function $f$, so that for every $x_{0}\in{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}$ there exists $A\subset {{\mathcal X}}$ satisfying:
- $A$ is $k$–hierarchically quasiconvex in ${{\mathcal X}}$,
- $A\supseteq \psi{^{-1}}(B(x_{0},R))$,
- $\operatorname{asdim}A\leq \operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f$.
For convenience, fix $x_0\in{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}$ and stipulate that all constants, hierarchical quasiconvexity functions, and control functions below are chosen independently of $x_0$. Fix $D$ large enough that any pair of points in ${{\mathcal X}}$ are joined by a $(D,D)$–quasigeodesic.
Set $A_0=\{x_0\}$. We will inductively construct $A_n,k_n,f_n$ so that
1. $A_n\subseteq {{\mathcal X}}$ is $k_n$–hierarchically quasiconvex,\[item:hqc\]
2. $\operatorname{asdim}A_n\leq \operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f_n$,\[item:asdim\_bound\]
3. for each $n\geq 1$, the set $A_n$ contains ${\mathcal N}_{10D}(A_{n-1})$,\[item:contains\_nhood\]
4. for each $n\geq 1$ and $U\in\mathfrak U_{1}$, the set $A_n$ contains each parallel copy of $\mathbf F_U$ which intersects $A_{n-1}$.\[item:parallel\_copies\]
Assuming for the moment that we can construct such $A_n$, then the proposition follows. Indeed, given $R\geq1$, we now show that the set $A_n$ contains $\psi{^{-1}}(B(x_{0},R))$ for $n\geq 10D^2R$. Let $x\in
\psi{^{-1}}(B(x_{0},R))$, whence, by definition of ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}'$, there exists a sequence $x_0,\dots,x_k=x$ for which $\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(x_i,x_{i+1})\leq
2R$. Using that ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a quasigeodesic space, we can suitably interpolate between consecutive points in the sequence and find another sequence $x_0=y_0,\dots,y_{k'}=x$ so that $\sum_{i=1}^{k'-1}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}'(y_i,y_{i+1})\leq 10D^2R$ and for each $i$ either $y_i,y_{i+1}$ lie in a common $\mathbf F_U$ for $U\in\mathfrak U_1$ or ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(y_i,y_{i+1})\leq 10D$. It is readily shown inductively that $y_i$ lies in $A_i$ for each $i$, so that in particular $x\in A_n$, as required.
Fix $n\geq 1$ and assume we have constructed $A_{n-1}$ with the desired properties; we now construct $A_{n}$. Let $A'_{n-1}$ be the $10D$–neighborhood of $A_{n-1}$. Note that, for suitable $k'_{n-1},f'_{n-1}$ depending on $k_{n-1},f_{n-1}$, and $D$, the space $A'_{n-1}$ is $k'_{n-1}$–hierarchically quasiconvex and has asymptotic dimension at most $\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f'_{n-1}$.
Let $M$ be a constant to be chosen later. We say $U\in\mathfrak U_1$ is *admissible* if whenever $V\in\mathfrak
S$ satisfies either $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$ we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^U_V, A_{n-1})\leq M$. The totally orthogonal collection $\mathcal U\subseteq \mathfrak U_1$ is admissible if each $U\in\mathcal U$ is admissible. For an admissible collection $\mathcal U$ we define $B_{\mathcal U}\subseteq
{{\mathcal X}}$ to be the set of all $x\in {{\mathcal X}}$ so that
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x, A'_{n-1})\leq M$ for each $V\perp\mathcal U$;
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^{U}_V)\leq M$ whenever $V\in\mathfrak S$ and $U\in\mathcal U$ satisfy $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$.
(Roughly, $\mathcal B_{\mathcal U}$ is the set of partial realization points for $\mathcal U$ whose projections lie close to $A_{n-1}'$ except possibly in ${{\mathcal C}}U$ for $U\in\mathcal U$.)
Since $A_{n-1}$ is hierarchically quasiconvex, $\mathcal B_{\emptyset}$ coarsely coincides with $A_{n-1}$. Let $A_n=A'_{n-1}\cup \bigcup_{\mathcal U} B_{\mathcal U}$, where the union is taken over all admissible collections $\mathcal U$. The desired properties of $A_n$, for suitable $k_n,f_n$, will be checked in the following claims.
\[claim:parallel\_copies\] If $U\in\mathfrak U_1$ has the property that $\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}$ intersects $A_{n-1}$ for some $e\in \mathbf E_U$, then $\mathbf F_U\times\{e\}\subseteq A_n$.
For $U$ as in the statement and $M$ large enough, $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_V(\rho^U_V\cup\pi_V(\mathbf F_U))\leq M$ whenever $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$, by the definition of $\mathbf
F_U$. Hence, since $\pi_V$ is coarsely Lipschitz and $\pi_V(\mathbf F_U)$ intersects $\pi_V(A_{n-1})$, we also have that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^U_V,A_{n-1})\leq M$. Thus $U$ is admissible. Any point $x$ in a parallel copy of $\mathbf F_U$ which intersects $A_{n-1}$ is readily seen to be in $\mathcal B_{\{U\}}\subseteq A_n$, as required.
\[claim:image\_proj\] For each admissible $U\in\mathfrak U_1$, the projections $\pi_U({{\mathcal X}})$ and $\pi_U(A_{n})$ coarsely coincide.
Suppose that $U$ is admissible and let $p\in \pi_U({{\mathcal X}})$. Fix $y\in A_{n-1}$ and define the tuple ${\vec{b}}$ in the following way. Let $b_V=\pi_V(y)$ if $V\perp U$, $b_V=\rho^U_V$ if $V\in\mathfrak S$ satisfies $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$, and $b_U=p$. It is easy to check that ${\vec{b}}$ is consistent, using the definitions and Proposition \[prop:rho\_consistency\]. Hence, for $M$ large enough, realization (Theorem \[thm:realization\]) provides us with a point $x\in{{\mathcal X}}$ which, by the definition of ${\vec{b}}$, is contained in $\mathcal B_{\{U\}}$ and has ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,p)\leq M$. This completes the proof of the claim.
\[claim:hqc\] $A_n$ is $k_n$-hierarchically quasiconvex.
Claim \[claim:image\_proj\] provides a constant $C$ so that $\pi_U({{\mathcal X}})$ and $\pi_U(A_{n})$ $C$–coarsely coincide. Also, $\pi_U(A_{n})$ $C$–coarsely coincides with $\pi_U(A'_{n-1})$ when $U$ is not admissible. This verifies the part of the definition of hierarchical quasiconvexity governing projections; it remains to check the part governing realization points.
Consider $x\in {{\mathcal X}}$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_n)\leq t$ for each $V\in\mathfrak S$ and some $t\geq0$. Let $\mathcal U$ be the collection of all $U\in\mathfrak U_1$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,A_{n-1})\geq 10ME$. Note that each $U\in\mathcal U$ is admissible. We now show that $\mathcal U$ is totally orthogonal, thereby showing that $\mathcal U$ is admissible.
Since each $U\in\mathcal U$ is ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal, distinct elements of $\mathcal U$ are ${\sqsubseteq}$–incomparable. Hence we only have to rule out the existence of $U_1,U_2\in\mathcal U$ so that $U_1{\pitchfork}U_2$. If such $U_i$ existed then, up to switching $U_1,U_2$, we would have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U_2}(x,\rho^{U_1}_{U_2})\leq E$ by consistency and hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U_2}(\rho^{U_1}_{U_2},A_{n-1})\geq 10ME-2E>M$, contradicting the admissibility of $U_1$.
Let us now define the tuple ${\vec{b}}$ in the following way. For each $V\in\mathfrak S$, let $\pi_{V,A_{n-1}}$ be a coarse closest point projection ${{\mathcal C}}V\to \pi_V(A_{n-1})$. Since $A_{n-1}$ is hierarchically quasiconvex, this map is defined in the usual way when ${{\mathcal C}}V$ is hyperbolic, and is either coarsely constant or coarsely the identity otherwise. We set $b_V=\pi_{V,A_{n-1}}(\pi_V(x))$ if $V\perp \mathcal U$. Also, we require ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(b_V,\rho^U_V)\leq 10E$ if $V\in\mathfrak S$ satisfies $U{\pitchfork}V$ or $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$. Finally, we set $b_U=\pi_U(x)$ whenever $U\in\mathcal U$. It is easy to check that ${\vec{b}}$ is consistent, allowing us to invoke realization (Theorem \[thm:realization\]) to get a point $x'\in {{\mathcal X}}$. In fact, we have $x'\in B_{\mathcal U}\subseteq A_n$.
We now bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,x')$. In order to do so, by the uniqueness axiom, we can instead uniformly bound ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,b_V)$ for each $V\in\mathfrak S$. We consider the following cases.
- If $V\in\mathcal U$, then $b_V=\pi_V(x)$, as required.
- If $V\perp\mathcal U$ then $\pi_V(x)$ is within distance $t+10EMD$ of $A_{n-1}$, and thus within distance $t+10EMD$ of $b_V=\pi_{V,A_{n-1}}(\pi_V(x))$.
- Suppose that there exists $U\in\mathcal U$ with $U{\pitchfork}V$. If, by contradiction, we had ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^U_V)\geq 100ME$, then by consistency we would have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,\rho^V_U)\leq E$. Since by definition of $\mathcal U$ we have that $\pi_U(x)$ is far from $\pi_U(A_{n-1})$, we then get ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(A_{n-1},\rho^V_U)> E$. By consistency applied to any $y\in A_{n-1}$, we get $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_V(\pi_V(A_{n-1})\cup \rho^U_V)\leq 2E$. In particular, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1})\geq 10ME$, i.e., $V\in\mathcal U$, a contradiction.
- Suppose that there exists $U\in\mathcal U$ with $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$. If, by contradiction, we had ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^U_V)\geq 100ME$, then any geodesic from $\pi_V(x)$ to $\pi_{V,A_{n-1}}(x)$ stays $E$–far from $\rho^U_V$ since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1})\leq 10ME$. Let $y\in A_{n-1}$ be any point so that $\pi_V(y)=\pi_{V,A_{n-1}}(x)$. By bounded geodesic image and consistency (for $x$ and $y$) we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,A_{n-1})\leq {\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,y)\leq 10E$, contradicting $U\in\mathcal U$.
This completes the proof of the claim.
\[claim:asdim\_bound\] $A_n$ has asymptotic dimension $\leq \operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f_n$.
For $i\geq 0$, we define $A^{(i)}_n=A'_{n-1}\cup\bigcup_{\mathcal U} B_{\mathcal U}$, where the union is taken over all admissible collections $\mathcal U$ of cardinality at most $i$. Observe that there exists $I$, depending only on the complexity of $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$, so that $A_n^{(i)}=A_n$ for all $i\geq I$. Hence it suffices to show, by induction on $i$, that for each $i\geq0$, we have that $\operatorname{asdim}A_n^{(i)}\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$, with some control function $f_n^{(i)}$.
When $i=0$, we have $A_n^{(0)}=A_{n-1}'$, which we saw above has asymptotic dimension $\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f_n^{(0)}=f_{n-1}'$. Suppose for some $i\geq0$ that we have $\operatorname{asdim}A_n^{(i)}\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ with control function $f_n^{(i)}$.
Write $A_n^{(i+1)}=A_n^{(i)}\cup\bigcup_{\mathcal U}B_{\mathcal U}$, where $\mathcal U$ varies over all admissible totally orthogonal subsets in $\frak U_1$ with $|\mathcal U|\leq i+1$. Note that $\operatorname{asdim}B_{\mathcal U}\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ uniformly, since $B_{\mathcal U}$ is (uniformly) coarsely contained in $\prod_{U\in\mathcal U}\mathbf
F_U$. By our induction hypothesis, for each $r\geq0$, we have that ${\mathcal N}_r(A_n^{(i)})$ has asymptotic dimension $\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$. Below, we will establish the following: there exists $K$ independent of $r$ so that for all $r\geq 0$, and all admissible sets $\mathcal U\neq\mathcal U'$ of cardinality at most $i$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(B_{\mathcal U}-Y_r,B_{\mathcal U'}-Y_r)\geq r$, where $Y_r={\mathcal N}_{Kr+K}(A_n^{(i)})$. Given this, the Union Theorem [@BellDranishnikov:asymptotic_groups Theorem 1] proves the claim, where the control function is $f_n=f_n^{I}$.
In other words, it suffices to prove that there exists $K\geq0$ such that, if $\mathcal U,\mathcal U'\subseteq\frak U_1$ are admissible totally orthogonal subsets of cardinality at most $i$, then $${\mathcal N}_r(B_{\mathcal U})\cap {\mathcal N}_r(B_{\mathcal U'})\subseteq {\mathcal N}_{Kr+K}(A_{n-1}')\cup {\mathcal N}_{Kr+K}(B_{\mathcal U\cap\mathcal U'}).$$ Let $x\in {\mathcal N}_r(B_{\mathcal U})\cap {\mathcal N}_r(B_{\mathcal U'})$.
Let $V\in\mathfrak S$. If $V{\pitchfork}U$ or $U{\sqsubseteq}V$ for some $U\in\mathcal U\cup\mathcal U'$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^U_V)\leq \lambda r+\mu$, where $\lambda,\mu$ depend only on $M$ and the coarse Lipschitz constants for $\pi_V$ (which are independent of $V$). Since each $U\in\mathcal U\cup\mathcal U'$ is admissible, we then have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(\rho^U_V,A_{n-1}')\leq M$, so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1}')\leq\lambda r+\mu+M$. If $V{\bot}U$ for all $U\in\mathcal U$ or $V{\bot}U$ for all $U\in\mathcal U'$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1}')\leq \lambda r+\mu+M$ by admissibility.
Suppose that $V$ is $10(\lambda r+\mu_M)$–*relevant* for $x,{\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x)$, i.e., ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,{\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x))\geq 10(\lambda r+\mu_M)$. If $V\not\in\mathcal U$ (respectively, $\mathcal U'$), then the preceding discussion shows that for all $U\in\mathcal U\cup\mathcal U'$, we have $V\not{\pitchfork}U$ and $U\not{\sqsubseteq}V$. On the other hand, there must exist $U\in\mathcal U\cup\mathcal U'$ with $U\not{\bot}V$, whence $V{\sqsubsetneq}U$, which is impossible since $\mathcal U\cup\mathcal U'\subseteq\frak U_1$. Hence any such relevant $V$ lies in $\mathcal U\cap\mathcal U'$.
Let $K'=\max\{\lambda,\mu+M\}$ and let $\mathcal U\cap\mathcal U'=\{U_j\}$. We have established that:
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1}')\leq K'r+K'$ for all $V$ for which there exists $j$ with $V{\pitchfork}U_j$ or $U_j{\sqsubseteq}V$, and indeed ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,\rho^{U_j}_V)\leq K'r+K'$;
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,A_{n-1}')\leq K'r+K'$ for all $V$ such that $V{\bot}U_j$ for all $j$;
Define a tuple ${\vec{t}}\in\prod_{V\in\mathfrak S}2^{{{\mathcal C}}V}$ by $t_{U_i}=\pi_{U_i}(x)$ for all $i$, and so that $t_V=\rho^{U_i}_V$ if there exists $i$ with $U_i{\pitchfork}V$ or $U_i{\sqsubsetneq}V$ (for some arbitrarily-chosen $i$ with that property if there are many – the $\rho^{U_i}_V$ all $10E$–coarsely coincide, as can be seen by considering $\pi_V(\prod_i\mathbf F_{U_i})$), and $t_V=\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x))$ otherwise.
We claim that ${\vec{t}}$ is $100E$–consistent. Indeed, let $V,W\in\mathfrak S$ with $V{\pitchfork}W$ or $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$ or $W{\sqsubsetneq}V$. If $t_V=\pi_V({\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x))$ and $t_W=\pi_W({\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x))$, then we are done by the consistency axiom. If $V=U_i$ for some $i$, then $t_W$ $10E$–coarsely coincides with $\rho^{U_i}_W=\rho^V_W$ as required. If $t_W=\pi_W({\mathfrak g}_{A'_{n-1}}(x))=\pi_W(g)$ and $V{\pitchfork}U_i$ or $U_i{\sqsubsetneq}V$ for some $U_i$, then $t_V=\rho^{U_i}_V$. For each $j$, either $W{\bot}U_j$ or $W{\sqsubseteq}U_j$, by definition. The latter is impossible since $U_j\in\mathfrak U_1$, and hence $W{\bot}U_i$. If $V{\pitchfork}W$ or $W{\sqsubsetneq}V$, it follows that $\rho^{U_i}_V$ is $10E$–coincident with $\rho^W_V$. If $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$, then $V{\bot}U_i$, a contradiction. Finally consider the case where there exist $i,j$ so that $t_V=\rho^{U_i}_V$ and $t_W=\rho^{U_j}_W$. If $V{\sqsubsetneq}W$, then $W\not{\bot}U_i$, so we can take $U_j=U_i$. Then the claim follows by $\rho$–consistency (Proposition \[prop:rho\_consistency\]). If $V{\pitchfork}W$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^{U_j},\rho^V_W)>100E$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(z,\rho^V_W)$ for all $z\in P_{U_j}$, whence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(z,\rho^W_V)\leq E$ by consistency. But $\pi_V(z)$ $10E$–coarsely coincides with $\rho^{U_i}_V$ since $U_i{\bot}U_j$.
Hence, by realization (Theorem \[thm:realization\]), there exists $y\in{{\mathcal X}}$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(y,t_V)\leq\theta$ for all $V$. If $M\geq\theta$, then $y\in B_{\{U_i\}}$. The distance formula (with fixed threshold $\theta$, independent of $r$) thus provides $K$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,B_{\{U_i\}})\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(x,y)\leq Kr+K$, since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(x,y)\leq K'r+K'+\theta$ for each $V$ that is irrelevant for $x,{\mathfrak g}_{A_{n-1}'}(x)$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U_i}(x,y)\leq\theta$ for each $i$.
Assertion follows from Claim \[claim:parallel\_copies\], assertion follows from Claim \[claim:hqc\], and assertion follows from Claim \[claim:asdim\_bound\]. Assertion holds by definition. This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thmi:asdim\] and Corollaries \[cori:MCG\] and \[cori:teich\] {#sec:main_asdim_theorem}
===============================================================================
In this section, we fix a uniformly locally-finite discrete geodesic space ${{\mathcal X}}$ admitting a $\delta$–relatively hierarchically hyperbolic structure $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ of complexity $\xi$. Let $\mathfrak U_1$ be the set of ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal elements, so that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic for each $U\in\mathfrak
S-\mathfrak U_1$. Let $\mathcal O$ be the set of totally orthogonal subsets of $\mathfrak U_1$ and let $\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ denote the minimal uniform asymptotic dimension of $\{\prod_{V\in\mathfrak
V}\mathbf F_V:\mathfrak V\in\mathcal O\}$. For $U\in\mathfrak U_1$, by [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Lemma 2.1] and [@BellDranishnikov:asdim_1 Theorem 32], we have that ${{\mathcal C}}U$ and $\mathbf F_U$ are uniformly quasi-isometric and for $\mathfrak V\in\mathcal O$ we have $\operatorname{asdim}\prod_{V\in\mathfrak V}{{\mathcal C}}V\leq\xi\max\{\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal C}}V:V\in\mathfrak V\}$. Hence $\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal
O\leq\xi n$, where $n$ is the minimal uniform asymptotic dimension of $\{{{\mathcal C}}U:U\in\mathfrak U_1\}$.
In order to apply Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\], we must assume that for each $U\in\mathfrak S$ with ${{\mathcal C}}U$ a $\delta$–hyperbolic space, the projection $\pi_U$ is uniformly coarsely surjective. By the proof of Proposition 1.16 of [@DurhamHagenSisto:HHS_IV], we can always assume that this holds (see also Remark 1.3 of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II]). Hence, in the proof of Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\], we can make this coarse surjectivity assumption and thus apply Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\].
\[defn:p\_Delta\] Define the *level* of $U\in\mathfrak S$ to be $1$ if $U$ is ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal and inductively define the level of $U\in\mathfrak S$ to be $\ell$ if $\ell-1$ is the maximal integer such that there exists $V\in\mathfrak S$ of level $\ell-1$ with $V{\sqsubsetneq}U$. Let $P_\ell$ be the maximal cardinality of pairwise-orthogonal sets in $\mathfrak S$ each of whose elements has level $\ell$. Let $\Delta_\ell$ be the maximal uniform asymptotic dimension of ${{\mathcal C}}U$ with $U$ of level $\ell$ and ${{\mathcal C}}U$ hyperbolic.
\[thm:technical\_asdim\] Let ${{\mathcal X}}$ be a uniformly locally-finite discrete geodesic space admitting a $\delta$–relatively HHS structure $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ and let $\xi,n,$ and the $\Delta_\ell$ be as above. Assume that $n<\infty$. Then $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq n\xi+\sum_{\ell=2}^\xi P_\ell\Delta_\ell<\infty$. In particular, if $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is an HHS, then $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq\sum_{\ell=1}^\xi P_\ell\Delta_\ell<\infty$.
Observe that when $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ is actually an HHS, Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\] automatically gives $n<\infty$.
Before proving Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\], we record a lemma whose proof is an immediate consequence of [@CornulierdelaHarpe Lemma 3.B.6].
\[lem:DGS\_persists\] Let ${{\mathcal X}}$ be a (not necessarily locally-finite) $(r_0,r_1)$–discrete geodesic space with a $\delta$-relatively hierarchically hyperbolic structure $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$. Let $\mathfrak U\subseteq\mathfrak S$ be closed under nesting. Then ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U}$ is quasi-isometric to a connected graph $\Gamma$, with constants independent of $\mathfrak U$.
By Proposition \[prop:build\_A\], for $R\geq0,x\in{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak
U_1}$, we have $\operatorname{asdim}\psi^{-1}(B^{{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak
U_1}}(x,R))\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O$ uniformly, where $\psi\colon {{\mathcal X}}\to{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1}$ is the Lipschitz map provided by Proposition \[prop:identity\_Lipschitz\]. The space ${{\mathcal X}}$ is a geodesic space, by Lemma \[lem:DGS\_persists\]. Hence, we may apply Theorem \[thm:fibration\_theorem\], which yields $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq\operatorname{asdim}\mathcal O+\operatorname{asdim}{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1}$.
Now, by Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\], $({{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1},\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U_1)$ is an HHS of complexity $\xi-1$, and ${{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1}$ is uniformly quasi-isometric to a geodesic space (a graph) by Lemma \[lem:DGS\_persists\]. Observe that for each ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal $U\in\mathfrak S-\mathfrak U_1$, we have that the associated subspace $\mathbf F_U\subset{{\widehat{{{\mathcal X}}}}}_{\mathfrak U_1}$ is uniformly quasi-isometric to ${{\mathcal C}}U$, and thus, by induction, $$\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal X}}\leq n\xi+\sum_{\ell=2}^\xi P_\ell\Delta_\ell,$$ which is finite since $P_\ell\leq\xi$ for all $\ell$ by [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Lemma 2.1] and $\Delta_\ell<\infty$ by Corollary \[cor:finite\_asdim\_curve\_graph\]. This yields the desired bound for $({{\mathcal X}},\mathfrak S)$ an HHS, since then we may take $n=\Delta_1$.
In the case of the mapping class group, sharper bounds on the asymptotic dimensions of curve graphs are known. Webb has a combinatorial argument which gives a bound which is exponential in the complexity [@Webb:tight]. We will make use of a much tighter bound due to Bestvina–Bromberg [@BestvinaBromberg:asdim]. Using this we will now prove Corollary \[cori:MCG\]:
We use the hierarchically hyperbolic structure on $\MCG(S)$ from [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Section 11], where $S$ is a surface of complexity $\xi(S)$, and $\mathfrak S$ is the set of essential subsurfaces up to isotopy, and for each $U\in\mathfrak S$, the space ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is the curve graph. Let $L$ be the maximum level of a subsurface, i.e., the maximal $\ell$ so that $\mathfrak S$ has a chain $U_1{\sqsubsetneq}U_2{\sqsubsetneq}\ldots{\sqsubsetneq}U_\ell=S$.
Let $\{U_1,\ldots,U_k\}$ be a collection of pairwise-disjoint subsurfaces, each of level exactly $\ell>1$. Then each $U_i$ contains a subsurface $U_i'$ of level exactly $\ell-1$, and the complement in $U_i$ of $U'_i$ has level $1$ unless it is a degenerate subsurface. Hence $U_i$ contains at least $\ell-1$ disjoint subsurfaces of level $1$, so $(\ell-1) P_\ell\leq L$ for all $\ell\geq 2$ while $P_{1}=L=\xi(S)$ (note, $U_{i}$ contains at most $\ell$ disjoint subsurfaces of level $1$). As shown in [@BestvinaBromberg:asdim], $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal C}}U\leq
2\ell+3$ uniformly. Thus $\Delta_\ell\leq2\ell+3$, and Theorem \[thm:technical\_asdim\] gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{asdim}(\MCG(S))&\leq&
5L+L\sum_{\ell=2}^{L}\frac{(2\ell+3)}{\ell-1}\leq 2L^2+3L\log L+8L.\\\end{aligned}$$ Observing that $L\leq\xi(S)$ provided $\xi(S)\geq2$ completes the proof.
We now prove Corollary \[cori:teich\]:
As noted in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_I], Teichmüller space with either of the two metrics mentioned is a hierarchically hyperbolic space; for details see the corresponding discussion for the mapping class group in [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II Section 11] which applies [*mutatis mutandis*]{} in the present context. The index-set $\mathfrak S$ consists of all isotopy classes of essential subsurfaces (only non-annular ones in the case of the Weil–Petersson metric). For each $U\in\mathfrak S$ which is not an annulus, ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is the curve graph of $U$; For annular $U$ the space ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is a combinatorial horoball over the annular curve graph. Observing that $\operatorname{asdim}{{\mathcal C}}U\leq
2$ when ${{\mathcal C}}U$ is the horoball over an annular curve graph, the claim now follows as in the proof of Corollary \[cori:MCG\], albeit with an extra additive term of $\xi(S)$ since the lowest complexity terms have asymptotic dimension 2 in the present case instead of 1. (Since Weil–Petersson doesn’t have contributions from annuli at all, one obtains a sharper bound than we record here.)
Quotients of HHG {#sec:HHG_quotient}
================
In this section, we study quotients of hierarchically hyperbolic groups. It will be a standing assumption throughout this section that $H$ is a *hyperbolically embedded subgroup* of the HHG $(G,\mathfrak S)$, as defined by the following, cf. [@DGO]:
\[defn:hhhg\] Let $(G,\mathfrak S)$ be an HHG, let $S\in\mathfrak S$ be ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal and let $H\leq G$. Given a (possibly infinite) generating set $\mathcal T$ of $G$, then we write $H{\hookrightarrow_{_{hh}}}(G,\mathfrak S)$ if the following hold:
- ${{\mathcal C}}S$ is the Cayley graph of $G$ with respect to $\mathcal T$ and $\pi_S$ is the inclusion;
- $\mathcal T\cap H$ generates $H$;
- $H$ is hyperbolically embedded in $(G,\mathcal T)$. Recall that this means that ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G, H\cup \mathcal T)$ is hyperbolic and $H$ is proper with respect to the metric $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}$ obtained from measuring the length of a shortest path $\gamma\subset {\mathrm{Cay}}(G, H\cup \mathcal T)$ with the property that between pairs of vertices in $H\cap\gamma$ the only edges allowed are those from $\mathcal T$.
Throughout this section we let $N$ denote a subgroup $N\triangleleft H\leq
G$, and we let ${\widehat{N}}$ denote its normal closure in $G$. When dealing with different HHS structures $\mathfrak S,\mathfrak T$, and when it is necessary to distinguish between the two, we will use the notation ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S}U,{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}V$ for $U\in\mathfrak S,V\in\mathfrak V$ instead of ${{\mathcal C}}U,{{\mathcal C}}V$. Our main result is:
\[thm:quotients\] Let $(G,\mathfrak S)$ be an HHG and let $H{\hookrightarrow_{_{hh}}}(G,\mathfrak S)$. Then there exists a finite set $F\subset H-\{1\}$ such that for all $N\triangleleft H$ with $F\cap N=\emptyset$, the group $G/{\widehat{N}}$ admits a relative HHG structure $(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathfrak S_N)$ where:
- $\mathfrak S_N=(\mathfrak S\cup\{gH\}_{g\in G})/{\widehat{N}}$ and hence $\xi(\mathfrak S_N)\leq\max\{\xi(\mathfrak S),2\}$;
- ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S_N} S_N={\mathrm{Cay}}(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathcal T/{\widehat{N}}\cup H/N)$, where $S_N\in\mathfrak S_N$ is ${\sqsubseteq}$–maximal and $\mathcal T$ is as in Definition \[defn:hhhg\];
- for each $U\in\mathfrak S_N-\{S_N\}$, either ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S_N} U$ is isometric to ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S}U'$ for some $U'\in\mathfrak S$, or ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S_N} U$ is isometric to a Cayley graph of $H/N$.
In particular, if $N$ avoids $F$ and $H/N$ is hyperbolic, then $G/{\widehat{N}}$ is an HHG.
We postpone the proof until after explaining the necessary tools. The definition of the index set $\mathfrak S_N$ in the above theorem means the following: by the definition of a hierarchically hyperbolic group structure, $G$, and hence ${\widehat{N}}\leq G$, acts on $\mathfrak S$ — see Section \[subsubsec:aut\]. Also, ${\widehat{N}}$ acts on the set $\{gH\}_{g\in G}$ in the obvious way. Thus ${\widehat{N}}$ acts on the set $\mathfrak S\cup\{gH\}_{g\in G}$, and $\mathfrak S_N$ is the quotient of $\mathfrak S\cup\{gH\}_{g\in G}$ by this action.
\[rem:geom\_sep\] Since $H\hookrightarrow_h(G,\mathcal T)$, we have that $H$ is *geometrically separated* (with respect to ${{\mathcal C}}S$), i.e., for each $\epsilon\geq0$ there exists $M(\epsilon)$ so that, if $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(H\cap{\mathcal N}_\epsilon(gH))\geq M(\epsilon))$, then $g\in H$. Indeed, for any $\epsilon>0$, if we can choose $g$ so that $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(H\cap{\mathcal N}_\epsilon(gH))$ is arbitrarily large, then $H$ contains infinitely many elements $h'$ with $\hat{\textup{\textsf{d}}}(1,h')\leq 2\epsilon+1$, which is impossible. In fact, [@Sisto:metric_relhyp Theorem 6.4] shows that ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ is (metrically) hyperbolic relative to $\{gH\}$, and in particular there exists $M$ such that $H\subset{\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ is $M$–quasiconvex, by [@DrutuSapir Lemma 4.3].
\[rem:H\_is\_hyperbolic\] In our situation, the hyperbolically embedded subgroup $H\hookrightarrow_h(G,\mathcal T)$ must be hyperbolic. This holds since $(G,\mathcal T)$ is already hyperbolic (even before adding $H$ to the generating set); thus, hyperbolicity of $H$ follows from the fact that $H\subset (G,\mathcal T)$ is quasiconvex and $H$ acts properly (indeed, the word-metric ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathcal T}$ restricted to $H$ is bounded below by the auxillary metric on $H$ from Definition \[defn:hhhg\], which is proper). This hyperbolicity is not a significant restriction on the subgroup, since it holds in the cases of interest, including the case where $G$ is the mapping class group of a surface and $H\cong{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ is generated by a pseudo-Anosov element.
Pyramid spaces {#subsec:pyramid}
--------------
In this section we define the *pyramid spaces* which are hyperbolic spaces, associated to $G$ and $G/{\widehat{N}}$. We also describe a new hierarchically hyperbolic structure on $G$ in which the pyramid space associated to $G$ replaces ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$. We begin by recalling from [@GrovesManning:dehn] the notion of a combinatorial horoball, and the attendant hyperbolic cone construction from [@DGO].
\[defn:combinatorial\_horoball\] Let $\Gamma$ be a graph. The *combinatorial horoball* $\mathcal H(\Gamma)$ is the graph formed from $\Gamma\times({\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}\cup\{0\})$ by adding the following edges: for each $r\in{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}\cup\{0\}$ and each vertex $v\in\Gamma$, join $(v,r),(v,r+1)$ by an edge. For each $r$ and each $v,v'\in\Gamma$, join $(v,r),(v',r)$ if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\Gamma(v,v')\in(0,2^r]$.
Given $r\in{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, the *hyperbolic cone* ${\mathfrak C}(\Gamma,r)$ of *radius $r$* over $\Gamma$ is obtained from $\mathcal H(\Gamma)$ by adding a vertex $v$, called the *apex* of the cone, and joining $v$ to each vertex $(w,s)$ of $\mathcal H(\Gamma)$ for which $s\geq r$. We endow ${\mathfrak C}(\Gamma,r)$ with the usual graph metric.
Lemma 6.43 of [@DGO] says that for any choice of $\Gamma$ and any $r\in{\ensuremath{{\mathbb{N}}}}$, the graph ${\mathfrak C}(\Gamma,r)$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic, where $\delta$ may be chosen independently of $\Gamma$ and $r$.
\[defn:coned\_spaces\] For $r\geq1$, the *pyramid space* ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$ associated to $(G,\mathcal T)$ and $H$ is obtained from ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ by attaching the hyperbolic cone of radius $r$ over each coset $gH$, with apex $v_{gH}$. Let ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle$ be the graph metric on ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$. Likewise, ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/\widehat N})}_r$ is obtained from ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathcal T/{\widehat{N}})$ by attaching a radius–$r$ hyperbolic cone over each coset of $H/N$.
\[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\] There exists $\delta\geq 1$ with the following properties:
1. \[item:g\_pyr\_hyp\] ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic for all sufficiently large $r$;
2. \[item:gN\_pyr\_hyp\] for each sufficiently large $r>0$, there exists a finite set $F_r\subset H-\{1\}$ such that if $N\cap
F_r=\emptyset$, then ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}_r$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic.
Assertion holds by [@DGO Lemma 6.45]. To prove assertion , consider the action of $G$ on the $\delta$–hyperbolic space ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$. By construction, the set $\{v_{gH}\}$ of apices is $G$–invariant, $2r$–separated, and each $v_{gH}$ is fixed by the *rotation subgroup* $H^g$, i.e., $(\{v_{gH}\},\{H^g\})$ is a $2r$–separated *rotating family* in the sense of [@DGO Definition 5.1]. Observe that [@DGO Corollary 6.36] provides a finite set $F_r\subset
H-\{1\}$ such that $\{N^g\}$ is a $\frac{2r}{\delta}$–rotating family, with respect to the action of ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$, provided $N\triangleleft H$ avoids $F_r$. (This means that $(\{v_{gH}\},\{N^g\})$ is a $2r$–separated rotating family that also satisfies the *very rotating condition* of [@DGO Definition 5.1].) Proposition 5.28 of [@DGO] provides $r_0$ so that ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}_r$ is uniformly hyperbolic when $r\geq r_0$. Enlarging $\delta$ completes the proof.
\[lem:quasiconvex\_cones\] There exist $Q,r_0$ so that ${\mathfrak C}(H,r)\subset{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$ is $Q$–quasiconvex if $r\geq r_0$.
Choose $r$ sufficiently large so that ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$ is $\delta$–hyperbolic, using Proposition \[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\], and let ${\mathfrak C}$ be the hyperbolic cone of radius $r$ over $H$.
Define a map ${\mathfrak l}\colon {\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r\to{\mathfrak C}$ as follows. First, for each $x\in{\mathfrak C}$, let ${\mathfrak l}(x)=x$. Next, for each $g\in G$, let ${\mathfrak l}(g)$ be some $h\in H$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(g,H)={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(g,h)$. (This is coarsely unique since $H$ is $M$–quasiconvex in ${{\mathcal C}}S$ by Remark \[rem:geom\_sep\].) If $gH\neq H$ and $(y,n)\in{\mathfrak C}(gH,r)$ is not the apex $v_{gH}$, then let ${\mathfrak l}(y,n)={\mathfrak l}(y)$. By Claim \[claim:cosets\_bounded\], ${\mathfrak l}$ sends $gH$ to a uniformly bounded subset of $H$, and we define ${\mathfrak l}(v_{gH})$ to be an arbitrarily-chosen point in ${\mathfrak l}(gH)$.
\[claim:cosets\_bounded\] There exists a constant $K_1$ so that $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(gH))\leq K_1$ for all $gH\neq H$.
Apply $M$–quasiconvexity and separation of $gH,H$ (Remark \[rem:geom\_sep\]).
\[claim:Lipschitz\_1\] There exists a constant $K_2$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(x),{\mathfrak l}(y))\leq K_2{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in G$.
Apply quasiconvexity and the definition of $\mathfrak l$.
\[claim:Lipschitz\_2\] There exists $K_3$ so that, if $r$ is sufficiently large, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle({\mathfrak l}(x),{\mathfrak l}(y))\leq K_3{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)+K_3$ for all $x,y\in{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$.
Let $[x,y]_\triangle$ be a ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$–geodesic from $x\in G$ to $y\in G$, so that $[x,y]_\triangle=\alpha_1\beta_1\cdots\alpha_n\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}$, where each $\beta_i$ lies in some hyperbolic cone ${\mathfrak C}(g_iH,r)$ and each $\alpha_i$ avoids $v_{gH}\cup(gH\times[1,\infty))$ for each coset $gH$ (i.e., $\alpha_i$ is a possibly trivial path in ${{\mathcal C}}S$).
For each $i$, let $\check\beta_i$ be a geodesic in ${{\mathcal C}}S$ joining the endpoints $a_i,b_i$ of $\beta_i$ (which lie in $g_iH$). By Claim \[claim:cosets\_bounded\], we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle({\mathfrak l}(a_i),{\mathfrak l}(b_i))\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(a_i),{\mathfrak l}(b_i))\leq K_1$.
By Claim \[claim:Lipschitz\_1\], we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(b_{i-1}),{\mathfrak l}(a_i))\leq K_2{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(b_{i-1},a_i)$. Now, since $\alpha_i$ is a ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$–geodesic, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(b_{i-1},a_i)={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(b_{i-1},a_i)$, whence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(b_{i-1}),{\mathfrak l}(a_i))\leq K_2{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(b_{i-1},a_i)$. Finally, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}({\mathfrak l}(b_{i-1}),{\mathfrak l}(a_i))\geq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}({\mathfrak l}(b_{i-1}),{\mathfrak l}(a_i))$, so ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}({\mathfrak l}(b_{i-1}),{\mathfrak l}(a_i))\leq K_2{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(b_{i-1},a_i)$. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}({\mathfrak l}(x),{\mathfrak l}(y))\leq K_2\sum_i|\alpha_i|+K_1n\leq\max\{K_1,K_2\}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)$, and we are done.
The other possibilities are that $x\in{\mathfrak C}(g_0H),y\in{\mathfrak C}(g_{n+1}H)$ or $x\in{\mathfrak C}(g_0H),y\in G$, so that we consider paths of the form $\beta_0\alpha_1\beta_1\cdots\alpha_n\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}$ or $\beta_0\alpha_1\beta_1\cdots\alpha_n\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}\beta_{n+1}$. We now argue as above and conclude that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle({\mathfrak l}(x),{\mathfrak l}(y))\leq 2K_1+\max\{K_1,K_2\}{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)$.
The lemma follows easily from Claim \[claim:Lipschitz\_2\].
\[rem:constants\] Fix $r$ as in Proposition \[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\] and assume $r\geq10^9\delta EQ$, where $\delta$ is as in Proposition \[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\] and $Q$ as in Lemma \[lem:quasiconvex\_cones\]. Let ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}={\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$ and, for each $gH$, let ${\mathfrak C}(gH)={\mathfrak C}(gH,r)\subset{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$. Later, we will impose additional assumptions on the size of $r$.
\[defn:push\_off\] Let $\alpha$ be a geodesic in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ with endpoints in $G$. The path $\gamma$ in ${{\mathcal C}}S={\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ is a *push-off* of $\alpha$ if it is obtained by replacing sub-geodesics in hyperbolic cones with geodesics in ${{\mathcal C}}S$; we call these new subpaths *replacement paths*.
\[lem:quasiconvex\_hull\] Let $Z$ be a $\delta$–hyperbolic space and let $\mathcal Q$ be a collection of $Q$–quasiconvex subspaces. Let $\alpha$ be a geodesic of $Z$ and let $H\subseteq Z$ be the union of $\alpha$ and every $Y\in\mathcal Q$ with $\alpha\cap Y\neq\emptyset$. Then $H$ is $(Q+2\delta)$–quasiconvex.
Let $\gamma$ be a geodesic joining points $h,h'\in H$. If $h,h'\in\alpha$, then we are done since $\gamma\subset{\mathcal N}_{2\delta}(\alpha)$. Next suppose $h\in Y,h'\in Y'$ for some $Y,Y'\in\mathcal Q$. Consider closest points $p,p'$ of $Y\cap\alpha,Y'\cap\alpha$ to $h,h'$ respectively, and consider the geodesic quadrilateral $\gamma\rho'\beta\rho^{-1}$, where $\beta$ is the subgeodesic of $\alpha$ from $p'$ to $p$ and $\rho',\rho$ join $h,h'$ to $p,p'$. Then every point of $\gamma$ lies either $2\delta$–close to a point of $\beta$ or lies $2\delta$–close to a point of $\rho\cup\rho'$ and hence $(Q+2\delta)$–close to a point of $Y\cup Y'$. A virtually identical argument works if $h\in\alpha$ and $h'\in Y'\in\mathcal Q$.
\[lem:geodesic\_fellow\_travel\_pyramid\] There exists $C=C(\delta,Q)$ so that, if $r$ is sufficiently large, then the following holds for all $x,y\in{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ and all $gH$: if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,{\mathfrak C}(gH)),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,{\mathfrak C}(gH))\leq 2\delta+Q$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)\geq C$, then any geodesic from $x$ to $y$ intersects ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ in an interior point of $[x,y]$.
Let $x',y'\in{\mathfrak C}(gH)$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,x'),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,y')\leq 2\delta+Q$ and let $\gamma,\gamma'$ be geodesics joining $x,y$ and $x',y'$ respectively. Let $\alpha,\beta$ be geodesics joining $x,x'$ and $y,y'$ respectively. Examining the quadrilateral $\alpha\gamma'\beta^{-1}\gamma^{-1}$ provides $a,b\in\gamma$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,x),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(b,y)\leq10\delta$, while ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,{\mathfrak C}(gH)),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(b,{\mathfrak C}(gH))\leq 2\delta+Q$ (by Lemma \[lem:quasiconvex\_cones\]), and $C\geq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)\geq C-20\delta$. Suppose that the subpath $[a,b]$ of $\gamma$ from $a$ to $b$ does not enter ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ (except possibly at the endpoint). Then this path projects to a path of length at most $KC+K$, for $K=K(Q)$, that lies in $gH$ and joins points $a',b'$ respectively at distance $\leq2\delta+Q$ from $a,b$. Thus, if $r$ is sufficiently large, we have a path of length $2\log_2(KC+K)+1$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ joining $a',b'$, whence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)\leq4\delta+Q+2\log_2(KC+K)+1$. On the other hand, ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)\geq C-20\delta$, and this is a contradiction provided $C$ was chosen sufficiently large (in terms of $Q$ and $\delta$).
\[lem:push-off\] Suppose that $r$ is sufficiently large, in terms of $M,\delta$. Then there exists $D$, independent of $r$, so that any push-off of a geodesic in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ that starts and ends in $G$ is a $(D,D)$–quasigeodesic and lies within Hausdorff distance $D$ (in ${{\mathcal C}}S$) from a geodesic in ${{\mathcal C}}S$ with the same endpoints.
Let $[a,b]=\alpha_0\beta_1\cdots\alpha_{n-1}\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}$ be a ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$–geodesic with $a,b\in{{\mathcal C}}S$, where each $\alpha_i$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic and each $\beta_i$ lies in some ${\mathfrak C}(g_iH)$. For each $i$, let $\hat\beta_i$ be a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic joining the endpoints of $\beta_i$, so that $\gamma=\alpha_0\hat\beta_1\cdots\alpha_{n-1}\hat\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}$ is a push-off of $[a,b]$. Let $H=[a,b]\cup_i{\mathfrak C}(g_iH)$, so that $H$ is $(Q+2\delta)$–quasiconvex by Lemma \[lem:quasiconvex\_hull\]. Let $p\colon {\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}\to H$ be the projection, and fix a $1$–Lipschitz parameterization $\gamma\colon I\to{{\mathcal C}}S$ of $\gamma$.
Assuming $r$ is large enough, we now define a coarsely Lipschitz projection $q\colon {{\mathcal C}}S\to I$, with constants bounded in terms of $M,\delta$. The existence of such map $q$ easily implies that $\gamma$ is a quasigeodesic with constants depending on $M,\delta$ only, and hence that it is also Hausdorff close to a geodesic, as required. Write $I=A_0\cup B_1\cup\cdots\cup A_{n-1}\cup B_n\cup A_{n+1}$, where $\gamma|_{A_i}=\alpha_i$ and $\gamma|_{B_i}=\hat\beta_i$. Given $g\in{{\mathcal C}}S$, if $p(g)\in\alpha_i$, then let $q(g)$ be chosen in $A_i$ so that $\gamma(q(g))=p(g)$. Otherwise, $p(g)\in g_iH$ for some $i$, and we let $q(g)$ be chosen in $B_i$ so that $\hat\beta_i(q(g))$ is the closest-point projection of $p(g)$ on $\hat\beta_i$, i.e., ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(p(g),\hat\beta_i(q(g)))={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(p(g),\hat\beta_i)$.
Our goal is now to show that $q$ is coarsely Lipschitz whenever $r$ is large enough. It suffices to bound $|q(g)-q(h)|$ for $g,h\in{{\mathcal C}}S$ satisfying ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(g,h)\leq 1$.
Let $g,h\in{{\mathcal C}}S$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(g,h)\leq 1$. Then there exists $K=K(Q,\delta)$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(p(g),p(h))\leq K$. First of all, we show that we can bound $|q(g)-q(h)|$ whenever $r$ is large enough in any of the following cases:
- $p(g),p(h)$ both belong to some $g_iH$,
- $p(g),p(h)$ each lie on some $\alpha_i$.
In fact, in the first case we can use the fact that, provided $r$ is much larger than $K$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(p(g),p(h))\leq K'=K'(K)$, combined with the fact that the closest point projection on $\hat\beta_i$ is coarsely Lipschitz. In the second case, the fact that $p(g),p(h)$ are connected by a subgeodesic of $[a,b]$ of length at most $K$ again ensures that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(p(g),p(h))\leq K'=K'(K)$ whenever $r$ is large enough.
Up to switching $g,h$, there is only one case left to analyze: Suppose that there exists $i$ so that $p(g)\in g_iH,p(h)\not\in g_iH$; then $p(h)\in g_jH\cup\alpha_j$ for some $j$. Let $a'\in g_iH$ be the entrance point in $g_iH$ of the subpath of $[a,b]$ joining $\alpha_j$ to $g_iH$. Then we claim that there exists $C'=C'(\delta,Q)$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(a',p(g))\leq C'$. Since a similar statement holds for $h$ as well if $p(h)\in g_jH$, following arguments similar to the ones above we can then easily get the required bound on $|q(g)-q(h)|$ provided $r$ is much larger than $K$ and $C'$.
Consider a geodesic quadrilateral determined by $p(g),p(h),a',c$, in that order, where $c\in[a,b]$ and $[c,a']$ intersects ${\mathfrak C}(g_iH)$ only in $a'$, and either $c,p(h)\in g_jH$ or $c=p(h)$. Choose $s$ (independent of $r$) so that $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}({\mathcal N}_{Q}({\mathfrak C}(gH))\cap{\mathcal N}_{2\delta+2Q}({\mathfrak C}(g'H)))\leq s$ whenever $gH\neq g'H$. Suppose by contradiction that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a',p(g))>10\delta+s+C+K$, for $C$ as in Lemma \[lem:geodesic\_fellow\_travel\_pyramid\]. Choose $x,y\in[p(g),a']$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(p(g),x)=3\delta+K$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(p(g),y)=5\delta+K+s$. Then, since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,[p(g),p(h)]), {\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,[p(g),p(h)])\geq K+3\delta- K>2\delta$, we have that $x,y$ are $2\delta$–close to $[a',c]$ or $[p(h),c]$. However, the former is ruled out by Lemma \[lem:geodesic\_fellow\_travel\_pyramid\] since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a',x),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a',y)>C+2\delta$ and the fact that $[a',c]$ does not have interior points in ${\mathfrak C}(g_iH)$. Hence we must have $p(h)\neq c$, so that $p(h),c\in g_jH$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,[p(h),c]),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,[p(h),c])\leq 2\delta$, which is impossible, in view of the definition of $s$, since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,g_iH),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,g_iH)\leq Q$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)>s$. Hence, we showed ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(a',p(g))\leq C'$ for $C'=10\delta+s+C+K$, as required.
### An alternative HHG structure on $G$
It will be convenient to add the cosets of $H$ to the HHG structure of $G$ and, to do so, we also must replace ${{\mathcal C}}S$ with ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$. The index set of the new structure will include $\mathfrak S$ as a proper subset. For each element of $W\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$, the associated hyperbolic space ${{\mathcal C}}W$ is the same in both structures; the hyperbolic space associated to $S$ will differ, so we denote the two spaces by ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S} S$ and ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T} S$; sometimes for emphasis we will, more generally, use the notation ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S} W$ and ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T} W$ to emphasize which structure we are considering at the time.
\[prop:aux\_HHG\] The following is an HHG structure on $G$:
- the index set, $\mathfrak T$, contains all the elements of $\mathfrak S$ together with one element for each coset $\{gH\}_{g\in G}$;
- ${\sqsubseteq}$ and ${\bot}$ restricted to $\mathfrak S$ are unchanged, each $gH$ is only nested into $S$ and not orthogonal to anything;
- ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T} S$ is ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$, while ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T} U = {{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak S} U$ for $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$. Set ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T} gH={\mathrm{Cay}}(gH, \mathcal T \cap H)$;
- $\rho^U_V$ is unchanged for $U,V\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$ (when defined);
- for $U\in\mathfrak S$, the map $\rho^S_U\colon {\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}\to{{\mathcal C}}U$ is unchanged on ${{\mathcal C}}S\subset{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$, while $\rho^S_U((gh,s))=\rho^S_U(gh)$ for each $g\in G,h\in H,s< \infty$ and $\rho^S_U(v_{gH})=\cup_{h\in H}\rho^S_U(gH)$;
- $\rho^S_{gH}(x)$ is the set of entrance points in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ of all geodesics $[x,v_{gH}]$, when $x\not\in{\mathfrak C}(gH)$, and otherwise $\rho^S_{gH}(x)=gH$, while $\rho^{gH}_S=v_{gH}$;
- $\rho^{U}_{gH}$ is $\rho^S_{gH}(\rho^U_S)$ for $U\in\mathfrak
S - \{S\}$, while $\rho^{gH}_U=\pi_U(gH)$ for $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$;
- $\pi_U$ is unchanged for $U\in \mathfrak S$ and is the composition $\rho^S_{gH}\circ\pi_{S}$ for each $gH$.
Before proving the proposition, we record two lemmas:
\[lem:entry\] There exists $C\geq1$, independent of $r$, so that for each $x,g\in G$, the set of entry points of ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$–geodesics $[x,v_{gH}]$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ is within Hausdorff distance $C$ of $\{x'\in gH: {\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(x,x')={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(x,gH)\}$. Hence there exists $C$ with $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}(\rho^S_{gH}(a))\leq C$ for all $a,g\in G$.
This follows from $M$–quasiconvexity of $gH$ in ${{\mathcal C}}S$ (Remark \[rem:geom\_sep\]) and Lemma \[lem:push-off\].
\[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\] There exists $C\geq1$, independent of $r$, so that:
1. $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}U}(\pi_U(gH))\leq C$ for all $g\in G$ for all $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$;\[item:bounded\_proj\_on\_s\]
2. for all $g'H\neq gH$, $x,y\in g'H$, and all geodesics $[x,v_{gH}],[y,v_{gH}]$ of ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ from $x,y$ to $v_{gH}$, the entry points $a_x,a_y$ of $[x,v_{gH}],[y,v_{gH}]$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(a_x,a_y)\leq C$.\[item:bounded\_proj\_on\_other\_cosets\]
The first assertion follows from bounded geodesic image and the fact that $H$ acts properly on ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$. The second follows from Lemma \[lem:entry\] and Remark \[rem:geom\_sep\].
We can now prove the proposition:
All aspects of Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] involving only the ${\sqsubseteq},{\bot},{\pitchfork}$ relations (but not the projections) are obviously satisfied. Note that $G$ acts cofinitely on $\mathfrak T$ and each $g\in G$ induces an isometry ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}U\to{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}(gU)$ for each $U\in\mathfrak T$. Abusing notation slightly, we denote by $gH$ the subgraph of ${\mathrm{Cay}}(G,\mathcal T)$ spanned by the vertices of $gH$, which is connected since $\mathcal T\cap H$ generates $H$, and which is hyperbolic by Remark \[rem:H\_is\_hyperbolic\].
**Projections $\pi_U$ are well-defined and coarsely Lipschitz:** This is automatic for $U\in\mathfrak S$. For each $gH$ and $a\in G$, the projection $\pi_{gH}(a)=\rho^S_{gH}(\pi_S(a))=\rho^S_{gH}(a)$ is bounded by Lemma \[lem:entry\]. We now verify that $\pi_{gH}$ is coarsely Lipschitz; it suffices to verify that $\rho^S_{gH}$ is coarsely Lipschitz on $G\subset{{\mathcal C}}S$. Let $\gamma$ be a geodesic in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ joining $a,b\in G$, and let $\alpha$ be a push-off of $\gamma$, so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)=|\gamma|\leq|\alpha|$. By Lemma \[lem:push-off\], $\alpha$ lies at Hausdorff distance at most $D$ from a geodesic $\alpha'$ of ${{\mathcal C}}S$, and the claim follows.
Lemma \[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\] says that $\pi_U(gH)$ is bounded for $g\in G,U\in\mathfrak S$, so $\rho^{gH}_U$ is coarsely constant.
**Consistency:** Let $U,V\in\mathfrak T$ and $a\in G$. If $U,V\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$, then consistency holds automatically. Hence suppose that $U=gH$ for some $g\in G$. If $gH{\sqsubsetneq}V$, then $V=S$. In this case, $\pi_{gH}(a)=\rho^S_{gH}(\pi_S(a))$ by definition, so consistency holds. If $U\in\mathfrak S$ and $V=S$, then consistency follows easily from consistency in $(G,\mathfrak S)$. There is no case in which $V{\sqsubsetneq}gH$.
Hence suppose $gH{\pitchfork}V$. Choose $b\in\rho^S_{gH}(a)$, so that $b$ is the entrance point in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ of some geodesic $[a,v_{gH}]$. Then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,\rho^{gH}_U)={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,\pi_U(gH))\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,b)$. If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,b)>E$, then $\rho^U_S$ lies $10E$–close to a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic from $a$ to $b$, from which it is easily deduced that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(b,\rho^S_{gH}(\rho^U_S))$ is uniformly bounded, as required.
The bound on ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(\rho^U_W,\rho^V_W)$ from Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\]. holds automatically when $U,V,W\in\mathfrak S$ and holds vacuously otherwise by the definition of the nesting relation in $\mathfrak T$.
**Bounded geodesic image:** If $U,V\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$ and $U{\sqsubseteq}V$, then bounded geodesic image holds because it held in $(G,\mathfrak S)$. Hence it remains to consider the case where $V=S$. First suppose that $U\in\mathfrak S$ and that $\gamma$ is a geodesic in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ that does not pass $(E+D+2r)$–close to $\rho^U_S$. Let $\alpha$ be a push-off of $\gamma$ and let $\alpha'$ be a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic at Hausdorff distance $\leq D$ from $\alpha$, provided by Lemma \[lem:push-off\]. Then $\alpha'$ cannot pass through the $E$–neighborhood of $\rho^U_S$, for otherwise $\alpha$ would pass through the $(E+D)$–neighborhood of $\rho^U_S$, whence $\gamma$ would pass through the $(E+D+2r)$–neighborhood of $\rho^U_S$ in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$. Hence there exists $E'=E'(D,E)$ so that $\rho^S_U(\alpha')$ has diameter at most $E'$, by bounded geodesic image in $(G,\mathfrak S)$ (here, we mean $\rho^S_U\colon {{\mathcal C}}S\to{{\mathcal C}}U$). Each point of $\gamma$ maps by $\pi_U$ to a point at distance at most $C$ from a point of $\pi_U(\alpha')$, by Lemma \[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\], and we are done since $\rho^S_U({\mathfrak C}(gH))\subseteq\pi_U(gH)$ for each $gH$.
Next suppose that $U=gH$ for some $g\in G$. Let $x,y\in{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$. A thin triangle argument shows that if each geodesic $[x,y]$ is sufficiently far from $gH$ in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$, then the geodesics $[x,v_{gH}],[y,v_{gH}]$ enter ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ at points $a_x,a_y\in gH$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a_x,a_y)\leq 100\delta$. Our choice of $r$ ensures that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(a_x,a_y)$ is uniformly bounded, since points in $gH$ at distance $<2r$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ are at uniformly bounded distance (depending on $r$) in $gH$.
**Large links:** Let $a,b\in G$ and let $N=\lfloor{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)\rfloor$. We will produce uniform constants $K,\lambda'$ and $T_1,\ldots,T_m\in\mathfrak S$ and $g_1H,\ldots,g_nH$ so that $m+n\leq \lambda' N+\lambda'$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,b)\leq K$ unless $U=g_iH$ or $U{\sqsubseteq}T_j$ for some $i,j$.
Fix a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic $\gamma$ from $a$ to $b$. By Lemma \[lem:push-off\] and Lemma \[lem:entry\], for each sufficiently large $K_0>2r$ there exists $K_1$ so that either ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(a,b)\leq K_0$ or $\gamma$ has a maximal subpath $\gamma_g$ lying in the $K_1$–neighborhood of $gH$ (in ${{\mathcal C}}S$), and the endpoints $a_g,b_g$ of $\gamma_g$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(a,a_g)\leq
K_1,{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(b,b_g)\leq K_1$. Let $G(a,b)$ be the set of $gH$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{gH}(a,b)>K_0$. Observe that for all distinct $gH,g'H\in G(a,b)$, we have $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(\gamma_g\cap\gamma_{g'})\leq K_2$, where $K_2$ depends on $K_1$ and the geometric separation constants from Remark \[rem:geom\_sep\]. We note that $K_{2}$ does not depend on $K_{0}$ and thus, by choosing $K_{0}$ large enough compared to $K_{2}$, we can ensure that at most two elements of $G(a,b)$ simultaneously overlap. Observe that this implies that the cardinality of $G(a,b)$ is at most $2\cdot{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(a,b)$.
Write $\gamma=\left(\prod_{i=1}^k\alpha_i\beta_i\right)\alpha_{k+1}$, where each $\beta_i$ is a subpath contained in the union of subpaths $\gamma_g$, where $gH\in G(a,b)$, and ${{\ensuremath \text{\rm Int}(\alpha_i) }}$ is in the complement of the union of such paths. By bounded geodesic image, Lemma \[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\], and the large link lemma in $(G,\mathfrak S)$, there exist $T_1,\ldots, T_m\in\mathfrak S$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(a,b)\leq K_0$ unless $U{\sqsubseteq}T_i$ for some $i$, where $m=\lambda\lfloor\sum_i|\alpha_i|\rfloor+\lambda$. Hence any elements $U\in\mathfrak T$ in which ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U}(a,b)>\max\{E,K_{0}\}$ is nested into one of at most $3\cdot (\lambda{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(a,b)+\lambda)$ elements of $\mathfrak T-\{S\}$.
**Partial realization:** Let $\{U_i\}$ be a set of pairwise–orthogonal elements of $\mathfrak T$ and let $b_i\in{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}U_i$ for each $i$. We consider two cases. First, if each $U_i\in\mathfrak S$, then partial realization in $(G,\mathfrak S)$ implies that there exists $g\in G$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U_i}(g,b_i)\leq E$ for each $i$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(b_i,\rho^{U_i}_V)\leq E$ when $U_i{\sqsubsetneq}V$ or $U_i{\pitchfork}V$. Thus it remains to note that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}S}(b_i,\rho^{U_i}_V)$ is uniformly bounded, since ${{\mathcal C}}S\hookrightarrow{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ is distance non-increasing.
When $\{U_i\}=\{S\}$, partial realization holds for ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}S$ since it held for ${{\mathcal C}}S$. Hence it remains to consider a coset $gH$ and some $gh\in gH$. Obviously $gh\in G$ has the correct projection in $gH$. If $gH{\sqsubsetneq}V$, then $V=S$ and $\rho^{gH}_S=v_{gH}$. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}S}(gh,\rho^{gH}_S)\leq r$ as required. If $gH{\pitchfork}V$, then $\rho^{gH}_V=\pi_V(gH)\ni\pi_V(gh)$, as required.
**Uniqueness:** Let $\kappa\geq0$ be given and let $\theta=\theta(\kappa)$ be the corresponding constant from $(G,\mathfrak S)$, so that, if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_G(a,b)\geq\theta$ then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}V}(a,b)\geq\kappa$ for some $V\in\mathfrak S$. Hence we must consider only $a,b\in G$ such that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_G(a,b)\geq\theta$ but ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}V}(a,b)\leq\kappa$ if and only if $V\neq S$. Consider a geodesic $\gamma$ in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ joining $a$ to $b$ and a push-off $\alpha=\alpha_0\beta_0\cdots\alpha_n\beta_n\alpha_{n+1}$ of $\gamma$, where each $\beta_i$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic joining two points in $\gamma$ lying in some $g_iH$. Lemma \[lem:push-off\] implies that $\alpha$ lies at Hausdorff distance $D$ from a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic $\alpha'$ joining $a,b$. By assumption, $\alpha'$ has length at least $\kappa$. Hence either $|\beta_i|\geq\kappa$ for some $i$ (i.e., ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{g_iH}(a,b)\geq\kappa$) or $n\geq \epsilon\kappa$ for some uniform $\epsilon\geq0$, and thus ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}_{\mathfrak T}S}(a,b)\geq\epsilon\kappa$. Thus for each $\kappa\geq0$, we have that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_V(a,b)\geq\kappa$ for some $V\in\mathfrak T$ provided ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_G(a,b)\geq\max\{\theta(\kappa),\theta(\epsilon^{-1}\kappa)\}$, i.e., uniqueness holds.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:quotients\]
----------------------------------
In light of Lemma \[lem:push-off\], we now enlarge $r$ so that $r\geq 10^9CDEQ\delta$, where $C$ exceeds the constants from Lemma \[lem:entry\] and Lemma \[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\]. Let $F$ be a finite subset of $H-\{1\}$ chosen so that for any $N\triangleleft H$ which avoids $F$, yields $(\{N^g:g\in G\},\{v_{gH}:g\in
G\})$ is a *very rotating family* (see the proof of Proposition \[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\]); our choice of $r$ ensures that $\{v_{gH}\}$ is $200\delta$–separated. Let ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}={\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}_r$, and let ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}={\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}_r$, where $N\triangleleft H$ avoids $F$.
### Linked pairs {#subsubsec:linked_pair}
\[defn:fulcrum\] Let $x,y\in {\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ and $N\triangleleft H$. We say that the apex $v_{gH}$ is a $d$–*fulcrum* for $x,y$ if ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,v_{gH})+{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(v_{gH},y)$ and there exists $h\in gNg^{-1}$, $x'\in [x,v_{gH}]$, $y'\in[v_{gH},y]$ with the following properties.
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',v_{gH}),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y',v_{gH})\in [25\delta,30\delta]$,
- ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',hy')\leq d$.
A fulcrum is shown in Figure \[fig:fulcrum\].
[fulcrum]{} (36,6)[$v_{gH}$]{} (0,6)[$x$]{} (98,6)[$y$]{} (51,18)[$y'$]{} (26,17)[$x'$]{} (22,0)[$hy'$]{}
Our assumptions on $N$ and $r$ mean that we have the following “Greendlinger lemma” [@DGO Lemma 5.10], which is formulated in our context as follows:
\[lem:Greendlinger\] Let $n\in{\widehat{N}}-\{1\}$ and let $p\in{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$. Then one of the following holds:
(A) any ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$–geodesic $[p,np]$ contains a $\delta$–fulcrum for $p,np$; or,
(B) there exists $v_{gH}$ so that $n\in gNg^{-1}\triangleleft
gHg^{-1}$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(p,v_{gH})\leq 25\delta$.
In [@DGO], the first conclusion uses $5\delta$, but in fact the conclusion can be made to hold for an arbitrarily small constant, and we use $\delta$ for convenience.
\[rem:projections\_are\_points\] For convenience, we can and shall assume that, for all $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$ and all $x\in G$, the sets $\rho^U_S$ and $\pi_S(x)$ consist of single points, and $\rho^{gU}_S=g\rho^U_S$ and $\pi_S(gx)=g\pi_S(x)$ for all $g\in G$. Indeed, equivariantly replace each relevant bounded set with one of its elements, and adjust the constants of Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\] and Subsection \[subsubsec:aut\] uniformly if necessary.
\[defn:linked\_pair\] Let $U,V\in\mathfrak S$ (resp. $x,y\in G$, resp. $U\in\mathfrak S,
x\in G$). Then $\{U,V\}$ (resp. $\{x,y\}$, resp. $\{U,x\}$) is *linked* if there does not exist a $10\delta$–fulcrum for $\rho^U_S,\rho^V_S$ (resp. $\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)$, resp. $\rho^U_S,\pi_S(x)$). We say the pair is *weakly linked* when there is no $5\delta$–fulcrum.
\[lem:linked\_pairs\_exist\] Linked pairs have the following properties:
1. for all $[U],[V]\in\mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}$, there exists a (weakly) linked pair $U\in[U],V\in[V]$, and the same holds for pairs ${\widehat{N}}x,{\widehat{N}}y$;\[item:linked\_pairs\_exist\]
2. for any $g\in G$ the pair $\{gU,gV\}$ is (weakly) linked whenever $\{U,V\}$ is (weakly) linked; the same holds for linked pairs $\{x,y\}$;\[item:linked\_is\_invariant\]
3. if $x\in G$ and $n\in{\widehat{N}}$, then $\{x,nx\}$ are not weakly linked and, in fact, have a $\delta$–fulcrum (and the same holds for $x$ and $xn$ since ${\widehat{N}}$ is normal). \[item:translates\_not\_linked\]
Choose $x,y\in{\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ and suppose that $v_{gH}$ is a $5\delta$–fulcrum for $x,y$ (i.e., $x,y$ are not weakly linked). Choose $x',y'\in[x,v_{gH}],[y,v_{gH}]$ and $h\in gHg^{-1}$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',v_{gH}),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y',v_{gH})\in[25\delta,30\delta]$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(hy',x')\leq 5\delta$. Then $${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,hy)\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,x')+{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y,y')+5\delta\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,y)-45\delta,$$ so, by replacing $x,y$ with $x,hy$, we obtain a closer pair of representatives of ${\widehat{N}}x,{\widehat{N}}y$. This proves assertion for weakly linked pairs. Repeating exactly the same argument with $10\delta$ replacing $5\delta$ establishes the assertion for linked pairs.
For all $x,y\in {\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$, cosets $g'H$, and $g\in G$, and $d\geq0$, observe that $v_{g'H}$ is a $d$–fulcrum for $x,y$ if and only if $v_{gg'H}$ is a $d$–fulcrum for $gx,gy$, which proves assertion . Assertion follows from Lemma \[lem:Greendlinger\].
### Proof of Theorem \[thm:quotients\] {#subsubsec:proof}
Throughout this section, we say that $N\triangleleft H$ is *sufficiently deep* if $N\cap F=\emptyset$, where $F\subset H-\{1\}$ is the finite subset whose exclusion from $N$ implies that $(\{gNg^{-1}\},\{v_{gH}\})$ is a $200\delta$–separated very rotating family. We now define the hierarchical space structure on $G/{\widehat{N}}$. By choosing $N$ suffciently deep, we can ensure that, if $g,g'\in G$ differ by a generator in a fixed finite generating set, then $g,g'$ are linked.
\[cons:hhg\_structure\] The index set and associated hyperbolic spaces are defined by the following, where $(G,\mathfrak S)$ is the original HHG structure and the modified HHG structure provided by Proposition \[prop:aux\_HHG\] is denoted $(G,\mathfrak T)$:
1. the index set $\mathfrak S_N$ is $\mathfrak T/{\widehat{N}}$;
2. for $\mathbf S=\{S\}$ (the ${\widehat{N}}$–orbit of $S$), let ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf S={\mathrm{Cay}}(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathcal T/{\widehat{N}}\cup
H/N)$ — note that this is quasi-isometric to ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}$;
3. $\mathbf U\in \mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}$, let ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf
U=\left(\bigsqcup_{U\in\mathbf U}{{\mathcal C}}U\right)/{\widehat{N}}$ — note that this is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal C}}U$ for some (hence any) $U\in\mathbf U$;
4. for $\mathbf U={\widehat{N}} gH$, let ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf
U=\left(\bigsqcup_{ngH\in\mathbf U}{\mathrm{Cay}}(H,\mathcal T\cap
H)\right)/{\widehat{N}}$ — note that this is isometric to a Cayley graph of $H/N$;
5. for each $\mathbf U,\mathbf V\in \mathfrak S_N$, let $\mathbf
U{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf V$ (resp. $\mathbf U{\bot}\mathbf V$) if there exists a linked pair $\{U,V\}\subseteq \mathfrak S$ with $U\in\mathbf U$, $V\in\mathbf V$ so that $U{\sqsubseteq}V$ (resp. $U{\bot}V$). If $\mathbf
U={\widehat{N}} gH$, then we let $\mathbf U{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf S$. If neither $\mathbf U{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf
V$, $\mathbf V{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf U$ nor $\mathbf U{\bot}\mathbf V$ holds, then we let $\mathbf U{\pitchfork}\mathbf V$ .
The projections are defined by taking all linked pair representatives:
6. $\pi_{\mathbf U}(g{\widehat{N}})=\left(\bigcup \pi_{U'}(g')\right)/{\widehat{N}}$, where the union is taken over all linked pairs $\{U',g'\}$ with $U'\in\mathbf U$, $g'\in g{\widehat{N}}$;
7. similarly, for $\mathbf U {\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf V$ or $\mathbf U {\pitchfork}\mathbf V$, $\rho^{\mathbf U}_{\mathbf V}$ is defined as $\left(\bigcup \rho^{U'}_{V'}\right)/{\widehat{N}}$, where the union is taken over all linked pairs $\{U',V'\}$ with $U'\in\mathbf U$, $V'\in \mathbf V$;
8. finally, for $\mathbf V {\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf U$ and ${\widehat{N}}x\in{{\mathcal C}}\mathbf U$, let $\rho^{\mathbf U}_{\mathbf V}({\widehat{N}}x)=\left(\bigcup \rho^{U'}_{V'}(x')\right)/{\widehat{N}}$, where the union is taken over all linked pairs $\{U',V'\}$ with $U'\in\mathbf U$, $V'\in \mathbf V$ and $x'\in {\widehat{N}}x\cap {{\mathcal C}}U'$.
Before proceeding with the proof of Theorem \[thm:quotients\], we need several lemmas:
\[lem:unique\_close\_linked\_partner\] If $N$ is sufficiently deep, then for any $\mathbf U,\mathbf V\in \mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}-\{\mathbf S_N\}$ and any $U\in\mathbf U$ there exists at most one $V\in\mathbf V$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(\rho^U_S,\rho^V_S)\leq 10E$, and hence in particular at most one such $V$ with $U{\sqsubseteq}V$, $V{\sqsubseteq}U$ or $U{\bot}V$.
It follows from Lemma \[lem:Greendlinger\] that, for each $n\in N-\{1\}$ and $x\in{{\mathcal C}}S$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x,nx)\geq 2r$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(x,nx)\geq 2r>10E$. The last assertion follows from Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].\[item:dfs\_transversal\] when $U{\sqsubseteq}V$ or $V{\sqsubseteq}U$, and from Lemma \[lem:orth\_close\] when $U{\bot}V$; in both cases $\rho^U_S$ and $\rho^V_S$ are $E$–close.
\[lem:pass\_close\_to\_apex\] If $N$ is sufficiently deep, then the following holds for each $x,y\in
G$: if $\{U,\pi_S(x)\}$ and $\{U,\pi_S(y)\}$ are linked (resp. weakly linked) then either:
1. $\{\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)\}$ is weakly linked (resp. has no $\delta$–fulcrum), or
2. there exists $v_{gH}$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle([\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S],v_{gH})\leq 40\delta$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle([\pi_S(y),\rho^U_S],v_{gH})\leq 40\delta$.
The analogous statement holds when replacing $x$ and/or $y$ with an element of $\mathfrak S-\{S\}$.
Let $U,x,y$ be as in the statement and suppose that $\{x,y\}$ is not weakly linked. By definition, there exists a $5\delta$–fulcrum $v_{gH}$ for $\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)$. Consider a geodesic triangle in the $\delta$–hyperbolic space ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ with vertices $\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)$ and $\rho^U_S$, with $v_{gH}\in [\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)]$. Choose $x'\in[x,v_{gH}],y'\in[v_{gH},y]$ so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',v_{gH}),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y',v_{gH})\in[25\delta,30\delta]$ and so that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',hy')\leq 5\delta$ for some $h\in gHg^{-1}$.
[triangle\_fulcrum]{} (21,0)[$\rho^U_S$]{} (73,0)[$\rho^U_S$]{} (-1,31)[$x$]{} (46,31)[$y$]{} (51,31)[$x$]{} (98,31)[$y$]{} (12,33)[$hy'$]{} (15,27)[$x'$]{} (21,27)[$v_{gH}$]{} (30,28)[$y'$]{} (65,22)[$\leq\delta$]{} (86,20)[$x'$]{} (73,31)[$hy'$]{} (91,32)[$y'$]{} (87,25)[$v_{gH}$]{}
If ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',[\rho^U_S,\pi_S(x)]),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y',[\rho^U_S,\pi_S(x)])>\delta$, then the very rotating condition [@DGO Lemma 5.5] implies that $v_{gH}$ is contained in $[\rho^U_S,\pi_S(y)]$ and that $v_{gH}$ is a $10\delta$–fulcrum for $\pi_S(y),\rho^U_S$ (witnessed by the same element $h\in gHg^{-1}$), contradicting that $U,y$ are linked. (See Figure \[fig:triangle\_fulcrum\].) Since the same argument works for $[\rho^U_S,\pi_S(y)]$, we have $${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle([\rho^U_S,\pi_S(x)],\{x',y'\})\leq
\delta,\,\,\,\,{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle([\rho^U_S,\pi_S(y)],\{x',y'\})\leq
\delta,$$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(v_{gH},x'),
{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(v_{gH},y')\leq 30\delta$, so the claim follows.
\[lem:same\_proj\_as\_gH\] There exists $K\geq 0$ so that the following holds: if $x,g\in G$ and $U\in\mathfrak S$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle([\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S],v_{gH})\leq 40\delta$ then $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}U}(\pi_U(x)\cup gH)\leq K$.
Observe that $[\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S]$ must pass through ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$, since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}([\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S],v_{gH})\leq40\delta$ and $r\geq10^9\delta$. Let $a$ be the entry point of $[x,\rho^U_S]$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ and let $[x,a]$ be the sub-geodesic joining $x$ to $a$. Let $[a,b]$ be the sub-geodesic of $[\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S]$ that joins the entry point $a$ of $[\pi_S(x),\rho^U_S]$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$ to the entry point $b$ of $[\rho^U_S,x]$ in ${\mathfrak C}(gH)$. Since ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(a,b)\geq 2r-80\delta>1000CDE\delta$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(a,b)>1000CDE\delta$. Combined with Lemma \[lem:push-off\], this shows that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}(\rho^U_S,c)>100E$ for any $c$ on a ${{\mathcal C}}S$–geodesic from $x$ to $a$. Hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}S}([x,a],\rho^U_S)>E$, so bounded geodesic image in $(G,\mathfrak S)$ implies that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,a)\leq E$, whence $\operatorname{\textup{\textsf{diam}}}_U(\pi_U(x)\cup\pi_U(gH))\leq E+C$, by Lemma \[lem:bounded\_projections\_he\].
Combining Lemma \[lem:pass\_close\_to\_apex\] and Lemma \[lem:same\_proj\_as\_gH\], and increasing $C$ if necessary, yields:
\[cor:unlinked\_have\_same\_proj\] There exists $C\geq 0$ so that the following holds for each $x,y\in
G$ provided $N$ is sufficiently deep. If $\{U,\pi_S(x)\}$ and $\{U,\pi_S(y)\}$ are linked (resp. weakly linked) but $\{\pi_S(x),\pi_S(y)\}$ is not weakly linked (resp. has a $\delta$–fulcrum), then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{{{\mathcal C}}U}(x,y)\leq C$. The same holds with $x$ and/or $y$ replaced with elements of $\mathfrak
S-\{S\}$.
\[lem:hellyish\] Let $\{\mathbf U_i\}_{i=1}^k$ be a totally orthogonal set with $\mathbf U_i\in\mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}$ for all $i$. Then there exist representatives $U_i\in\mathbf U_i$ so that for all distinct $i,j$, we have $U_i{\bot}U_j$ and $\{U_i,U_j\}$ is a linked pair.
This follows by induction on $k$, using Lemma \[lem:not\_close\]. Indeed, when $k=1$, there is nothing to prove. Suppose that we can choose the required $U_i$ for $1\leq i\leq k-1$. For each $i\leq k-1$, choose $U_k^i\in\mathbf U_k$ so that $\{U_i,U^i_k\}$ is a linked pair and $U_i{\bot}U^i_k$. Then for each $i,j$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(\rho^{U^i_k}_S,\rho^{U^j_k}_S)\leq30E$, so, by Lemma \[lem:not\_close\], the $U^i_k$ all coincide, and we are done.
\[lem:not\_close\] Let $U\in\mathfrak S$ and let $n\in{\widehat{N}}$. Then either $nU=U$ or ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(\rho^U_S,\rho^{nU}_S)>100E$.
If $U\neq nU$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(\rho^U_S,\rho^{nU}_S)\leq100E$, then each geodesic $[\rho^U_S,\rho^{nU}_S]$ in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ fails to pass through any apex, since $r>10^9E$. In particular, there is no $5\delta$–fulcrum for $\rho^U_S,\rho^{nU}_S=n\rho^U_S$. Thus, by Lemma \[lem:Greendlinger\], there exists $v_{gH}$ so that $n\in gNg^{-1}$ and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(\rho^U_S,v_{gH})\leq25\delta$. But this is impossible, since $\rho^U_S\in{{\mathcal C}}S$ lies at distance at least $r>10^9\delta$ from any apex.
\[lem:labelled\] There exists $C'$ so that the following holds. Let $\{g,g'\}$ be ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle$–minimal representatives of $g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}$ and let $U\in\mathfrak T$ satisfy ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(g,g')>C'$. Then $\{U,g\}$ and $\{U,g'\}$ are linked.
Consider a geodesic triangle in ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G})}$ formed by $g,g',\rho^U_S$. Suppose $\{U,g\}$ is not linked, so $[\rho^U_S,g']$ contains a $10\delta$–fulcrum $v=v_{g''H}$ for $\{U,g'\}$. If $[g,\rho^U_S]$ passes $40\delta$–close to $v$, then Lemma \[lem:same\_proj\_as\_gH\] shows that $\pi_U(g),\pi_U(g')$ coarsely coincide with $\rho^{g''H}_U$. Otherwise, $[\rho^U_S,g']$ contains a length–$60\delta$ subpath, centered at $v$ and contained in ${\mathcal N}_\delta([g,g'])$. Using the notation of Definition \[defn:fulcrum\], let $h\in N^{g''},x',y'\in[\rho^U_S,g]$ witness the fact that $v$ is a $10\delta$–fulcrum for $\rho^U_S,g'$, with $y'$ between $v$ and $g'$. Choose $x'',y''\in[g,g']$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(x',x''),{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y',y'')\leq\delta$. Then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(g,hg')\leq{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(g,x'')+{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(y'',g')+12\delta<{\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(g,g')$, contradicting our choice of $g,g'$.
We are now ready to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:quotients\]:
The claimed hierarchical space structure $(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathfrak S_N)$ is described in Construction \[cons:hhg\_structure\]. Observe that each ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf U$ is uniformly hyperbolic by definition when $\mathbf U={\widehat{N}}U$ for some $U\in\mathfrak S-\{S\}$. Moreover, ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf S$ is hyperbolic by Proposition \[prop:hyperbolic\_pyramids\]. If $\mathbf U\in\mathfrak S_N$ arose from a coset of $H/N$, then $\mathbf U$ is necessarily ${\sqsubseteq}$–minimal. Hence, if $(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathfrak S_N)$ is a hierarchical space structure, then it is a relatively hierarchically hyperbolic space structure. Moreover, $G/{\widehat{N}}$ acts on $\mathfrak S_N$ and, for each $g\in G/{\widehat{N}}$ and $\mathbf U\in\mathfrak S_N$, it is easily seen that there is an induced isometry ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf U\to{{\mathcal C}}g\mathbf U$ so that the required diagrams from Section \[subsubsec:aut\] coarsely commute. Hence it suffices to show that $(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathfrak S_N)$ is a hierarchical space.
We observe that if $\{U,x\}$ is linked and $\{U,nx\}$ is weakly linked, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(x,nx)\leq C$, for $C$ as in Corollary 6.26. In fact, $\{x,nx\}$ has a $\delta$–fuclrum by Lemma 6.18.
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:** To finish proving that $(G/{\widehat{N}},\mathfrak S_N)$ satisfies the projections axiom, we must check that each $\pi_{\mathbf U}$ sends points to uniformly bounded sets and is uniformly coarsely Lipschitz. Let $\mathbf U\in\mathfrak S_N$, then for each $g\in G$ we have that $\pi_{\mathbf U}(g{\widehat{N}})$ is uniformly bounded by Corollary \[cor:unlinked\_have\_same\_proj\] and Lemma \[lem:linked\_pairs\_exist\].(\[item:translates\_not\_linked\]).
We now show that $\pi_{\mathbf U}$ is coarsely lipschitz. Let $g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}\in G/{\widehat{N}}$. It suffices to consider the case where ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{G/{\widehat{N}}}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})\leq 1$. Choose representatives $g,g'$ that differ by a single generator of $G$. Let $\mathbf U\in\mathfrak T$. Choose $U\in\mathbf U$ so that $\{U,g\}$ is a linked pair, so that since $N$ was chosen sufficiently deep, $\{U,g'\}$ is weakly linked. Hence, the observation above shows ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(g,g')\leq C$, as required.
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].,,,:** The nesting, orthogonality, finite complexity and bounded geodesic image axioms easily follow from Lemma \[lem:unique\_close\_linked\_partner\].
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:** We now prove consistency. Let $\mathbf U{\pitchfork}\mathbf V$ and $g{\widehat{N}}\in G/{\widehat{N}}$. Also, suppose $U\in\mathbf U,
V\in\mathbf V$ and $g$ have the property that $\{U,V\}$ and $\{U,g\}$ are linked; this is justified by Lemma \[lem:linked\_pairs\_exist\]. If $\{V,g\}$ is weakly linked, then, using the observation above, consistency for $\mathbf U,\mathbf
V,g{\widehat{N}}$ follows from consistency for $U,V,g$ (Proposition \[prop:aux\_HHG\]). If not, by Corollary \[cor:unlinked\_have\_same\_proj\] we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{U}(\rho^V_U,g)\leq
C$, and hence the consistency inequality holds.
Now suppose that $\mathbf U{\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf V$ and $g{\widehat{N}}\in
G/{\widehat{N}}$. Also, suppose $U\in\mathbf U, V\in\mathbf V$ and $g$ have the property that $\{U,V\}$ and $\{U,g\}$ are linked and $U{\sqsubsetneq}V$. If $\{V,g\}$ is a weakly linked pair, then consistency follows from consistency for $U,V,g$. Otherwise, apply Corollary \[cor:unlinked\_have\_same\_proj\] as above.
If $\mathbf U{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf V$ and $\mathbf W$ satisfies either $\mathbf V{\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf W$ or $\mathbf V{\pitchfork}\mathbf W$ and $\mathbf W\not{\bot}\mathbf U$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf W}(\rho^{\mathbf U}_{\mathbf W},\rho^{\mathbf V}_{\mathbf W})$ is uniformly bounded by a similar argument. This completes the proof of consistency.
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:** Let $g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}\in G/{\widehat{N}}$ and let $\mathbf
W\in\mathfrak S_N$. We divide into three cases according to whether ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf W=g''H/ N$ for some $g''$, or ${{\mathcal C}}\mathbf W
={{\mathcal C}}W$ for some $W\in\mathbf W$, or ${{\mathcal C}}W={\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}$. In the first case, nothing is properly nested into $\mathbf W$ and we are done.
Consider the second case, and choose $g,g'\in g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}$ and $W,W'\in\mathbf W$ so that $\{W,g\}$ and $\{W',g'\}$ are linked pairs. By translating, we may assume that $W=W'$, and ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf
W}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_W(g,g')$ by definition. Hence the large link lemma in $(G,\mathfrak T)$ provides $\mathbf
T_1,\ldots,\mathbf T_k{\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf W$, with $\mathbf T_i$ represented by some $T_i\in\mathfrak S$ so that if $U{\sqsubsetneq}W$, then ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(g,g')>E$ only if $U{\sqsubseteq}T_i$ for some $i$. Suppose that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf U}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})>E+2C$ for some $\mathbf U{\sqsubsetneq}\mathbf W$. Then there exist $g_1,g_1'\in g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}$ so that $g_1,g_1'$ are both linked to some $U\in\mathbf
U$ with $U{\sqsubsetneq}W$. Lemma \[lem:linked\_pairs\_exist\]. and Corollary \[cor:unlinked\_have\_same\_proj\] imply that $\pi_U(g),\pi_U(g_1)$ $C$–coarsely coincide, and the same is true for $\pi_U(g'),\pi_U(g'_1)$, so $U$ must be nested in some $T_i$. Since $\rho^U_S$ and $\rho^{T_i}_S$ coarsely coincide, it follows that $U,T_i$ is a linked pair and thus $\mathbf U{\sqsubseteq}\mathbf T_i$.
Consider the third case. Let $g,g'\in g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}$ be minimal-distance (in ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle$) representatives. Observe that $\{g,g'\}$ is a linked pair and that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle}(g,g')={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle_N}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})$, where ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\triangle_N}$ is the metric on ${\mathrm{Pyr}({G/{\widehat{N}}})}$. The claim follows from the large link lemma in $(G,\mathfrak T)$ as above.
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:** Let $\{\mathbf U_i\}_{i=1}^k$ be a totally orthogonal subset of $\mathfrak T/{\widehat{N}}$. If $\mathbf U_i\not\in\mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}$ for some $i$, then $k=1$ and partial realization obviously holds. Hence suppose that $\mathbf U_i\in\mathfrak S/{\widehat{N}}$ for all $i$. Then, by Lemma \[lem:hellyish\], for each $i\leq k$, there exists $U_i\in\mathbf U_i$ so that for all distinct $i,j$, we have $U_i{\bot}U_j$ and $\{U_i,U_j\}$ is a linked pair. The claim now follows from partial realization in $(G,\mathfrak T)$.
**Verifying Definition \[defn:space\_with\_distance\_formula\].:** Let $g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}\in G/{\widehat{N}}$ and let $\kappa\geq 0$. Suppose that for all $\mathbf U\in\mathfrak T$, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf U}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})\leq\kappa$. Let $g,g'\in g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}}$ be minimal-distance (in ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle$) representatives.
We now show that $\pi_U(g),\pi_U(g')$ are $(\kappa+C')$–close in every $U\in\mathfrak S$, for $C'$ as in Lemma \[lem:labelled\]. By uniqueness in $(G,\mathfrak T)$, it follows that ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_G(g,g')\leq\theta(\kappa+C')$, which implies the required bound on ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{G/{\widehat{N}}}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})$.
Since we chose $g,g'$ at minimal distance, we have ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_\triangle(g,g')\leq\kappa$. Suppose that there exists $U\in\mathfrak T-\{S\}$ with ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(g,g')>C'$. Then by Lemma \[lem:labelled\], $U$ is linked to both $g$ and $g'$, and hence ${\textup{\textsf{d}}}_U(g,g')={\textup{\textsf{d}}}_{\mathbf U}(g{\widehat{N}},g'{\widehat{N}})\leq\kappa$, as required.
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
[^4]: It seems natural to take $x_i=\pi_{V_i}(y)$, $x'_i=\pi_{V_{i+1}}(x)$, but in certain situations this would create extraneous distance formula terms between $x_i,x'_i$, namely when there exists $U{\sqsubseteq}V_i,V_{i+1}$.
[^5]: A proof of the results in this subsection appeared in the first version of [@BehrstockHagenSisto:HHS_II] using techniques which we have now generalized to prove Proposition \[prop:cone\_off\_bottom\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'M.E.S. Borelli [^1]'
- 'H. Kleinert [^2]'
- 'Adriaan M.J. Schakel[^3]'
title: Vertical Melting of a Stack of Membranes
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Under suitable conditions, lipid membranes in aqueous solution are known to form lamellar structures, characterized by a parallel arrangement of the membranes alternating with thin layers of water [@helfstack]. The existence of such structures is in contrast to the behavior of a single tensionless membrane subject to thermal fluctuations, which is always in a disordered, crumpled phase, filling the embedding space completely [@Jerusalem]. In a stack, this phase is suppressed by the steric repulsion between the membranes which prevents them from passing through each other [@helfstack], thus constraining the amplitude of the height fluctuations of each membrane to be less than the distance to its nearest neighbors.
In this note, we investigate the question whether the lamellar structure exists at all temperatures, or whether thermal fluctuations can destroy the vertical order at some critical temperature.
Such a transition does not take place in the simplest model of a stack proposed by Helfrich [@helfstack], where the membranes possess only a linearized curvature energy and a harmonic repulsive term accounts for the vertical forces in the stack, approximating in a rough way the steric repulsion. In this purely Gaussian approximation, the theory is equivalent to de Gennes’ theory of smectic-A liquid crystals, having only an ordered phase [@DGstack].
In this paper we extend the simplest model by taking into account higher-order terms of the curvature energy, and show that thermal fluctuations cause a finite stack of membranes to disorder vertically, a process which we may call vertical melting. A similar phase was previously described in a different context by Huse and Leibler [@HuLe], and by Kleinert [@nematic], who related the molten phase to the directionally ordered phase of a nematic liquid crystal. We shall find that thermal fluctuations renormalize both the coefficient of the curvature term and the vertical compressibility of the stack. Analyzing the renormalization group equations, we find, besides the Gaussian fixed point governing the low-temperature phase, a nontrivial fixed point determining the critical exponents of the vertical melting transition.
The Model {#model}
=========
We consider a generalization of the Helfrich model due to Janke and Kleinert [@JankeKleinert], in which a multilayer system is made up of $(N+1)$ fluid membranes, parallel to the $xy$ plane of a Cartesian coordinate system, separated a distance $l$. If the vertical displacement of the $m$th membrane with respect to this reference plane is described by a function $u_m({\bf x}) \equiv u({\bf
x}_\perp,m l)$, where ${\bf x}_\perp = (x,y)$, the energy of the stack reads: $$\label{mod0}
E = \sum_{m} \int {\rm d}^2 x_\perp \sqrt{g_m} \left[r_0 + {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}
\kappa_0 H_m^2 + \frac{B_0}{2 l} (u_m - u_{m-1})^2 \right].$$ Here, $H_m= \partial_i N_{m,i}$ is the mean curvature, where ${\bf
N}_m \propto (-\partial_1 u_m, -\partial_2 u_m, 1)$ is the unit normal to the $m$th membrane, and $g_{m,i j}=\delta_{i j} + \partial_i u_m
\partial_j u_m$ the induced metric, with $i,j = 1,2$, $\partial_1 =
\partial/\partial x, \partial_2 = \partial/\partial y$ and $g_m = \det
[g_{m,i j}]$. The parameter $r_0$ is the surface tension of a single membrane, $\kappa_0$ its bending rigidity, and $B_0$ the compressibility of the stack. In Eq. (\[mod0\]), as in the following, the subscript $0$ denotes bare quantities, whereas renormalized parameters will carry no subscript.
In the original Helfrich model, the surface tension $r_0$ was not included because the membranes in the stack are tensionless. We have included $r_0$ in the energy (\[mod0\]) as an infrared regulator which also serves to absorb ultraviolet infinities. After carrying out the various integrals, the renormalized physical tension will be set equal to zero.
For slow spatial variations, the discrete variable $m l$ may be replaced with a continuous one, and $u({\bf x}_\perp,m l) \to u({\bf x})$, where ${\bf x} = ({\bf x}_\perp,z)$. In this limit, the energy (\[mod0\]) reduces to $$\label{mod1}
E = \int^{L_{\parallel}}_0
{\rm d}z \int {\rm d}^2 x_\perp \sqrt{g} \left[ \sigma_0 +
{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} K _0 H^2 + {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} B_0 (\partial_z u)^2 \right].$$ Here we have introduced bulk versions of the surface tension $\sigma_0
\equiv r_0/l$ and bending rigidity $K_0 \equiv \kappa_0/l$, and defined $L_{\parallel} \equiv N l$. In Ref. [@nematic] the vertical gradient energy $(\partial_z u)^2$ was replaced by the normal gradient energy $({\bf N} \cdot \nabla u)^2$, which is physically more correct and has the advantage of being reparametrization invariant (see also Ref. [@foltin]). In the following, we shall derive all results for both terms and analyze the difference between the two.
We study the stack perturbatively, starting with the lamellar configuration, and expand the theory in the inverse parameter $\alpha_0 = 1/K_0$, which is assumed to be small. To keep our notation in conformity with the literature, we use $K_0$ throughout the text and resort to its inverse only when necessary.
Renormalization
===============
The phase transition to be described in this note is caused by a competition between the softening of the bending rigidity due to thermal fluctuations and the stack-preserving vertical elastic forces. To understand this competition we study how thermal fluctuations renormalize the parameters of the theory. For this we expand the energy (\[mod1\]) up to fourth order in the displacement field $u({\bf x})$, where it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ourmodel}
\! E = \int^{L_{\parallel}}_0 \! \! \! \!
{\rm d}z \! \! \int \! {\rm d}^2 x_\perp \Bigl[ &{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}&
\sigma_0 (\partial_i u)^2 + {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} K_0 (\partial_i^2 u)^2 +
{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} B_0 (\partial_z u)^2 \nonumber \\ &-& {{\textstyle\frac{1}{8}}}
\sigma_0 (\partial_i u)^2 (\partial_j u)^2 - {{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}} K_0
(\partial_i^2 u)^2 (\partial_j u)^2 \nonumber \\ &-& K_0 (\partial_i
u)(\partial_j u) (\partial_i \partial_j u) (\partial_k^2 u)\nonumber
\\ &\pm& {{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}} B_0 (\partial_z u)^2 (\partial_i u)^2 \Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where the lower sign in the last term refers to the more physical normal gradient energy $({\bf N} \cdot \nabla u)^2$. For zero surface tension, the lowest-order contribution to the energy due to longitudinal displacements is of the usual elastic form ${{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} B_0 (\partial_z u)^2$, while that due to transverse displacements is of higher order, viz. ${{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} K_0 (\partial_i^2
u)^2$.
The one-loop contributions can be calculated either by using Feynman diagrams, or by a derivative expansion, as in Ref. [@memb]. Following standard procedure, we integrate out fluctuations with transverse wavevectors in a momentum shell. Since the stack is periodic and of finite extent in the $z$-direction, the Fourier transform includes a sum $(1/L_{\parallel})\sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2}$ over the discrete wavevector components $$\label{matsubara}
\omega_n = \frac{2 \pi}{L_{\parallel}} n.$$ We take into account the interlayer spacing $l$ in a rough way by restricting the values of the discrete variables to $|\omega_n| <
\pi/l$, so that the summation index $n$ lies in the interval $-{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}}N<n<\frac{1}{2}N$. To one-loop order, the bare parameters are renormalized to $$\sigma_0 \to \sigma_0(1 + I_1), \;\;\; K_0 \to K_0 (1 - {{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}} I_2),
\;\;\; B_0 \to B_0 (1 \pm {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} I_2 ),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 &=& \frac{k_{\rm B}T}{L_{\parallel}}\sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2} \int \frac{{\rm
d}^2q_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{{{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} \frac{B_0}{\sigma_0} \omega_n^2 -
q_\perp^2 - {{\textstyle\frac{3}{2}}} \frac{K_0}{\sigma_0} q_\perp^4}{B_0 \omega_n^2 +
\sigma_0 q_\perp^2 + K_0 q_\perp^4} \label{i1} \\ I_2 &=&
\frac{k_{\rm B}T}{L_{\parallel}}\sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2} \int \frac{{\rm
d}^2q_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} \frac{q_\perp^2}{B_0 \omega_n^2 + \sigma_0
q_\perp^2 + K_0 q_\perp^4}. \label{i12}\end{aligned}$$ We regularize the integrals in the ultraviolet by introducing a sharp transverse wavevector cutoff $\Lambda$ inversely proportional to the lateral size $a$ of a lipid molecule. Actually, the divergent contributions to the above integrals are independent of $B_0$. This is due to the discrete nature of the stack. By restricting the values of the discrete wavevectors $\omega_n$ to account for the interlayer spacing, as explained above, all divergences proportional to $B_0$ are suppressed.
The renormalization flow is obtained by integrating out transverse wavevectors in a momentum shell $\Lambda/s < q_\perp < \Lambda$, and subsequently rescaling the coordinates. We thus obtain, $$\label{I2}
I_1 = {{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}} I_2 = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \frac{k_{\rm B}T}{L_{\parallel}}
\frac{1}{K_0} (N + 1) \ln s.$$
Since these results are independent of $\sigma_0$, we can safely set the surface tension to zero, thus describing a stack of tensionless membranes, characterized by the two remaining parameters, $B$ and $K$. Under a rescaling ${\bf x}_\perp \to {\bf x}_\perp/s$ of the coordinates in the plane and $z \to z/s^{z_{\rm c}}$ along the stack axis, the expansion parameter of perturbation theory $\alpha \equiv
1/K$ scales like $\alpha \to s^{-z_{\rm c}} \alpha$, and the compressibility scales like $B \to s^{4 - z_{\rm c}} B$. Here, $z_{\rm
c}$ allows for the possibility of anisotropic scaling. From Eq.(\[ourmodel\]) with $\sigma=0$, it follows that $z_{\rm c}=2$ in the Helfrich model. Using the above results, one readily generates differential recursion relations to lowest nontrivial order $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm d} \alpha}{{\rm d} \ln s } &=& - z_{\rm
c} \alpha + \frac{3}{4 \pi} \frac{k_{\rm B}T}{L_{\parallel}} \alpha^2 (N + 1)
\label{betaalpha} \\ \frac{{\rm d} B}{{\rm d} \ln s }
&=& (4 - z_{\rm c}) B \pm \frac{1}{4 \pi} \frac{k_{\rm
B}T}{L_{\parallel}} B \alpha (N + 1). \label{betanu}\end{aligned}$$ Besides the Gaussian fixed point $(\alpha=0, B=0)$ which is stable in the infrared, the flow equations also admit a nontrivial, unstable fixed point at $$\label{fp}
\alpha^*= \frac{4 \pi}{3} \frac{L_{\parallel}}{k_{\rm B}T} \frac{z_{\rm c}}{N+1},
\;\;\; B =0.$$ The latter implies the presence of a phase transition at a critical temperature $$\label{tc}
k_{\rm B} T_{\rm c} = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \frac{N}{N+1} \frac{l z_{\rm
c}}{\alpha^*} .$$
The flow diagram corresponding to the above system of differential equations is shown in Fig. \[fig:flow\].
=8.cm
For $T<T_{\rm c}$, the inverse bending rigidity $\alpha$ flows to the Gaussian fixed point at the origin. In this low-temperature phase, the bending rigidity of the membranes increases with their lateral size, and thermal fluctuations are suppressed. This weak-coupling phase is the lamellar phase, where the rotational symmetry is spontaneously broken. For $T>T_{\rm c}$, on the other hand, $\alpha$ flows with increasing length scales away from the nontrivial fixed point at $\alpha^*$ in the opposite direction. As $\alpha$ increases, the bending rigidity decreases and the membrane fluctuations become stronger. At the critical point $\alpha^*$, the stack disorders vertically and the system enters a strong-coupling disordered phase. Note that the critical temperature (\[tc\]) depends only weakly on the number $(N+1)$ of membranes.
The flow equations (\[betaalpha\]) and (\[betanu\]) can be integrated exactly, yielding: $$B = c \, \alpha^{\pm 1/3} \left| \frac{\alpha -
\alpha^*}{\alpha}\right|^{4/z_{\rm c} - 1 \pm 1/3}, \label{B}$$ where $c$ is an integration constant. For $z_{\rm c}=2$, the exponent is equal to $1 \pm 1/3$. Explicitly, as we approach $T_{\rm c}$ from below, $B$ goes to zero as $$B \sim |T - T_{\rm c}|^{1 \pm 1/3}.$$
The free energy density of the model in the lamellar phase can be calculated in the harmonic approximation, as in Ref. [@helfstack]. For a finite stack, it reads $$f = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \frac{k_{\rm
B}T}{L_{\parallel}^2} \left(\frac{B}{K}\right)^{1/2}N(N + 2)$$ Thus, as $T$ approaches $T_{\rm c}$ from below, the free energy density behaves for $z_{\rm c}=2$ like $$\label{freeplot}
f \sim |T - T_{\rm c}|^{1/2 \pm 1/6},$$ and the specific heat of the stack diverges as $$\label{cplot}
C \sim |T - T_{\rm c}|^{-3/2 \pm 1/6}.$$ Figure \[fig:free\] shows a plot of the free energy density and specific heat of the stack for the lower sign in Eqs.(\[freeplot\]) and (\[cplot\]).
=8.cm
We thus see that by using either the vertical gradient energy $(\partial_z u)^2$ or the more physical normal gradient energy $({\bf
N}\cdot \nabla u)^2$, the qualitative behavior of the stack of membranes is not altered, but the critical exponents of the melting transition differ from each other. This is due to the fact that the normal gradient energy is zero for the in-plane flow of molecules inside the membranes. The vertical gradient energy $(\partial_z
u)^2$, on the other hand, includes the energies of the tangential flow. Incompressibility effects have been shown by David [@incomp] and by Kleinert [@kleinincomp] to be irrelevant for the renormalization of a single membrane. Our result implies that this is not the case for a stack of membranes.
The properties of a single membrane are obtained by letting $N \to 0$ and $ z_{\rm c} \to 0$. In particular, the flow equation (\[betaalpha\]) of the bending rigidity reduces in this limit to the known result [@peliti]. It has no fixed point other than the trivial one, which is unstable now, implying that a single membrane is always in the crumpled strong-coupling phase.
Weak-coupling ordered phase {#weak}
===========================
We next wish to study the low-temperature phase of the stack in more detail, where the coupling constant $\alpha$ is weak. As in smectic-A liquid crystals, the theory (\[ourmodel\]) can here safely be approximated by taking into account only the quadratic terms. An important characteristic is the vertical fluctuation width or roughness $\ell$ of a membrane in the stack defined by the mean square [*height*]{} fluctuation as $\ell^2 = \langle u^2 \rangle$ [@lipbook]. In the harmonic approximation, it is given by the one-loop integral $$\label{rough}
\ell^2 = \langle u^2 \rangle = \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{L_{\parallel}} \sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2}
\int_{1/L_{\perp}}^\Lambda \frac{{\rm d}^2 q_\perp}{(2 \pi)^2}
\frac{1}{B \omega_n^2 + K q_\perp^4},$$ where, in the absence of a surface tension, the largest wavelength is equal to the inverse lateral size $1/L_\perp$ of the membranes. As first observed by Peierls and Landau, the mean square fluctuations diverge in the infrared. They thus destroy the long-range [*positional*]{} order in the layered system at any finite temperature. More specifically, one finds [@lipbook; @DGbook] $$\label{ell}
\ell^2 \sim \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{2 \pi} \left[\frac{L_\perp^2}{K
L_\parallel} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{BK}} \ln(L_\perp/a) \right] .$$ The first contribution, only present in a finite stack, stems from the $n=0$ term in the sum in Eq. (\[rough\]). It corresponds to a super soft mode, where the membranes undulate coherently with constant interlayer distance. The second contribution, on the other hand, is also present when the stack is infinite. This contribution increases slowly with the lateral size.
Before proceeding, let us pause for a moment and consider the roughness of the two limiting cases of our theory: a single, tensionless membrane and an infinite, continuum stack of such membranes. In this way, we find $$\label{magda}
\ell^2 = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle \int \frac{{\rm d}^D
q_\perp}{(2 \pi)^D} \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{\kappa q_\perp^4}, & (\mbox{single
membrane}) \\ \displaystyle \int \frac{{\rm d} q_z {\rm d}^D q_\perp}{(2
\pi)^{D+1}} \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{B q_z^2 + K q_\perp^4}, & (\mbox{infinite
stack}),
\end{array} \right.$$ where instead of a 2-dimensional membrane we consider a $D$-dimensional object. It follows that for $D>D_{\rm u} = 4 - z_{\rm c}$, the roughness is finite in the infrared, indicating that $D_{\rm u} = 4 - z_{\rm c}$ is the upper critical dimension. Recall that for a single membrane $z_{\rm c}=0$, while for an infinite stack $z_{\rm c}=2$. To determine the lower critical dimension, we consider the mean square normal, or [*orientational*]{} fluctuations $\langle (\partial_\perp u)^2 \rangle$. This results in an additional factor of $q_\perp^2$ in the numerator of the integrands in (\[magda\]). The resulting expressions are finite in the infrared for $D>D_{\rm l} = 2 - z_{\rm c}$, identifying $D_{\rm l}$ as the lower critical dimension. Hence, in going from the limit of a single, tensionless 2-dimensional ($D=2$) membrane to the opposite limit of an infinite stack, we go from the lower critical dimension of the former to the upper critical dimension of the latter.
Another characteristic of the weak-coupling phase of low-temperature is the behavior of the structure factor $$\label{corr}
S_n({\bf x}) =\langle \exp \{i n q_0 [u({\bf x})-u(0)] \} \rangle,$$ where $q_0$ is parallel to the $z-$axis, with $|q_0|=2\pi/l$. This correlation function can be directly observed in X-ray scattering experiments, where the fluctuation spectrum is expressed as half-widths at half-maximum of the anomalous Bragg peaks. As in smectic-A liquid crystals [@caille; @ChLu], the Fourier transform of the structure factor has algebraic singularities at $q_z = n q_0$: $$\label{power}
S_n(0,q_z) \sim (q_z - n q_0)^{-2 + n^2 \eta}, \;\;\; S(q_\perp,0) \sim
q_\perp^{-4 + 2 n^2 \eta},$$ with exponent $\eta$. In the harmonic approximation, $\eta$ can be calculated from Eq. (\[corr\]) and turns out to be the same as for an infinite stack [@caille] $$\eta = \frac{k_{\rm B} T}{8 \pi} \frac{q_0^2}{\sqrt{B K}}.$$ The algebraic singularities in (\[power\]) reflect the quasi-long-range periodic order along the stack axis. As for smectic-A liquid crystals, the exponent $\eta$ is temperature independent. This can be seen by remembering that by simple scaling arguments [@helfstack] $$B \sim \frac{(k_{\rm B}T )^2}{\kappa} \frac{l}{(l-w)^4},$$ for a stack of membranes of rigidity $\kappa$ and thickness $w$. Specifically, $$\eta \sim \left(1 - \frac{w}{l}\right)^2.$$ For smectic-A liquid crystals, this expression was confirmed experimentally [@exp].
As the temperature increases, thermal fluctuations become stronger, and eventually overcome the vertical forces of the $B$-term leading to a vertical disordering of the stack. In the strong-coupling disordered phase, the Gaussian approximation used in this section to investigate the weak-coupling ordered phase breaks down. To study this phase, a nonperturbative method is required.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
We have shown that a stack of membranes with nonlinear curvature energy melts at some critical temperature $T_{\rm c}$. In the weak-coupling low-temperature phase the system forms a periodic array of well-defined surfaces. There is long-range orientational order in the planes, and quasi-long-range positional order along the stack axis. This phase can be accurately described by the harmonic approximation of the Helfrich model, which coincides with the de Gennes’ theory of smectic-A liquid crystals.
Upon approaching $T_{\rm c}$, the stack melts and the lamellar phase goes over into a strong-coupling disordered phase. This phase cannot be described by the harmonic approximation. Its properties will be investigated separately in a nonperturbative framework, in the limit of infinite embedding space dimension.
[99]{} W. Helfrich, Z. Naturforsch. [**33a**]{}, 305 (1978). , Proceedings of the Fifth Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, 1987/1988, edited by D. Nelson, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989). P. G. de Gennes, J. Phys. (Paris), Colloque [**4**]{}, 65 (1969). D. A. Huse and S. Leibler, J. Phys. (Paris) [**49**]{}, 605 (1988). H. Kleinert, [*Smectic-Nematic Phase Transition as Wrinkling Transition in a Stack of Membranes*]{}, Berlin preprint (1989), http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/$\sim$kleinert/173. W. Janke and H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 145 (1987). G. Foltin, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 5243 (1994). M. E. S. Borelli, H. Kleinert, and A. M. J. Schakel, Phys. Lett. A [**253**]{}, 239 (1999); Phys. Lett. A [**267**]{}, 201 (2000). L. Peliti and S. Leibler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1690 (1985), H. Kleinert, Phys. Lett. A [**114**]{}, 263 (1986), D. Förster, Phys. Lett. A [**114**]{}, 115 (1986). F. David, Europhys. Lett. [**6**]{}, 603 (1988). H. Kleinert, Phys. Lett. A [**53**]{}, 130 (1988); S. Ami and H. Kleinert, Phys. Lett. A [**120**]{}, 207 (1987), http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/$\sim$kleinert/157. R. Lipowsky, in [*Structure and Dynamics of Membranes*]{}, Vol. 1B of [*Handbook of Biological Physics*]{}, ed. by R. Lipowsky and E. Sackmann (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1995). P. G. de Gennes, [*The Physics of Liquid Crystals*]{} (Oxford University Press, London, 1974). A. Caillé, C. R. Acad. Sci. Ser. B [**274**]{}, 981 (1972). P. M. Chaikan and T. C. Lubensky, [*Principles of Condensed Matter Physics*]{}. (Cambridge Press, New York, 1995). C. R. Safinya, D. Roux, G. S. Smith, S. K. Sinha, P. Dimon, N. A, Clark, and A. M. Bellocq, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2718 (1986).
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The global and electromagnetic gyrokinetic particle-in-cell code ORB5 is employed to investigate the self-consistent interactions between Alfvén modes (AM) and ion temperature gradient (ITG) turbulence in a magnetically confined plasma. Here, an axisymmetric magnetic equilibrium with reversed shear and large aspect ratio is considered. An AM with toroidal mode number n=5 is driven unstable by introducing a population of suprathermal ions. Once the AM saturates in the presence of the fully developed turbulence, the ion heat flux is dominated by the AM and its main harmonics. ITG-induced transport is found to also be enhanced in the presence of the unstable AM.'
---
\
\
Introduction
============
Magnetically confined plasmas are complex systems in which waves and instabilities at multiple spatial scales coexist and influence each other. Important examples are microinstabilities, meso-scale zonal flows (ZF) and macroscopic MHD instabilities like Alfvén modes (AM), which mutually interact either due to direct coupling via wave-wave nonlinear interaction, or by indirect interaction mediated by suprathermal ion species, hereafter named ‘energetic particles’ (EP). Microinstabilities, like ion-temperature-gradient (ITG) modes, are unstable due to the gradients of plasma temperature and density, and are particularly deleterious to the heat and particle confinement. ZFs, i.e., ExB flows (primarily in the poloidal direction) associated with purely radial variations of the electrostatic potential, are usually observed in the presence of turbulence and can play the role of the dominant turbulence saturation mechanism [@Hasegawa79]. EPs are present in tokamak plasmas due to external heating mechanisms and to nuclear fusion reactions. AMs are eigenmodes of the shear Alfvén waves such as Global Alfvén Eigenmodes (GAE) [@Appert82], Toroidicity-induced Alfvén Eigenmodes (TAE) [@Cheng85] or Beta-induced Alfvén Eigenmodes (BAE) [@Chu92; @Heibrink93]. These AMs can be driven unstable by the presence of EPs, which can then lead to a redistribution of the EP population [@Chen16]. This can have consequences, inter alia, on plasma heating. Due to the large computational cost of fully gyrokinetic (GK) simulations, the nonlinear dynamics of AMs has been studied in the past mostly with hybrid models treating the EPs and the thermal plasma (or part of it) with GK and fluid models, respectively. Recently, fully GK simulations have become affordable due to the availability of more powerful supercomputers, and more efficient numerical schemes (see for example Ref. [@Cole17]). By using a local (i.e., flux-tube) model, simulations of AMs in the presence of turbulence have also been performed, focusing on AMs in the limit of high toroidal mode number [@Bass10]. In this Letter, we present, for the first time, global and fully GK simulations describing the self-consistent nonlinear interaction of AMs and ITG turbulence.
Self-consistent global gyrokinetic simulations
==============================================
The stability of AMs at toroidal mode numbers $0\le n \le 9$ in an analytical equilibrium with reversed shear has recently been investigated [@Biancalani19pop]. In this Letter, we extend the previous study allowing higher-$n$ ITG modes to develop in the same equilibrium, and we study the self-consistent nonlinear interaction. The gyrokinetic, global, electromagnetic, multi-species, particle-in-cell code ORB5 [@Jolliet07; @Bottino11; @Lanti19] used here, is based on a variational formulation of the electromagnetic gyrokinetic theory, which ensures appropriate conservation laws [@Tronko19]. It uses state-of-the-art numerical schemes [@Bottino15; @Lanti19] that allow for transport time scales simulations. The global character of ORB5, i.e., the resolution of the full radial extension of the global eigenmodes to scales comparable with the minor radius, makes ORB5 appropriate for studying low-$n$ AMs, without pushing towards the local limit of vanishing ratios of the ion Larmor radius to the tokamak minor radius. ORB5 has been verified and benchmarked against the linear and nonlinear dynamics of AMs [@Cole17; @Koenies18; @Taimourzadeh19], ZFs [@Biancalani14; @Biancalani17pop], and ITG modes [@Goerler16; @Tronko17]. In this Letter, we discuss the interaction of ITG turbulence, AMs driven by EPs, and ZFs, as shown by ORB5 global self-consistent simulations. All ion species are treated with a gyrokinetic model, whereas electrons are treated with a drift-kinetic model. The pull-back scheme is used [@Mishchenko18].
Equilibrium and identification of the instabilities
===================================================
The tokamak geometry, equilibrium magnetic field and plasma profiles are the same as in Ref. [@Biancalani19pop]. The major radius is $R_0 = 10$ m, the minor radius is $a=1$ m, and the toroidal magnetic field at the axis is $B_0 = 3.0$ T. Circular concentric flux surfaces are considered. The reversed-shear safety factor has minumum value of $q=1.78$ at mid-radius. The densities have a hyperbolic tangent profile, with gradient peaking at mid-radius. The ion and electron temperatures are taken equal everywhere, $T_e=T_i$, with a hyperbolic tangent profile, with gradient peaking at mid-radius. A value of $T_e$ at mid-radius corresponding to $\rho^* = \rho_s/a = 0.00571$, is chosen (with $\rho_s = \sqrt{T_e/m_i}/\Omega_i$ being the sound Larmor radius). The electron thermal to magnetic pressure ratio at mid-radius is $\beta_e = 2\mu_0 P_e/B_0^2 = 5\cdot 10^{-4}$. Ions are deuterons. The distribution function of the EP population is Maxwellian. The EP population has $T_{EP}/T_e = 10$ at mid-radius, and has flat temperature profile. The EP concentration is $\langle n_{EP} \rangle/\langle n_e \rangle = 0.01$, where $\langle \, \rangle$ is the volume average (see Ref. [@Biancalani19pop] for more details).
The analysis of this configuration for Alfvén stability has shown that a beta-induced Alfvén Eigenmode (BAE) [@Chu92] with n=5, m=9 is the most unstable AM [@Biancalani19pop]. The frequency and growth rate are $\omega_{BAE} = 2.4\cdot 10^{-3} \; \Omega_i$ and $\gamma_{BAE} = 0.68\cdot 10^{-3} \; \Omega_i$. The localization is near the inner shear Alfvén wave continuum accumulation point, i.e. at $s=0.38$, with $s$ being the normalized poloidal flux radial coordinate. The linear dynamics of micro-turbulence modes is dominated by ITG modes, with spectrum peaked around a toroidal mode number of n=26, where the frequency and growth rate are: $\omega_{ITG} = 0.6\cdot 10^{-3}\, \Omega_i$, and $\gamma_{ITG} = 0.25\cdot 10^{-3} \, \Omega_i$. Note the separation of spatial and temporal scales between the AM dynamics and the ITG dynamics, which reflects the experimental observations in present tokamak devices. In particular, note that the ITG with n=5 has $\omega_{ITG,n=5} = 2.9\cdot 10^{-5} \, \Omega_i$ and $\gamma_{ITG,n=5} = 2.1\cdot 10^{-5} \, \Omega_i$, i.e., a linear frequency and growth rate two orders of magnitude smaller than the AM.
AMs in the presence of turbulence
=================================
Nonlinear simulations are performed with a filter allowing modes with toroidal mode numbers $0 \leq n \leq 40$ to evolve. These include the low-$n$ BAE, the whole spectrum of ITGs (mainly at high-$n$), and the ZF with $n$=0. No EPs are initialized at t=0, allowing the ITG modes to grow and establish a state of fully developed turbulence. After the turbulence saturation, the EPs are switched on, driving the BAE unstable. In order to keep the number of species unchanged during the entire simulation, the EP species with $\langle n_{EP} \rangle/\langle n_e \rangle = 0.01$ is initialized already at t=0 with $T_{EP}/T_e=1$ at mid-radius, and the EP temperature and density gradient are switched on only at the chosen time of $t=4.9\cdot 10^4 \, \Omega_i^{-1}$ (the density gradient only is checked not to sensibly modify the dynamics). A spatial grid of (ns, nchi, nphi) = (256, 384, 192) points, a time step of dt=5 $\Omega_i^{-1}$, and a number of markers of $(N_i, N_e, N_{EP})$ = (2, 10, 2)$\cdot 10^8$ respectively for the thermal ions, electrons and EP are used for the turbulence simulations. Dirichlet boundary conditions are applied to all components of the potentials at the axis and at the edge (except for the zonal potentials at the axis, for which Neumann boundary conditions are imposed). A Krook (BGK) operator with $\gamma_{K}=1\cdot 10^{-4} \, \Omega_i$ is used to provide a restoring force for the equilibrium profiles, and for stabilizing the accumulation of turbulence energy. A reduced mass ratio of $m_i/m_e=200$ is considered for simplicity (the saturation levels are found to be converged with this value).
![\[fig:time-evol\] Evolution of the perturbed electric field. EPs are initialized after the turbulence has saturated, and an AM develops, saturates and relaxes back to the turbulent state (continuous line). For comparison, a simulation without EPs is shown as a dashed line, where only the ITG turbulence is present.](maxgradphi_t-with-wo-EP-WOZF.eps "fig:"){width="52.00000%"} -1em
The evolution in time of the perturbations can be investigated by measuring the radial electric field. In particular, the nonzonal (i.e., oscillating in the toroidal and poloidal angles) radial electric field gives the amplitude of the modes with helicity, like ITGs and AMs. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:time-evol\]. For completeness, a snapshot of the scalar potential in the poloidal plane, showing the coexistence of the BAE and turbulence, is shown in Fig. \[fig:ITG-BAE-struct\]. The ITG microinstabilities develop due to the equilibrium ion temperature gradient, and form a turbulent state (phase 1). The EPs are switched on at $t=4.9\cdot 10^4 \Omega_i^{-1}$. The EP density gradient drives a BAE unstable (phase 2). The EP density radial profile is modified by the AM during the nonlinear phase. In particular, the absolute value of the EP density gradient decreases at the resonant radial location. This reduces the drive and yields the BAE saturation. After the saturation, the EPs are further redistributed, and the BAE amplitude slowly decreases. Eventually, the BAE vanishes, and the perturbed radial electric field decreases back to levels given by the ITG turbulence (phase 3). Zonal flows are also present in the simulations, being excited by turbulence via modulational instability and by the AMs via forced-driven excitation. The zonal flow level is found to be one order of magnitude higher in the case with EPs, with respect to the case without EPs, due to the effective forced-driven excitation. Simulations with a different EP concentration, density gradient localization, or temperature, are observed to drive AMs at different amplitude, localization, frequency and mode number.
![\[fig:ITG-BAE-struct\] Poloidal cross section of the scalar potential (left), showing the BAE excited by an EP population in the presence of ITG turbulence. Toroidal mode number spectra (right) of scalar potential $\phi$, density $\rho$, and ion heat flux $\Gamma$.](ITG-BAE-struct-2.eps "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![\[fig:ITG-BAE-struct\] Poloidal cross section of the scalar potential (left), showing the BAE excited by an EP population in the presence of ITG turbulence. Toroidal mode number spectra (right) of scalar potential $\phi$, density $\rho$, and ion heat flux $\Gamma$.](spectra_prl_comp-new.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} -1em
Heat transport
==============
Both ITG turbulence and AMs are known to induce cross-field heat transport. In the simulations presented here, both of these effects are co-existing, raising two general questions: What is the relative importance of each of these two mechanisms, and do they interfere in any way? The toroidal mode number spectrum of the ion heat flux (for the details of the diagnostic, see Ref. [@Hayward19]) for a simulation where the EPs are switched on can be seen as a the continuous red line in Fig. \[fig:ITG-BAE-struct\]. For comparison, the same spectrum for a simulation without EPs is shown as a dashed red line. A sensible general trend that we find is that the heat fluxes are higher in the simulation with EPs. This is explained by the fact that the EP density profile consitutes an additional source of free energy to the system.
![\[fig:n10woEP\] Radial structures of heat flux for $n=10$, and for different poloidal modes, for a simulation without EPs (left) and with EPs (right). Without EPs, the polarization with equal contribution of the different poloidal components identifies the ITG dynamics. With EPs, the polarization with dominant $m=18$ identifies the BAE second harmonics, on top of the ITG turbulence. ](n10-struct-woEP.eps "fig:"){width="46.00000%"} ![\[fig:n10woEP\] Radial structures of heat flux for $n=10$, and for different poloidal modes, for a simulation without EPs (left) and with EPs (right). Without EPs, the polarization with equal contribution of the different poloidal components identifies the ITG dynamics. With EPs, the polarization with dominant $m=18$ identifies the BAE second harmonics, on top of the ITG turbulence. ](n10-struct-withEP.eps "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
We observe that the spectrum is dominated by the modes $n=5$, $n=10$ and $n=15$, namely the first, second and third harmonics of the main BAE mode. The contributions of the different poloidal mode numbers to the heat fluxes for the dominant mode, namely the mode with $n=10$, is depicted for a simulation without and with EPs, respectively in Fig. \[fig:n10woEP\] and Fig. \[fig:n10woEP\]. In the case of the simulation without EPs, a broad spectrum of poloidal components shows the characteristic polarization of the ITG mode. On the other hand, for the case of the simulation with EPs, the heat flux is dominated by the poloidal mode $m=18$. Note also that the peak of the $m=18$ component is at the position of the peak of the BAE field. These two are signatures of the second harmonics of the BAE. Therefore, we can state that the ITG dynamics is subdominant in the simulation with EPs, with respect to the BAE, in carrying the heat transport. The reason why BAEs can have such strong interaction with the thermal ion heat fluxes is identified in their relatively low frequency, with respect to AMs like toroidicity induced Alfvén eigenmodes. This relatively low frequency increases the important of resonances with thermal ions, which is less important for TAEs. It is also important to note that the other poloidal components (i.e., $m\ne18$) are increased in the simulation with EPs, in comparison with the simulation without EPs. This means that the BAE second harmonic is efficient in modifying the dynamics of the ITG of $n=10$, due to the nonlinear interaction. This is an example of cross-scale interaction, with the AM being the macro-scale mode, and the ITG turbulence being constituted mainly by micro-instabilities.
It is worthy to note that not only the low-$n$ part of the heat flux spectrum, i.e., the BAEs, has higher levels in the presence of EPs, but also the higher-$n$ part, i.e., the ITGs. This is of interest for the question of how the presence of EPs modifies the ITG turbulence. In this regime, we can state that an EP population driving a BAE linearly unstable, affects the turbulence dynamics by increasing the heat transport. The fluctuation amplitude of the scalar potential $\phi$ and density $\rho$ for the different toroidal mode numbers is also shown in Fig. \[fig:ITG-BAE-struct\] (respectively with blue lines and blue black lines). Differently from the heat flux, the fluctuation amplitude given by the scalar potential is shown not to be sensibly modified by the presence of EPs in the range of toroidal mode numbers of the ITG. Moreover, the fluctuation amplitude given by the perturbed density is found to be decreased by the presence of EPs.
Conclusions and discussion
==========================
In this Letter, we have investigated the nonlinear dynamics of an unstable BAE in the presence of fully developed ITG turbulence by means of global self-consistent gyrokinetic simulations. The nonlinear saturation of the n=5 BAE can be attributed to a radial redistribution of the EP population, causing a decrease of the drive. The BAE saturation level was found to be consistent with the one obtained in the absence of turbulence. The BAE and its first harmonics, namely the modes with $n = 10$ and $n = 15$, were found to dominate the ion heat flux. Such a strong contribution of the BAE to the thermal transport of the plasma, which was underestimated in the past, is explained by noting that the BAE has a low frequency with respect to other kinds of AMs, and is therefore capable of resonating with characteristic frequencies of the thermal ions. The heat flux caused by ITG modes around $n = 10$ also increases, indicating that there are nonlinear interactions between the macro-scale BAE and the micro-scale ITG modes. For comparison, we have performed the same simulations by filtering out the ZFs, and we have observed a sensibly different saturation level of the BAE (in this regime, smaller, consistently with Ref. [@Biancalani19pop]) and a much smaller effect of the EP-driven BAE on the ITGs.
The results presented here illustrate how modes at different spatial scales can interact nonlinearly in a system as complex as a tokamak plasma, and therefore how a multiscale investigation is mandatory for quantitative predictions. In particular, a macro-scale BAE, meso-scale ZFs, and micro-instabilities like ITG modes, can coexist and contribute in different ways to the ion heat transport. Having demonstrated the feasibility of global self-consistent gyrokinetic simulations in this context, comprehensive theoretical studies of burning plasmas can be envisioned, with the goal to develop a predictive capability for ITER and future fusion power plants.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Interesting discussions with F. Zonca, Z. Qiu, E. Poli, A. Zocco, T. Görler, T. Hayward-Schneider, Ö. Gürcan, P. Morel, E. Lanti, N. Ohana, and F. Vannini are gratefully acknowledged. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training program 2014-2018 and 2019-2020 under grant agreement No 633053 within the framework of the [*Multiscale Energetic particle Transport*]{} (MET) European Eurofusion Project. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. Simulations were performed on the HPC-Marconi supercomputer within the framework of the ORBFAST and OrbZONE projects.
[99]{} A. Hasegawa, C.G. Maclennan and Y. Kodama, [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**22**]{}, 2122 (1979) K. Appert, R. Gruber, F. Troyon, J. Vaclavik, [*Plasma Phys. Nucl. Fusion*]{} [**24**]{}, 1147 (1982) C. Z. Cheng and M. S. Chance, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**161**]{}, 21 (1985) M. S. Chu, J. M. Greene, L. L. Lao, A. D. Turnbull, M. S. Chance, [*Phys. Fluids*]{} B [**4**]{}, 3713 (1992) W. W. Heidbrink, E. J. Strait, M. S. Chu, and A. D. Turnbull, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 855 (1993) L. Chen and F. Zonca, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**88**]{}, 015008 (2016)
M. D. J. Cole, A. Biancalani, A. Bottino, R. Kleiber, A. Könies, A. Mishchenko, [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{}, 022508 (2017)
E. M. Bass and R. E. Waltz, [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**17**]{}, 112319 (2010) A. Biancalani, A. Bottino, P. Lauber, A. Mishchenko, and F. Vannini, “Effect of the electron redistribution on the nonlinear saturation of Alfvén eigenmodes and the excitation of zonal flows”, [*submitted to Phys. Plasmas*]{} (2019), arXiv 1911.01243. S. Jolliet, et al., [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**177**]{}, 409 (2007) A. Bottino, et al., [*Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion*]{} [**53**]{}, 124027 (2011) E. Lanti, et al, submitted to [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} (2019) N. Tronko, et al., [*Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion*]{} [**61**]{}, 114002 (2019)
A. Bottino and E. Sonnendrücker, [*J. Plasmas Phys.*]{} [**81**]{}, 435810501 (2015) A. Koenies, et al, [*Nucl. Fusion*]{} [**58**]{} 12, 126027 (2018) S. Taimourzadeh, et al, [*Nucl. Fusion*]{} [**59**]{}, 066006 (2019) A. Biancalani, A. Bottino, Ph. Lauber, D. Zarzoso, [*Nucl. Fusion*]{} [**54**]{}, 104004 (2014) A. Biancalani, et al, [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{}, 062512 (2017) T. Görler, et al, [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**23**]{}, 072503 (2016) N. Tronko, et al., [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{}, 056115 (2017)
A. Mishchenko, A. Bottino, A. Biancalani, R. Hatzky, T. Hayward-Schneider, N. Ohana, E. Lanti, S. Brunner, L. Villard, M. Borchardt, R. Kleiber, and A. Koenies, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**238**]{}, 194 (2018) L. Chen, Z. Lin and R. White, [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**7**]{} 8, 3129 (2000) N. Winsor, J. L. Johnson, and J. M. Dawson, [*Phys. Fluids*]{} **11**, 2448, (1968) F. Zonca and L. Chen, [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 35001 (2008)
T. Hayward-Schneider, PhD thesis (2019)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The observed dark matter abundance in the Universe can be fully accounted for by a minimally coupled spectator scalar field that was light during inflation and has sufficiently strong self-coupling. In this scenario, dark matter was produced during inflation by amplification of quantum fluctuations of the spectator field. The self-interaction of the field suppresses its fluctuations on large scales, and therefore avoids isocurvature constraints. The scenario does not require any fine-tuning of parameters. In the simplest case of a single real scalar field, the mass of the dark matter particle would be in the range $1~{\rm GeV}\lesssim m\lesssim 10^8~{\rm GeV}$, depending on the scale of inflation, and the lower bound for the quartic self-coupling is $\lambda\gtrsim 0.45$.'
author:
- Tommi Markkanen
- Arttu Rajantie
- Tommi Tenkanen
bibliography:
- 'DM\_isocurvature.bib'
title: Spectator Dark Matter
---
Introduction
============
The existence of a significant dark matter (DM) component in the Universe seems indisputable [@Bertone:2016nfn; @Aghanim:2018eyx]. However, due to the increasingly tight constraints on conventional particle DM models [@Arcadi:2017kky], fresh ideas are needed to explain the properties and the observed abundance of DM, as well as its formation mechanism in the early Universe. Instead of undergoing usual thermal freeze-out [@Kolb:1990vq] or, alternatively, non-thermal freeze-in [@McDonald:2001vt; @Hall:2009bx; @Bernal:2017kxu], dark matter abundance may have been initiated purely gravitationally either during or after cosmic inflation. This idea dates back to 1980s (see [@Ford:1986sy] and e.g. [@Kolb:1998ki; @Chung:1998zb; @Peebles:1999fz]) but has recently gained increasing attention, see e.g. [@Enqvist:2014zqa; @Graham:2015rva; @Nurmi:2015ema; @Garny:2015sjg; @Markkanen:2015xuw; @Kainulainen:2016vzv; @Bertolami:2016ywc; @Heikinheimo:2016yds; @Cosme:2017cxk; @Enqvist:2017kzh; @Cosme:2018nly; @Graham:2018jyp; @Alonso-Alvarez:2018tus; @Ema:2018ucl; @Fairbairn:2018bsw].
In this paper, we will focus on the scenario in which dark matter is produced by amplification of the vacuum fluctuations of a scalar field $\chi$ during inflation. We assume that $\chi$ is spectator field, which means that it is light relative to the Hubble rate during inflation, its energy density is subdominant, and that its couplings with the Standard Model degrees of freedom are negligible. This scenario has been discussed before in Refs. [@Peebles:1999fz; @Enqvist:2014zqa; @Nurmi:2015ema; @Kainulainen:2016vzv; @Alonso-Alvarez:2018tus].
In contrast to DM creation during the reheating epoch [@Markkanen:2015xuw; @Fairbairn:2018bsw], if the field(s) responsible for DM production were amplified during inflation, perturbations in the resulting dark matter energy density may not coincide with those in baryonic matter. Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) by the Planck satellite have recently put stringent constraints on the amount of such isocurvature density perturbations at large scales [@Akrami:2018odb], and any dark matter model dealing with inflation has to satisfy these constraints. Indeed, an example of this is the axion dark matter model, where the isocurvature constraints suggest a specific connection between the energy scale of inflation and the axion decay constant [@Marsh:2015xka] (see also [@Graham:2018jyp; @Guth:2018hsa]). In the current scenario, it has been shown previously that a free minimally coupled scalar field would violate the isocurvature constraints [@Alonso-Alvarez:2018tus] (see also [@Bertolami:2016ywc]).
In this paper we will study the production of self-interacting DM using the stochastic approach developed in [@Starobinsky:1994bd] (see also [@Peebles:1999fz; @Enqvist:2012xn; @Kunimitsu:2012xx; @Hardwick:2017fjo]). A similar scenario was originally studied in [@Peebles:1999fz] but in this paper we will improve the analysis in several different ways. First and foremost, we refine the analysis of isocurvature perturbations, showing that the recent Planck data is not problematic for the success of the scenario. We will also discuss the effect of DM self-interactions on the evolution of DM number density, as well as the current observational constraints on DM self-interactions that can be inferred from collisions between galaxy clusters. As we will show, the DM production mechanism we will discuss in this paper is sufficiently strong to yield the measured DM abundance for a wide range of masses extending down to sub-GeV ranges and that all observational bounds considered in this paper may be avoided with no fine-tuning of parameters. We will also discuss different ways to test the scenario.
The paper is organised as follows: in Section \[sec:CDM\], we show how cold dark matter forms from an inflationary condensate. In Section \[sec:isocurvature\], we discuss the isocurvature perturbations inherent to the scenario, and then present the results and observational constraints in Section \[results\]. Finally, in Section \[conclusions\], we conclude with an outlook.
Cold dark matter from an inflationary condensate {#sec:CDM}
================================================
Production during inflation
---------------------------
Our set-up will be one with a sufficiently decoupled scalar $\chi$ with the potential [$$V(\chi)=\frac{1}{2}m^2 \chi^2 +\frac{\lambda}{4}\chi^4\,,\label{eq:pot}$$]{} in addition to an inflaton sector which we leave unspecified. We assume that the possible non-minimal couplings between the field $\chi$ and gravity are so small that they do not affect the following analysis.
Assuming that the mass of the field $\chi$ is much smaller than the Hubble rate during inflation, i.e. $V''\ll H^2$ where $'$ denotes derivative with respect to the field, it will receive excitations from the rapidly expanding background. Perhaps the simplest way of showing this is by making use of the stochastic formalism, which shows that the one-point equilibrium distribution of the field is [@Starobinsky:1994bd] [$$P(\chi) =N \exp\bigg[-{\frac{{8\pi^2}}{{3H^4}}}V(\chi)\bigg]\,,\label{eq:p}$$]{} where $N$ is a normalization factor. Specifically, at the end of inflation there will be a non-zero condensate of the $\chi$ field, whose variance at the end of inflation reads [$$\label{hstar}
\langle{\chi}_{\rm end}^2\rangle = \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi^2}}{\frac{\Gamma(\frac{3}{4})}
{\Gamma(\frac{1}{4})}} \frac{H_{\rm end}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\approx 0.132 \frac{H_{\rm end}^2}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\,,$$]{} where ’end’ refers to the end of inflation and we assumed that the $\chi$ mass term is negligible compared with the interaction term during inflation. This requires that $$\label{equ:lambdadom}
m^2\ll \lambda \langle{\chi}_{\rm end}^2\rangle
\approx 0.132 \sqrt{\lambda}H_{\rm end}^2.$$ Furthermore, the condition that $\chi$ is light during inflation requires $$\begin{aligned}
\langle V''(\chi_{\rm end})\rangle&=&
m^2+3\lambda \langle{\chi}_{\rm end}^2\rangle
\nonumber\\\label{eq:lightness}
&\approx&
0.40\sqrt{\lambda}H_{\rm end}^2 \lesssim H_{\rm end}^2.\end{aligned}$$
The energy density of $\chi$ at the end of inflation is $$\rho^{\rm end}_\chi(x)=\frac{\lambda}{4}\chi_{\rm end}(x)^4,$$ where we have written the argument $x$ explicitly to highlight the fact that this is a position-dependent quantity.
Initially the $\chi$ field remains frozen and therefore its energy density is constant. When the Hubble friction drops below the effective mass $V''(\chi)$, the condensate begins to oscillate around the minimum at the origin. Ignoring the bare mass term, this happens when [$$H_{\rm osc}^2=3\lambda \chi_{\rm end}^2
\,;
\qquad
\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a_{\rm end}} =\sqrt{\frac{H_{\rm end}}{H_{\rm osc}}}
\,,
\label{eq:osc}$$]{} where ’osc’ denotes the instant when the field starts oscillating and $a_{\rm end}$ is the scale factor at the end of inflation. In the above we have assumed that after inflation the Universe immediately becomes radiation dominated, however extending our analysis to include a reheating phase with an arbitrary equation of state is straightforward, see [@Enqvist:2017kzh].
Assuming that Eq. (\[equ:lambdadom\]) is satisfied, the potential is initially dominated by the quartic term, and therefore the energy density scales on average as that of radiation, $\propto a^{-4}$ [@Kolb:1990vq] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\chi(a)&=&\bigg(\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}\bigg)^4\rho_\chi^{\rm end}=\bigg(\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}\bigg)^4\frac{\lambda}{4}\chi_{\rm end}^4
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{H_{\rm end}^2\chi_{\rm end}^2}{12}\left(\frac{a_{\rm end}}{a}\right)^4
\label{eq:spec}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Eq. (\[eq:osc\]) to obtain the last expression. The final dark matter abundance depends on the later evolution of the $\chi$ field, and in the following we consider three scenarios: (1) the field $\chi$ oscillates coherently until the present day; (2) it fragments and thermalises with itself, and eventually freezes out while still relativistic; and (3) it becomes non-relativistic before freezing out. Which of these scenarios is realised, is determined by the values of the parameters.
Coherent oscillations {#sec:coh}
---------------------
In the simplest case the field $\chi$ simply continues to oscillate in its potential until present day. As the Universe expands, the amplitude of the oscillations decreases, and at some point the quartic term in (\[eq:pot\]) will become negligible and the mass term will dominate the evolution of the $\chi$ field. After this the energy density of $\chi$ will scale as a cold dark matter component, $\propto a^{-3}$.
We will use the standard approximation where the energy density is assumed to instantaneously go from scaling as $\propto a^{-4}$ to $\propto a^{-3}$. To calculate when this happens, we obtain the amplitude $\tilde{\chi}$ of the oscillations as [$$\tilde\chi(a)=\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}|\chi_{\rm end}|.$$]{} The onset of dust-like scaling behaviour, denoted with subscript ’dust’, is then determined by the condition that the two terms in the potential are equal, [$$\frac{1}{2}m^2 \tilde{\chi}(a_{\rm dust})^2=\frac{\lambda}{4}\tilde{\chi}(a_{\rm dust})^4
~~\Rightarrow~~
a_{\rm dust}=
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2}}\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|}{m}a_{\rm osc}
.\label{eq:m}$$]{} This allows us to write the result for the energy density for $a>a_{\rm dust}$, when the $\chi$ component behaves as dark matter [$$\rho_\chi(a)
=
\bigg(\frac{a_{\rm dust}}{a}\bigg)^3\rho_\chi(a_{\rm dust})
=
\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{8}}\left(\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}\right)^3m|\chi_{\rm end}|^3
.\label{eq:final}$$]{} Using this and conservation of entropy in the visible SM sector we can write the energy density at the present time as $$\label{equ:chi0nofrag}
\rho_\chi(a_0)
=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{8}}
\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}
\left(\frac{T_{0}}{T_{\rm osc}}\right)^3
m|\chi_{\rm end}|^3,$$ where $T_0$ and $T_{\rm osc}$ refer to the radiation temperature at the present time and at the start of the $\chi$ oscillations, respectively, $g_{*S}(T_0)\approx 3.909$ is the number of effective entropy degrees of freedom today, and $g_*(T_{\rm osc})=106.75$ is the number of the effective degrees of freedom at the start of the oscillation.
The temperature $T_{\rm osc}$ can be determined from the condition $$H_{\rm osc}^2=g_*(T_{\rm osc})\frac{\pi^2 T_{\rm osc}^4}{90\MP^2},$$ where $\MP=(8\pi G)^{-1/2}\approx 2.435\times 10^{18}~{\rm GeV}.$ Together with Eq. (\[eq:osc\]), it gives $$\label{equ:Tosc}
T_{\rm osc}=\left(\frac{270\lambda}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})\pi^2}\chi_{\rm end}^2M_{\rm P}^2\right)^{1/4}.$$ Substituting this into Eq. (\[equ:chi0nofrag\]) gives $$\rho_\chi(a_0)
=
\left(\frac{\pi^2}{1080}\right)^{3/4}\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}
\frac{mT_0^3}{\lambda^{1/4}}\left(\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}.\label{eq:rocho}$$ Note that this is a position-dependent quantity, because $\chi_{\rm end}$ depends on position. Its spatial average can be computed using the one-point probability distribution (\[eq:p\]), which gives $$\langle|\chi_{\rm end}|^{3/2}\rangle=\frac{6^{3/8}H_{\rm end}^{3/2}}{\lambda^{3/8}\pi^{1/4}\Gamma(1/8)}
\approx
\frac{0.1952}{\lambda^{3/8}}H_{\rm end}^{3/2}
,
\label{equ:avgchi32}$$ and hence $$\langle \rho_\chi(a_0)\rangle
=\frac{\pi^{5/4}}{6^{15/8}5^{3/4}\Gamma(1/8)}
\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}
\frac{mT_0^3}{\lambda^{5/8}}\left(\frac{H_{\rm end}}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}.$$ Expressing this an energy fraction $\Omega_\chi$, we can write $$\label{Omega_chi_oscillations}
\frac{\Omega_\chi h^2}{0.12}
\approx
\frac{9.37\times 10^6}{\lambda^{5/8}}\left(\frac{H_{\rm end}}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}\frac{m}{\rm GeV},$$ which should be equal to one for $\chi$ particles to fully account for the observed dark matter abundance.
Thermalisation {#sec:ther}
--------------
If the coupling $\lambda$ is sufficiently large, the $\chi$ condensate will quickly fragment into $\chi$ particles with finite momenta [@Ichikawa:2008ne; @Kainulainen:2016vzv]. As discussed in Ref. [@Kainulainen:2016vzv] for quartic self-interactions the condition for complete decay of the condensate may be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Gamma(\tilde{\chi}(a_{\rm dec}))}{H_{\rm dec}}&\simeq&\frac{0.023\lambda^{2/3}\tilde{\chi}(a_{\rm dec})}{H_{\rm dec}}=1 \nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow& m<0.023\lambda^{3/2}|\chi_{\rm end}|
\label{eq:therm}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(\tilde{\chi})$ is the effective decay rate of the condensate into two $\chi$ particles and we used $\tilde{\chi}(a_{\rm dec})=|\chi_{\rm end}|\sqrt{H_{\rm dec}/H_{\rm osc}}$ and $3\lambda\tilde{\chi}^2(a_{\rm dec})>m^2$ to derive a limit for $m$. If the bare mass was larger than the upper limit, the $\chi$ condensate does not fragment and the result for coherently oscillating condensate remains valid. If the condensate does fragment, however, we need to calculate the abundance again.
After thermalisation, the particles will have the temperature $$\label{chi_temperature}
T_\chi(a)=\left(\frac{15\lambda}{2\pi^2}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}\right)|\chi_{\rm end}|.$$ We will work in the approximation where we assume a sharp transition between the regime with no decay of the condensate and complete thermalisation, as defined by (\[eq:therm\]). As long as the particles are ultrarelativistic, their energy density will continue to redshift according to Eq. , and therefore the exact time of thermalisation does not matter for the following calculation.
To compute the present DM abundance in this case, let us first consider the case where DM freeze-out from the $\chi$ sector heat bath occurs while the particles are still relativistic. In this case the number density of the $\chi$ particles is simply given by the ultrarelativistic expression, $$\begin{aligned}
n_\chi(a)&=&\frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^2}T_\chi(a)^3 \\ \nonumber
&=&\left(\frac{15}{2}\right)^{3/4}\frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^{7/2}}
\left(\frac{a_{\rm osc}}{a}\right)^3\lambda^{3/4}|\chi_{\rm end}|^3.\end{aligned}$$ Because after their freeze-out the $\chi$ particles are no longer interacting, this expression remains valid even after they have become non-relativistic. The energy density of the $\chi$ particles at the present time is therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \rho_\chi(a_0)&=mn_\chi(a_0)
\\
&=\left(\frac{15}{2}\right)^{3/4}\frac{\zeta(3)}{\pi^{7/2}}\nonumber
\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}
\left(\frac{T_{0}}{T_{\rm osc}}\right)^3\lambda^{3/4}m|\chi_{\rm end}|^3
\nonumber
\\\label{equ:rhochimassive}
&=
\frac{\zeta(3)}{6\sqrt{6}\pi^2}\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}
mT_0^3\left(\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}\end{aligned}$$ where we used Eq. (\[equ:Tosc\]). Using Eq. (\[equ:avgchi32\]), the average energy density is therefore $$\langle\rho_\chi(a_0)\rangle=\frac{\zeta(3)}{(6\pi^2)^{9/8}\Gamma(1/8)}
\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}
\frac{mT_0^3}{\lambda^{3/8}}
\left(\frac{H_{\rm end}}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}\,.$$ Expressed as an energy fraction $\Omega_\chi$, this is $$\label{Omega_chi_thermalisation}
\frac{\Omega_\chi h^2}{0.12}
\approx
\frac{2.63\times 10^6}{\lambda^{3/8}}\left(\frac{H_{\rm end}}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2}\frac{m}{\rm GeV}.$$ The difference to Eq. is due to thermalisation changing the dependence on $\lambda$, cf. Eq. .
Cannibalism {#sec:cann}
-----------
In the third scenario, the freeze-out occurs while the DM particles are non-relativistic. In that case, when the self-interactions are large, the $\chi$ particles undergo a phase of *cannibalism*, where the $4\to 2$ self-annihilations dilute the number density and heat up the $\chi$ particles, making their temperature scale in a non-trivial way until the eventual freeze-out [@Carlson:1992fn].
Because entropy is conserved, the ratio $\xi\equiv s_{\rm rad}/s_\chi$, where $s_{\rm rad}$ and $s_\chi$ denote entropy density of the SM sector and the $\chi$ particle heat bath, respectively, remains constant after the particles have thermalised with each other. Assuming that the $\chi$ particles thermalise with each other after the fragmentation of the $\chi$ condensate but before the produced particles become non-relativistic, we have $$\label{xi_rel}
\xi
= \frac{g_{*S}(T)T^3}{T_\chi^3} =
36^{3/4}g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}\left(\frac{M_{\rm P}}{|\chi_{\rm end}|}\right)^{3/2} ,$$ where we used Eqs. (\[equ:Tosc\]) and (\[chi\_temperature\]). We also assume that the effective entropy and energy degrees of freedom are equal and time-independent at early times.
Then, between the moment when the $\chi$ particles become non-relativistic and their final freeze-out from their internal chemical equilibrium, the ratio of entropy densities is $$\label{xi_nrel}
\xi = \frac{s_{\rm rad}}{s^{\rm non-rel}_\chi} =
\frac{2\pi^2g_{*S}(T) T^3}{45xn(x)},$$ where $x\equiv m/T_\chi$, and $$n(x)= \frac{m^3}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}x^{-3/2}e^{-x}$$ and $s^{\rm non-rel}_\chi = xn(x)$ are the number density and entropy density of a non-relativistic ideal gas, respectively.
By equating Eqs. and , we can relate the SM photon temperature to the temperature of $\chi$ particles as $$\label{TtoTchi}
T = \left(\frac{270\sqrt{6}}{2\pi^2}\right)^{1/3}\frac{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/12}}{g_{*S}(T)^{1/3}}\sqrt{\frac{M_{\rm P}}{\chi_{\rm end}}}n^{1/3}(x)x^{1/3}.$$ Therefore, before the DM freeze-out the Hubble parameter can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hubble}
H &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi^2g_*(T)}{90}}\frac{T^2}{M_{\rm P}} \\ \nonumber
&=&
3
\left(\frac{45}{2\pi^2}\right)^{1/6} \left(\frac{g_*(T_{\rm osc})}{g_*(T)}\right)^{1/6}\frac{n(x)^{2/3}x^{2/3}}{\chi_{\rm end}}.\end{aligned}$$ The $\chi$ particles remain in equilibrium until the Hubble rate and the number density satisfy the freeze-out condition $$\label{FO_cond}
\frac{\langle \sigma_{4\to 2}v^3\rangle n^3}{H} = 1 ,$$ where in the non-relativistic limit [@Tenkanen:2016jic] $$\langle \sigma_{4\to 2}v^3\rangle \simeq \frac{81\sqrt{3}\lambda^4}{32\pi m^8}.$$ The moment of freeze-out is therefore $$\label{xf}
x_f(\chi_{\rm end}) = \frac{25}{14}W\left(0.1\left(\frac{\lambda^4|\chi_{\rm end}|}{m}\right)^{6/25}\right) ,$$ where $W$ is the principal branch of the Lambert W-function and we used Eq. to express $H_{\rm end}$ as a function of $x$. If the ratio ever was greater than unity, invoking principle of detailed balance shows that the $\chi$ particles indeed had thermalised with each other prior to their eventual freeze-out. Reminiscent to the standard WIMP case, the final abundance is not sensitive to when thermalisation occurs.
It is then straightforward to compute the present abundance of $\chi$ particles. Expressing the radiation temperature at the time of freeze-out by $T_f$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \rho_\chi(a_0) &=& mn(x_f)\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)T_0^3}{g_{*S}(T_f)T_f^3}
\\
&=&
\frac{\pi^2}{135\sqrt{6}}\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}\frac{mT_0^3}{x_f(\chi_{\rm end})}
\left(\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2},
\label{eq:r1}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_0$ is the CMB photon temperature today. This expression is valid when $x_f\gtrsim 1$, whereas in the limit $x_f\ll 1$, the density is given by Eq. (\[equ:rhochimassive\]). To cover the whole range of $\chi_{\rm end}$, we therefore interpolate between them with $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_\chi(a_0) \simeq
\frac{\pi^2}{135\sqrt{6}}\frac{g_{*S}(T_0)}{g_*(T_{\rm osc})^{1/4}}\frac{mT_0^3}{X_f(\chi_{\rm end})}
\left(\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|}{M_{\rm P}}\right)^{3/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
X_f(\chi_{\rm end})=x_f(\chi_{\rm end})+\frac{2\pi^4}{45\zeta(3)}\approx x_f(\chi_{\rm end})+3.602.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\frac{\Omega_\chi h^2}{0.12} \simeq \frac{1.56\times 10^{8}}{g_{*}^{1/4}(T_{\rm osc})M_{\rm P}^{3/2}}
\left\langle\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|^{3/2}}{X_f(\chi_{\rm end})}\right\rangle
\frac{m}{\rm GeV} ,\label{eq:cannib}$$ where the expectation value needs to be computed numerically. In Fig. \[fig:omegaratio\] we show the ratio of Eq. (\[eq:cannib\]) to Eq. (\[Omega\_chi\_thermalisation\]), which shows the relative suppression of the dark matter abundance due to cannibalism. It is easy to see by scaling that the ratio only depends on the parameter combination $\alpha=\lambda^{15/4}H_{\rm end}/m$, and approaches one when $\alpha\rightarrow 0$.
![Ratio of Eq. (\[eq:cannib\]) to Eq. (\[Omega\_chi\_thermalisation\]) as a function of $\alpha=\lambda^{15/4}H_{\rm end}/m$, showing the relative suppression of the dark matter abundance due to cannibalism.[]{data-label="fig:omegaratio"}](./ratio.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Isocurvature perturbations {#sec:isocurvature}
==========================
As the dark matter energy density is position-dependent and does not necessarily track the one of baryonic matter at all scales, we need to worry about observational constraints on isocurvature perturbations. In order for the $\chi$ field generated during inflation to be a viable dark matter candidate it must not violate the current rather stringent observational bounds from the Planck satellite allowing only a small isocurvature component [@Akrami:2018odb].
Isocurvature between two components is defined as [$$\label{isocurvature2}
S\equiv 3H\frac{\delta\rho_{i}}{\dot{\rho_{i}}}-3H\frac{\delta\rho_{j}}{\dot{\rho_{j}}}\,,$$]{} which straightforwardly gives the isocurvature between CDM and radiation [$$\label{isocurvature3}
S\equiv \frac{\delta\rho_\chi}{{\rho_\chi}}-\frac{3}{4}\frac{\delta\rho_{\gamma}}{{\rho_{\gamma}}}\,$$]{} at late times.
For calculating the isocurvature perturbations we choose a gauge where there are no fluctuations in the inflaton field. In this gauge the curvature perturbation then manifests as a perturbation in the scale factor ${\delta\rho_{\gamma}}/{\rho_{\gamma}}=-4{\delta a}/{a}$ and furthermore the isocurvature in the DM fluid $\rho_\chi$ is only sourced by the perturbations of $\chi_{\rm end}$. In each of the three scenarios considered in Section \[sec:CDM\], we can write $\rho_\chi(a_0)\propto f(\chi_{\rm end})$. For Eqs. (\[Omega\_chi\_oscillations\]) and (\[Omega\_chi\_thermalisation\]), we can choose $f(\chi_{\rm end})=|\chi_{\rm end}|^{3/2}$, and for Eq. (\[eq:cannib\]), $$f(\chi_{\rm end})=\frac{|\chi_{\rm end}|^{3/2}}{X_f(\chi_{\rm end})}.$$ The isocurvature perturbations (\[isocurvature3\]) are then given by [$$S=\frac{\delta(f(\chi_{\rm end}))}{\langle f(\chi_{\rm end})\rangle}\,,\label{isocurvature4}$$]{} where the perturbation is defined as [$$\delta\left(f(\chi)\right)\equiv
f(\chi(x)) -\langle f(\chi)\rangle\,,
\label{eq:fluct}$$]{} and from now on for simplicity we drop the subscript ’end’. So quite naturally, if the $\chi$ field is perfectly homogeneous after inflation, isocurvature strictly vanishes at late times. In our case, as shown by Eqs. (\[eq:p\]) and (\[hstar\]), the field is light during inflation and hence there are fluctuations in $\chi$, which is then a genuine isocurvature component. Importantly, despite the field $\chi$ having fluctuations, it has a vanishing one-point function.
Eqs. (\[isocurvature4\]) and (\[eq:fluct\]) then give the two-point correlator for the isocurvature as a function of the $n$-point correlators of the field $\chi$, [$$\langle S(0)S(r) \rangle =\frac{\langle f(\chi(0))f(\chi(r))\rangle-\langle f(\chi)\rangle^2}{\langle f(\chi)\rangle^2}\,.\label{eq:disc}$$]{} Equation (\[eq:disc\]) is an equal-time correlator between two different points in space. Using de Sitter invariance, it can be computed as an analytic continuation of an unequal-time correlator. Generalising the analysis of Ref. [@Starobinsky:1994bd], one can write an unequal-time correlator in terms of the spectral expansion as[^1] [$$\frac{\langle f(\chi(0))f(\chi(t))\rangle}{\langle f(\chi)\rangle^2}
=\sum_nf_n^2 e^{-\Lambda_n Ht}
\,,
\label{equ:spectral}$$]{} where $$f_n=\frac{\int d \chi \psi_0(\chi)f(\chi)\psi_n(\chi)}{\int d \chi \psi_0(\chi)f(\chi)\psi_0(\chi)}
\,,$$ and $\Lambda_n$ and $\psi_n$ are the eigenvalues and orthonormal eigenvectors, respectively, of the eigenvalue equation $$\bigg[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \chi^2}-\frac{1}{2}\left(v'( \chi)^2-v''( \chi)\right)\bigg]\psi_n( \chi)
=-\frac{4\pi^2\Lambda_n}{H^2}\psi_n( \chi)\,,\label{e:sch}$$ with $$v( \chi)=\frac{4\pi^2}{3H^4}V( \chi).$$
In our case, $f(\chi)$ is an even function, and therefore only even eigenvalues contribute to the spectral expansion. Furthermore, $\Lambda_0=0$, so the $n=0$ term cancels the disconnected part of the correlator. The leading non-trivial term at large $t$ is therefore to a good accuracy $$\frac{\langle f(0)f(t)\rangle-\langle f\rangle^2 }{\langle f\rangle^2}
\approx
f_2^2 e^{-\Lambda_2Ht}.
\label{equ:spectralapprox}$$
A numerical solution of the eigenvalue equation (\[e:sch\]) gives [@Starobinsky:1994bd] $$\Lambda_2\approx 4.45370\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{24\pi^2}}
\approx 0.28938\lambda^{1/2}.$$ Again, the value of $f_2$ depends on the parameters only through the combination $\alpha=\lambda^{15/4}H_{\rm end}/m$, and $\alpha=0$ corresponds to the case with no cannibalism. In this limit, we obtain $$f_2\approx -0.86683\,,\label{eq:f2}$$ When cannibalism does occur, the value of $f_2$ varies by only a few percent as shown in Fig. \[fig:f2\]. For this reason a very good approximation is to take $f_2$ a constant given by (\[eq:f2\]), which we will choose for now on.
![The dependence of $f_2$ on $\alpha=\lambda^{15/4}H_{\rm end}/m$ \[fig:f2\], leading to depletion of the DM abundance via cannibalism, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:cann\]. The dashed line corresponds to the case (\[eq:f2\]) with no cannibalism.](./f2.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Making use of de Sitter invariance we may relate the unequal-time correlator (\[equ:spectral\]) to an equal-time correlator with spatial separation by writing $t\rightarrow (2/H)\ln(aHr)$ and the isocurvature correlator (\[eq:disc\]) can then be expressed as $$\langle S(0)S(r) \rangle
\approx
f_2^2(aHr)^{-2\Lambda_2}\label{eq:num}\,,$$ where $a$ and $H$ are to be evaluated at the end of inflation.
The power spectrum ${\cal P}(k)$ of the isocurvature perturbations is defined in the standard manner as a Fourier transform [$${\cal P}(k)=\frac{k^3}{2\pi^2}\int d^3x e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\langle S(0)S(\vec{x})\rangle
\label{eq:P}\,.$$]{} Upon substituting Eq. (\[eq:num\]), we obtain [$$\mathcal{P}(k)\approx\mathcal{A}\bigg(\frac{k}{\tilde{k}}\bigg)^{2\Lambda_2}\,,\label{eq:pp}$$]{} where the scale $\tilde{k}=a_{\rm end}H_{\rm end}$ is the horizon scale at the end of inflation and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} &=&
\frac{2f_2^2}{\pi}\Gamma\left(2-2\Lambda_2\right)\sin \left(\Lambda_2\pi\right)
\nonumber\\
&=& 0.4349\sqrt{\lambda}+O\left(\lambda\right).\end{aligned}$$ Because $\Lambda_2>0$, the spectrum is blue. The spectral index, defined as $\mathcal{P}(k)\propto k^{n-1}$, is $$n-1=2\Lambda_2\approx 0.5788 \sqrt{\lambda}.
\label{equ:spectralinex}$$
The difference between the pivot scale $k_*=0.05 {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ at which the isocurvature perturbations are measured and the horizon scale at the end of inflation $\tilde{k}$ can be characterized with the $e$-fold number $$N_*\equiv
\ln\left(\frac{\tilde{k}}{k_*}\right) \approx 56 + \frac12\ln\left(\frac{H_{\rm end}}{8\times 10^{13} {\rm GeV}}\right) ,$$ where, in the last expression, we have neglected the small change in $H$ during inflation and maintained our assumption that the Universe is radiation-dominated from the end of inflation. Hence our final expression for the isocurvature spectrum at the scale $k_*$ is $${\cal P}(k_*)
= {\cal A}e^{-2\Lambda_2N_*}
\approx 0.43\sqrt{\lambda}e^{-0.58\sqrt{\lambda}N_*}.
\label{equ:powerspectrum}$$
Results
=======
The current bound for uncorrelated isocurvature between DM and the CMB photons can be expressed as a fraction of the curvature power spectrum ${\cal P}_\zeta =2.2\times 10^{-9}$ as [@Akrami:2018odb] [$$\label{eq:isob}
\mathcal{P}(k_*)\lesssim 0.040\mathcal{P}_{\zeta}(k_*)\,.$$]{} Combining this with Eq. (\[equ:powerspectrum\]) and choosing $N_*=56$ gives the constraint[^2] $$\lambda\gtrsim 0.45.
\label{equ:lambdabound}$$ In Figure \[fig:cont\], we show the isocurvature contours in $(N_*,\lambda)$ space, which demonstrate that for all $N_*\in (45,65)$ the isocurvature bound (\[eq:isob\]) can be avoided while maintaining a perturbative self-interaction.
![Isocurvature contours in $(N_*,\lambda)$ space, placing a lower limit on $\lambda$. \[fig:cont\]](./cont.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:lamvm\], we show the allowed parameter space for the model. The shown bounds are given by requiring that the $\chi$ potential is quartic and the field is light during inflation, that the isocurvature spectrum is below the Planck constraint, and that the scale of inflation is below the bound given by the non-observation of tensor modes. These are given, respectively, by Eqs. [(\[equ:lambdadom\]), (\[eq:lightness\])]{}, [(\[equ:powerspectrum\])]{} and [@Ade:2018gkx] $$\label{equ:Hbound}
H_{\rm end}\lesssim 8\times 10^{13}~{\rm GeV}.$$ The different shades of green denote, from the lightest to darkest colour, the regions where the condensate never fragments but oscillates coherently, where the field fragments and the produced particles thermalise but freeze-out while still relativistic, and finally where cannibalism may take place. For details, see Section \[sec:CDM\]. The borderline for the region with cannibalism is given by setting $x_f=3.60$ in Eq. (\[xf\]) making Eq. (\[equ:rhochimassive\]) equal to Eq. (\[eq:r1\]), and the border between the case of a coherently oscillating condensate and the case of thermalisation may be solved from Eq. (\[eq:therm\]). For simplicity, for the isocurvature bound we have assumed that the $\chi$ condensate fragments throughout the parameter space. We see that the scenario works for a broad range of masses $1~{\rm GeV}\lesssim m\lesssim 10^8~{\rm GeV}$, depending on the scale of inflation. The lower bound for the quartic DM self-coupling is $\lambda\gtrsim 0.45$, as discussed above.
![The green region shows the allowed values of the parameters $m$ and $\lambda$, bounded by Eqs. [(\[equ:lambdadom\]), (\[eq:lightness\])]{}, [(\[equ:powerspectrum\])]{} and (\[equ:Hbound\]), with different shades of green corresponding to the three scenarios discussed in Section \[sec:CDM\]. The coloured dashed contours show the dependence on the inflationary scale $H_{\rm end}$.\[fig:lamvm\]](./lamvm2.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Finally, we discuss observational properties of the scenario. In the near future, the primordial tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ can be either detected above or constrained at the level $r\sim 10^{-3}$ [@Matsumura:2013aja; @Wu:2016hul; @Abazajian:2016yjj; @Ade:2018sbj], which corresponds to $H_{\rm end}\lesssim 8\times 10^{12}$ GeV. On the other hand, future observations of the CMB and the large scale structure of the Universe will improve limits on primordial isocurvature or, in the best possible scenario, detect it [@Abazajian:2016yjj; @Ade:2018sbj]. Furthermore, the Bullet Cluster and collisions between other galaxy clusters can be used to place an upper bound on the self-interaction cross section over DM mass, $\sigma/m\le 1$cm$^2$g$^{-1} \approx 4.6\times 10^3{\rm GeV}^{-3}$ [@Markevitch:2003at; @Randall:2007ph; @Rocha:2012jg; @Peter:2012jh; @Harvey:2015hha], which is relevant for small $m$. For our theory [@Heikinheimo:2016yds] $$\frac{\sigma}{m} = \frac{9\lambda^2}{32\pi m^3} ,$$ so the the Bullet Cluster imposes a constraint \[eq:sigmaDMbound\] > 0.027()\^[-1/3]{} \^[2/3]{}. This bound, however, is weaker than the other constraints discussed above. At the same time it shows that if sizeable DM self-interactions $\sigma/m\gtrsim 10^{-4}$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ are discovered in the future, that would rule out the simplest scenario considered in this paper where all of DM is generated by inflationary fluctuations with a typical spectrum.
Detection of either $\beta$ or $r$ would constrain the parameters of the model, and discovery of both primordial isocurvature perturbations and B-mode polarization in the CMB would single out a [*point*]{} in the model parameter space. As this would unavoidably be at small values of $m$ (as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:lamvmzoom\]), confirmed detection of non-zero DM self-interactions should indeed provide an additional way to probe the scenario, either validating or ruling out the model studied in this paper.
![ A close up of the parameter space in Fig. \[fig:lamvm\]. The solid lines denote forecasts for the isocurvature parameter $\beta\simeq \mathcal{P}(k_*)/\mathcal{P}_\zeta(k_*)$ as marked in the legend, dashed lines denote forecasts for the tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$, and dot-dashed lines for the DM self-interaction cross section over DM mass $\sigma/m$.[]{data-label="fig:lamvmzoom"}](./lamvmzoom.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that a decoupled sector consisting of a single massive self-interacting scalar that interacts with the Standard Model only gravitationally is a viable candidate for DM and requires no fine-tuning, providing arguably one of the simplest DM models to date. Our analysis can be straightforwardly generalised to scenarios in which the scalar interacts with other hidden sector fields or (sufficiently weakly) with the Standard Model. As discussed above, the analysis can also be easily modified to accommodate other cosmological histories. The analysis and the resulting bounds are therefore expected to be generic to most weakly coupled DM models with scalar fields which were sufficiently light during inflation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank David E. Kaplan and Stephen Stopyra for discussions. T.M. and A.R. are supported by the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council grant ST/P000762/1. T.M. is also supported by the Estonian Research Council via the Mobilitas Plus grant MOBJD323. T.T. is supported by the Simons Foundation and the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council grant ST/J001546/1.
[^1]: Note that our normalisation of the eigenvalues $\Lambda_n$ differs from Ref. [@Starobinsky:1994bd] by factor $H$.
[^2]: For completeness, we note that there is also another branch of solutions at $\lambda\lesssim 10^{-19}$. However, as this regime is phenomenologically less interesting, in the present paper we neglect this possibility.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present time-resolved optical spectroscopy of the afterglows of the gamma-ray bursts GRB990510 and GRB990712. Through the identification of several absorption lines in the first epoch GRB990510 spectrum, we determine the redshift for this burst at $z
\geq$ 1.619. No clear emission lines are detected. The strength of the Mg[i]{} feature is indicative of a dense environment, most likely the host galaxy of GRB990510. Although the host is extremely faint (V $\gsim$ 28), the GRB afterglow allows us to probe its interstellar medium and – in principle – to measure its metallicity. The optical spectrum of GRB990712 (whose host galaxy is the brightest of the known GRB hosts at cosmological redshifts), shows clear features both in emission and absorption, at a redshift of $z$ = 0.4331 $\pm$ 0.0004. On the basis of several line emission diagnostic diagrams, we conclude that the host galaxy of GRB990712 is most likely an H[ii]{} galaxy. We derive a unreddened \[O[ii]{}\] star formation rate of 2.7 $\pm$ 0.8 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Correcting for the measured extinction intrinsic to the host galaxy (A$_V$ = [$3.4^{+2.4}_{-1.7}$]{}), this value increases to [$35^{+178}_{-25}$]{} M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. The \[O[ii]{}\] equivalent width, compared to that of field galaxies at $z
\leq$ 1, also suggests that the host of GRB990712 is vigorously forming stars. We employ the oxygen and H$\beta$ emission-line intensities to estimate the global oxygen abundance for the host of GRB990712: log(O/H) = –3.7 $\pm$ 0.4, which is slightly below the lowest metallicity one finds in nearby spiral galaxies. For both GRBs we study the time evolution of the absorption lines, whose equivalent width might be expected to change with time if the burst resides in a dense compact medium. We find no evidence for a significant change in the Mg[ii]{} width.
author:
- 'P.M. Vreeswijk, A. Fruchter, L. Kaper, E. Rol, T.J. Galama, J. van Paradijs[^1], C. Kouveliotou, R.A.M.J. Wijers, E. Pian, E. Palazzi, N. Masetti, F. Frontera, S. Savaglio, K. Reinsch, F.V. Hessman, K. Beuermann, H. Nicklas, E.P.J. van den Heuvel'
title: 'VLT spectroscopy of GRB990510 and GRB990712; probing the faint and bright end of the GRB host galaxy population [^2]'
---
ł[$\lambda$]{}
Introduction
============
In February 1997, the Italian-Dutch satellite [*BeppoSAX*]{} enabled a breakthrough in the understanding of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) by providing an accurate position for the prompt X-ray emission of a GRB. This led to the discovery of the first X-ray afterglow of a GRB (Costa et al. 1997), and, independently, to the identification of the first optical counterpart of a burster (Van Paradijs et al. 1997). Since then, several X-ray, optical and radio counterparts of GRBs have been detected. These multi-wavelength afterglow observations can be explained reasonably well by simple fireball models (for recent reviews see Piran 1999, and Van Paradijs, Kouveliotou & Wijers 2000). GRB distance determinations are crucial in the effort to establish the physical nature of their progenitor(s). The observed redshift distribution of the ‘normal’ afterglows (i.e., excluding GRB980425, which is associated with supernova SN1998bw at z = 0.0085; Galama et al. 1998), ranges from $z$ = 0.43 (Galama et al. 1999, and this paper) to $z$ = 3.42 (Kulkarni et al. 1998).
Although major advances in the understanding of GRBs have been made over the past few years (thanks to the detection of afterglows), the physical nature of their progenitor(s) remains unclear. The most popular models are (i) the collapse of a rotating massive star (Woosley 1993, MacFadyen & Woosley 1999) and (ii) the merging of two neutron stars, or a neutron star and a black hole (Narayan, Paczyński & Piran 1992, Janka et al. 1999). The former (‘collapsar’) model has trouble producing GRBs with durations shorter than a couple of seconds and predicts that every afterglow is accompanied by a supernova of a type (Ic) similar to SN1998bw (MacFadyen & Woosley 1999). Furthermore, in the collapsar environment it is likely that the optical light of the afterglow is heavily absorbed by the surrounding dusty medium. Given the massive progenitors, one expects the frequency of GRBs to be strongly correlated with the cosmic star formation rate; the latter remains one of the great unresolved issues in astronomy of today. The compact star merger scenario can make short GRBs as well as long ones (although a 10$^{15}$ G magnetic field is probably needed for the latter, see Mészáros 2000); some of these mergers are expected to occur in low-density environments, possibly located several kiloparsec outside their host galaxies. This is due to the large kick velocities imparted to the compact objects from the two respective supernovae ($\sim$ 250 – 300 km s$^{-1}$; Hansen & Phinney 1997), combined with the long time between the birth of the system and the merger occurrence (10$^8$ – 10$^9$ years; Portegies Zwart & Yungelson 1998). Consequently, since the optical afterglow brightness depends on the density of the circumsource medium, some of these bursts may not show an afterglow at all. These could account for the ‘dark’ burst population, i.e. bursts for which only X-ray afterglows have been found. One way to discriminate between these two models is by studying the immediate environment of the burst. In the collapsar model the circumsource density is expected to drop with distance as r$^{-2}$, due to the expanding stellar wind of the SN progenitor, while in the binary merger scenario a constant, relatively low-density ambient medium is most plausible.
If the GRB source resides in a compact, gas-rich environment (which is expected in the collapsar scenario), the afterglow spectrum might show time-dependent absorption features (such as Ly$\alpha$ and Mg[ii]{}) due to the gradual ionization of the surrounding medium (Perna & Loeb 1998). In this case a decrease of the absorption-line equivalent widths (EWs) with time is expected. On the other hand, spectroscopic observations of the star HD 72089, situated behind the Vela supernova remnant, show an increase of an order of magnitude of the absorption strengths of elements such as Al and Fe, over the velocity range spanned by absorption in the remnant (Jenkins & Wallerstein 1995; see also Savage & Sembach 1996). This is attributed to the destruction of the dust grains, due to the propagation of the SN shock, which causes the release of elements (such as Fe and Mg) that are frozen in the dust. Thus in a dusty environment that is being ‘shocked’ by a GRB explosion, one might expect the strength of the absorption lines to increase in time.
In order to test these theories of GRB genesis, and the effects of GRBs on their environments, we have an on-going program to obtain spectra of GRB afterglows using the [*Very Large Telescope*]{} (VLT) of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) at Paranal, Chile. Here we present results on two of these bursts: GRB990510 and GRB990712.
GRB990510
---------
GRB990510 was observed on 1999 May 10.36743 UT with the [*Wide Field Camera*]{} (WFC) unit 2 onboard [*BeppoSAX*]{}, which localized the burst at R.A. = 13$^h$38$^m$06$^s$, Decl. = –802930 (J2000.0), with an error radius of 3 (Dadina et al. 1999). The [*BeppoSAX*]{} [*Gamma Ray Burst Monitor*]{} (GRBM) recorded an 80s event with a multi-peak structure (40-700 keV). The average and peak intensity in the WFC unit 2 (2-28 keV) was about 0.7 and 4.3 Crab, respectively. The burst position as determined with [*BeppoSAX*]{} is consistent with that of the [*Inter-Planetary Network*]{} (IPN; Hurley et al. 1999), using the [*Burst And Transient Source Experiment*]{} (BATSE) onboard the [*Compton Gamma Ray Observatory*]{}, and [*Ulysses*]{}. BATSE recorded a fluence above 20 keV of 2.56 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ (Kippen et al. 1999), ranking it in the top 9% of the burst fluence distribution.
We discovered the optical afterglow on images taken at the South African Astronomical Observatory (SAAO) 1m telescope (Vreeswijk et al. 1999) and subsequently triggered our VLT program to take spectra and polarimetric images. Here, we present the time-resolved spectroscopy. Our polarimetric observations resulted in the first polarization detection of a GRB afterglow (Wijers et al. 1999; see also Covino et al. 1999), while our photometric observations show an achromatic break in the BVRIJHK light curves, which is most likely due to the burst emission being collimated (Rol et al. 2000a; see also Stanek et al. 1999, and Harrison et al. 1999). Fruchter et al. (1999) have used HST to estimate V$_{\rm host}$ $\gsim$ 28, and do not find evidence for a supernova (SN) of the same type and brightness as SN1998bw in the late-time light curve of GRB990510. Recent HST observations (April 2000) appear to detect a faint galaxy (V $\sim$ 28) at the position of the early optical transient, which, if real, is most likely the host of GRB990510 (Fruchter et al. 2000, Bloom et al. 2000).
[ccccccc]{} & & & & & &\
May 11.179 & 0.811 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 91\
May 11.203 & 0.836 & G150I+OG590 & 6000-9000 & 280 & 78\
May 12.123 & 1.755 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 6\
May 12.146 & 1.779 & G150I+OG590 & 6000-9000 & 280 & 6\
May 14.273 & 3.906 & G300V and G300I & 3880-9255 & 420 and 680 & 9\
May 16.254 & 5.887 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 5\
& & & &\
July 13.182 & 0.485 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 26\
July 13.421 & 0.725 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 21\
July 14.181 & 1.485 & G150I & 3700-7700 & 185 & 14\
GRB990712
---------
GRB990712 triggered the GRBM and WFC unit 2 onboard [*BeppoSAX*]{} on 1999 July 12.69655 UT. The burst lasted for about 30s, had a double-peaked structure, was moderate in $\gamma$ rays, and was accompanied by one of the strongest prompt X-ray counterparts ever observed (Heise et al. 1999). The WFC unit 2 located the burst at R.A. = 22$^h$31$^m$50$^s$, Decl. = –732424(J2000.0), with an error radius of 2. Unfortunately, neither flux nor fluence levels are reported in the literature. Again the SAAO 1m telescope was successful in hunting down the GRB afterglow (Bakos et al. 1999), which allowed us to quickly alert the VLT staff for spectroscopic, polarimetric and further photometric follow-up observations. The host galaxy of GRB990712 is the brightest of the known GRB host galaxies, with R = 21.8 and V = 22.3 (Sahu et al. 2000). The VLT polarimetric images exhibit a significant degree of polarization of the afterglow of GRB990712 which seems to vary with time, while the polarization angle does not change with time (Rol et al. 2000b). These observations cannot be easily reconciled with afterglow polarization theories. The photometric measurements show a common temporal power-law decay of the transient source, overtaken by the bright host galaxy at late times; no evidence is found for a supernova of type SN1998bw (Sahu et al. 2000; see also Hjorth et al. 2000).
The organization of this paper is as follows: in §2 we present the observations and data reduction methods. In §3 we display and discuss the spectra of GRB990510, followed by GRB990712 in §4. We study the absorption-line intensity evolution in time for both bursts in §5 and describe our conclusions in §6.
Observations
============
After the optical identification of both GRB990510 (Vreeswijk et al. 1999) and GRB990712 (Bakos et al. 1999), we triggered our VLT target-of-opportunity observation program and obtained several low-resolution spectra at various epochs with the FOcal Reducer and low-dispersion Spectrograph (FORS), mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the ESO VLT-UT1 [*Antu*]{} telescope. The date of observation, grism used, wavelength range, resolving power and the signal-to-noise at 6500Å are listed in Table \[tab:log\]. A slit width of 1was used for all spectra. Grism G150I approximately covers the wavelength range 3700-9000 Å. However, redward of 6500 Å the second order starts to contaminate the first order (cf. FORS User Manual 1.3). To obtain a clean spectrum longward of 6500 Å for GRB990510, we also took spectra with an order separation filter (OG590), using the same grism. However, due to the low sensitivity of the CCD shortward of 3700 Å, the impact of the overlap is negligible shortward of 7700 Å. Therefore, we have summed the blue and red spectra over the region 6200-7700 Å and combined this part with the single blue and red spectra into a continuous spectrum over the entire wavelength range. For the grisms G300V and G300I, we have simply connected the blue and red parts into one spectrum. For GRB990712, we used grism G150I without order separation filter, and thus these spectra are usable over the wavelength range 3700-7700 Å.
The raw spectra were bias-subtracted, and flat-fielded with a normalized combined set of lamp flat-fields. Subsequently, cosmic rays were removed interactively along the afterglow spectrum and each sequence of images was summed into combined images. The spectra were optimally extracted from the combined images, and wavelength calibrated using a standard Helium-Neon-Argon lamp. The r.m.s. error in the wavelength calibration is approximately 0.25 Å. Since no useful spectra of standard stars were taken neither during the first two nights for GRB990510 nor for GRB990712, we have flux-calibrated these spectra using the BVRI light curve data of Rol et al. (2000a) for GRB990510 and the VRI data of Sahu et al. (2000) for GRB990712. The spectra of the other nights were flux-calibrated with a spectrophotometric standard star, which resulted in flux levels that are consistent with the photometry at the same epochs.
To flux-calibrate the spectrum of GRB990510, we fitted the light curves with a smoothly connected broken-power-law model (Harrison et al. 1999, Stanek et al. 1999, Beuermann et al. 1999), while for GRB990712 we used a simple power-law model with a host galaxy contribution. We determined the magnitudes at the times when the spectra were taken (see Table \[tab:log\]), using the fits to the light curves. These values were then corrected for the estimated Galactic foreground extinction: E(B-V) = 0.2 and E(B-V) = 0.03 (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis 1998) for the May and July burst, respectively. The E(B-V) value is translated into an extinction at a given wavelength using the standard Galactic extinction curve of Cardelli, Clayton & Mathis (1989). The magnitudes were transformed to fluxes (Fukugita, Shimasaku & Ichikawa 1995) and were fitted with a power-law spectrum F $\propto \nu^{\beta}$. For GRB990510 we find $\beta$ = –0.6 $\pm$ 0.1 (first night), and $\beta$ = –0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 (second night). For the three spectra of GRB990712 we obtain $\beta$(1) = –1.1 $\pm$ 0.2, $\beta$(2) = –0.9 $\pm$ 0.2 and $\beta$(3) –0.9 $\pm$ 0.2. We have not taken into account the extinction intrinsic to the host galaxy; see §4. These slopes are quite usual for GRB afterglows. We also fitted the global profile (excluding the absorption and emission lines) of all the wavelength-calibrated spectra with a 4th-order Chebychev polynomial. To obtain the flux-calibrated spectra, we multiplied the wavelength-calibrated spectra by the ratio between the power-law fit based on the photometry and the global spectral profile fit. We estimate the error in the flux calibration for all nights to be about 15%.
The equivalent width (EW) of the spectral lines was measured using the [*splot*]{} routine in IRAF; we used both a Gaussian fit, and also simply summed the difference between the pixel value and the continuum for each pixel over the line. Both methods gave similar results. The error is mostly dominated by the uncertainty in the continuum level, which was estimated by placing the continuum at a high and low level (roughly corresponding to the $\pm$ r.m.s. value of the continuum in the vicinity of the line). We take the mean value of these two estimates as the EW, and half their difference as the error. We also calculate the Poisson error from the object and sky spectrum, which we quadratically sum with the measurement error to obtain the total error. We then corrected the EW for the host galaxy contribution in case of absorption features (i.e. divided the measured EW by the afterglow fraction of the total light) and for the afterglow contribution in case of an emission line (i.e. divided by the galaxy-light fraction of the total). The host galaxy fraction of the total light for GRB990510 is negligible (see §3), while for GRB990712 we obtain 0.23 $\pm$ 0.03, 0.30 $\pm$ 0.04 and 0.47 $\pm$ 0.06 for epoch one, two and three, respectively, from the V and R band light curve fits of Sahu et al. (2000). The error was estimated from the different values for the host galaxy magnitude as given by Sahu et al. (2000) and Hjorth et al. (2000). These errors are propagated along with the errors in the EW measurements. Finally the EW is converted to the rest frame by dividing by (1+z). The emission-line fluxes are independent of the afterglow contribution to the total light.
The absorption-line spectrum of GRB990510
=========================================
We have identified several absorption lines in the first epoch spectrum of GRB990510: Mg[ii]{} ł2800, Mg[i]{} ł2853, Fe[ii]{} łł2344,2383,2600, and possibly Al[iii]{} ł1683 and Cr[ii]{}/Zn[ii]{} ł2062. The observed wavelengths, identifications, corresponding redshifts, and equivalent widths (in the absorber’s rest frame) are listed in Table \[tab:510lines\]. The lines and the telluric absorption features are also indicated in Figure 1.
[cccl]{} 4883 $\pm$ 6 & Al[iii]{}(1862.79)? & 1.6213 $\pm$ 0.0032 & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.6 (0.010)\
5396 $\pm$ 5 & Cr[ii]{}(2062.23)/Zn[ii]{}(2062.66)? & 1.6166 $\pm$ 0.0024 & 0.8 $\pm$ 0.3 (0.010)\
6142 $\pm$ 3 & Fe[ii]{}(2344.21) & 1.6201 $\pm$ 0.0013 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.2 (0.011)\
6241 $\pm$ 5 & Fe[ii]{}(2382.76) & 1.6192 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 (0.012)\
6806 $\pm$ 3 & Fe[ii]{}(2600.17) & 1.6175 $\pm$ 0.0011 & 0.9 $\pm$ 0.2 (0.011)\
7335 $\pm$ 2 & Mg[ii]{}(2796.35/2803.53) & 1.6197 $\pm$ 0.0034 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.4 (0.017)\
7472 $\pm$ 6 & Mg[i]{}(2852.96) & 1.6190 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 0.6 $\pm$ 0.2 (0.013)\
& weighted mean: & 1.6187 $\pm$ 0.0015 &\
\[fig:510spectra\]
These line identifications can be verified by taking into account the oscillator strength, ionization potential and relative cosmic abundance. The observed EWs of Fe[ii]{} at 2344 Å, 2383 Å, and 2600 Å are in reasonable agreement with their relative oscillator strengths (Morton 1991). Other Fe[ii]{} lines, such as Fe[ii]{} ł1608 and Fe[ii]{} ł2587 were not observed, but these have smaller oscillator strengths, consistent with their non-detection. However, the oscillator strength of the undetected Al[iii]{} ł1855 is twice that of the detected Al[iii]{} ł1863 line, and so should have been detected at an observed wavelength of 4858 Å. This makes the identification of the line at 4883 Å with Al[iii]{} questionable. A similar argument can be made for the reality of the Cr[ii]{}/Zn[ii]{} ł2062 line. Both lines are expected to be accompanied by a stronger partner (Cr[ii]{} ł2056 and Zn[ii]{} ł2026), which is not detected. The presence of Fe[ii]{} suggests that the medium probed with our line of sight is most likely one of low-ionization, and therefore Al[ii]{} ł1670 is expected to be present as well given the similarity between the Fe and Al ionization potentials, but again nothing is detected. However, we clearly detect Mg[ii]{}, which is a blend of Mg[ii]{} ł2796 and Mg[ii]{} ł2804, and observe Mg[i]{} ł2853 in absorption as well.
The weighted mean redshift of the identified lines is $z = 1.6187 \pm$ 0.0015. On the basis of this redshift we can possibly identify Fe[ii]{}(2250) at 5893 Å, although we do not expect to detect this line due to its low oscillator strength. Since no clear emission lines are detected, this redshift is certainly a lower limit to the redshift of the GRB afterglow. However, the strength of Mg[i]{} ł2853 suggests we are probing a dense, low-ionization medium, very likely that of the host galaxy. Assuming isotropic emission, $z$ = 1.619, H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_0$=0.3, and $\Lambda$=0, we find a luminosity distance of 3.5$\times$10$^{28}$cm, corresponding to an ($>$ 20 keV) energy output of 1.5 $\times 10^{53}$ erg for GRB990510, based on the BATSE fluence of 2.56$\times$10$^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ (Kippen et al. 1999; see also Briggs et al. 2000).
Unfortunately, the spectra taken on May 12 and May 16 (not shown in Fig. 1) are of inferior quality, and cannot be used for absorption-line measurements. In the May 14 spectrum, however, we detect Mg[ii]{} again. The observed wavelength of $\lambda_{\rm
obs}$ = 7327 $\pm$ 5 Å is consistent with the redshift determined in the first epoch spectrum. Its equivalent width is $W_{\rm rest}$ = 2.3 $\pm$ 0.6 Å, which is (within the errors) identical to the measurement of May 11.2 1999 UT (0.8 days after the burst; $W_{\rm
rest}$ = 2.6 $\pm$ 0.4 Å). For the other absorption lines detected earlier it is not possible to obtain an accurate measurement of their EW.
We will now derive a lower limit to the H[i]{} column in the direction of GRB990510 from the Fe[ii]{} lines at 2344 Å, 2600 Å, and 2383 Å in the first epoch spectrum. The relation between the EW of a line, $W_{\lambda}$, its column density, $N_{j}$ (number of atoms in the corresponding ionization state), and the oscillator strength, [*f*]{}, of the transition (j) is (Spitzer 1978):
log $\frac{W_{\lambda}}{\lambda} = {\rm log}(N_{j}\times\lambda\times f) -
4.053$
Here the unit of $W_{\lambda}$ is Å, the column density $N_{j}$ is in $\rm{cm^{-2}}$ and the wavelength $\lambda$ is in cm. We do not use the strongest absorption line, Mg[ii]{} ł2800, since this line is easily saturated in typical galaxy spectra, placing it on the flat part of the curve of growth ($W_{\lambda}$ versus $N_{j} \times
\lambda \times f$). Even if the error in the EW determination were very small, this would still lead to a very uncertain value for the column density. The Mg[i]{} line is not used either, due to the large uncertainty in the ratio of Mg[i]{} to Mg[ii]{}, translating in a similar uncertainty in the column density. Fe[ii]{}, however, should be the dominant Fe ion in a dense neutral environment. The following holds if the Fe lines are not saturated. Using the oscillator strength values from Morton (1991) for these lines ([*f*]{}(Fe[ii]{} ł2344)=0.110, [*f*]{}(Fe[ii]{} ł2383)=0.301 and [*f*]{}(Fe[ii]{} ł2600)=0.224), and the values for $W_{\lambda}$ obtained from the spectrum of the first epoch (see Table \[tab:510lines\]), we obtain log $N$(Fe[ii]{} ł2344) = 14.0 $\pm$ 0.1 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$, log $N$(Fe[ii]{} ł2383) = 13.5 $\pm$ 0.2 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$ and log $N$(Fe[ii]{} ł2600) = 13.8 $\pm$ 0.1 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$. We adopt the value log $N$(Fe) = 13.8 $\pm$ 0.2 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$. Even though the EWs of the three different Fe lines result in similar values for the column, the lines are probably saturated, i.e. our estimate for the Fe column density should be considered as a lower limit.
In converting the number of Fe atoms to a hydrogen column density, we have to take into account that the metallicity in high-redshift galaxies is likely to be lower than the Galactic value, and that a large fraction of the Fe atoms can be hidden in dust (Whittet 1992). A study of the metallicity in damped Ly$\alpha$ systems (which have $N$(H[i]{}) $\gsim$ 10$^{20} \rm{cm^{-2}}$) from $z$ = 0.7 to 3.4 (Pettini et al. 1997; we adopt \[Zn/H\]=–0.8), allows us to estimate the Fe abundance at the redshift of GRB990510 with respect to the solar abundance (Grevesse & Sauval 1999; log(Fe/H)$_{\odot}$ = –4.5), obtaining log($N$(Fe)/$N$(H))= –5.3. The Galactic Fe depletion factor in a cool disk environment is –2.2 dex (Sembach & Savage 1996, Savage & Sembach 1996), but here we adopt the typical depletion measured in damped Ly$\alpha$ systems, which is around –0.6 dex. Taking all these points into account gives the following rough lower limit to the hydrogen column density: log $N$(H[i]{}) $\geq$ 19.7 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$. Another and more robust way of estimating the H[i]{} column density which is independent of dust corrections, is to use the Fe[ii]{} measured in DLAs (the gas phase only) around the redshift of the GRB. Using 10 systems with redshifts ranging from 1.2 to 2.0, we find \[Fe/H\] = –1.5 $\pm$ 0.5. Assuming that this is the most likely \[Fe/H\] abundance for the host galaxy of GRB990510, we obtain log $N$(H[i]{}) $\geq$ 13.8 + 1.5 + 4.5 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$ = 19.8 $\rm{cm^{-2}}$, very close to our first estimate. A low column density is consistent with that found by Briggs et al. (2000) from fitting a combined set of BATSE and BeppoSAX X-ray and $\gamma$-ray data.
HST imaging, performed in April 2000, appears to detect a very faint (V $\sim$ 28) galaxy, located only 0.08 East of the position of the early afterglow (Fruchter et al. 2000, Bloom et al. 2000). This galaxy is probably responsible for the detected absorption lines in the spectra. The type and strength of the absorption lines, which are indicative of a low-ionization, high-density medium, strongly suggest that these originate in the host galaxy of GRB990510. Even though the galaxy is extremely faint, the GRB afterglow allows us to probe its interstellar medium and – in principle – to measure its metallicity. For the latter we need a measure of the column density that does not depend on the strength of the metal absorption lines (e.g. from a Balmer feature).
The emission- and absorption-line spectrum of GRB990712
=======================================================
Fig. 2 shows the spectra of GRB990712, taken at 0.5, 0.7 and 1.5 days after the burst (see Table \[tab:log\]). The obvious emission lines are easily identified as \[O[ii]{}\] ł3727, \[Ne[iii]{}\] ł3869, H$\gamma$, H$\delta$, and \[O[iii]{}\] łł4959,5007. We also detect two absorption lines, which can be identified as Mg[ii]{} ł2796,2804 and Mg[i]{} ł2853 at the same redshift as the emission lines, and are therefore intrinsic to the host galaxy. Using all these features in all three spectra, we obtain a weighted average redshift of $z$ = 0.4331 $\pm$ 0.0004. In Table \[tab:712lines\] we list the observed wavelength of the features, their identification and redshift, and the rest frame EW and flux (corrected for the Galactic foreground extinction), for the spectra taken at different epochs. The last two columns contain the EW and flux values averaged over all the spectra.
[llcrrrrrrrr]{} 4015 $\pm$ 6 & Mg[ii]{} łł2796,2804 & 0.4340 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 8.3 $\pm$ 1.4 & & 9.7 $\pm$ 1.9 & & 13.7 $\pm$ 4.5 & & 9.1 $\pm$ 1.3 &\
4096 $\pm$ 6 & Mg[i]{} ł2853 & 0.4357 $\pm$ 0.0021 & 2.2 $\pm$ 0.6 & & $<$ 2 (2$\sigma$)& & 3.9 $\pm$ 1.4 & & 2.5 $\pm$ 0.7 &\
5342 $\pm$ 3 & \[O[ii]{}\] ł3727 & 0.4332 $\pm$ 0.0008 & –47.1 $\pm$ 7.4 & 3.27 $\pm$ 0.20 & –44.7 $\pm$ 7.9 & 3.33 $\pm$ 0.22 & –45.8 $\pm$ 8.6 & 3.37 $\pm$ 0.33 & –45.9 $\pm$ 1.2 & 3.32 $\pm$ 0.14\
5545 $\pm$ 5 & \[Ne[iii]{}\] ł3869 & 0.4332 $\pm$ 0.0013 & –8.4 $\pm$ 1.5 & 0.60 $\pm$ 0.08 & –10.9 $\pm$ 2.3 & 0.79 $\pm$ 0.11 & –7.5 $\pm$ 1.9 & 0.55 $\pm$ 0.11 & –8.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.10\
6220 $\pm$ 3 & H$\gamma$ ł4340 & 0.4332 $\pm$ 0.0007 & –8.1 $\pm$ 3.3 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.18 & –6.0 $\pm$ 2.5 & 0.39 $\pm$ 0.14 & –4.5 $\pm$ 1.8 & 0.29 $\pm$ 0.10 & –5.5 $\pm$ 1.3 & 0.35 $\pm$ 0.11\
6966 $\pm$ 3 & H$\beta$ ł4861 & 0.4330 $\pm$ 0.0006 & –21.1 $\pm$ 3.9 & 1.17 $\pm$ 0.12 & –28.6 $\pm$ 5.3 & 1.59 $\pm$ 0.17 & –22.4 $\pm$ 7.7 & 1.23 $\pm$ 0.31 & –23.5 $\pm$ 3.5 & 1.33 $\pm$ 0.20\
7106 $\pm$ 3 & \[O[iii]{}\] ł4959 & 0.4330 $\pm$ 0.0006 & –43.7 $\pm$ 7.0 & 2.36 $\pm$ 0.18 & –40.7 $\pm$ 6.2 & 2.28 $\pm$ 0.16 & –42.8 $\pm$ 8.8 & 2.38 $\pm$ 0.30 & –42.2 $\pm$ 1.5 & 2.32 $\pm$ 0.12\
7175 $\pm$ 2 & \[O[iii]{}\] ł5007 & 0.4330 $\pm$ 0.0004 & –113.5 $\pm$ 17.1 & 6.04 $\pm$ 0.31 & –110.7 $\pm$ 15.1 & 6.15 $\pm$ 0.25 & –108.0 $\pm$ 18.6 & 6.18 $\pm$ 0.53 & –110.9 $\pm$ 10.2 & 6.14 $\pm$ 0.19\
& weighted mean: & 0.4331 $\pm$ 0.0004 & &&&&&\
It is important to investigate whether GRB host galaxies are indeed star forming galaxies, i.e. H[ii]{} galaxies, where massive O and B stars ionize the interstellar medium, giving rise to prominent emission lines. These lines are also observed in galaxies that host an active galactic nucleus (AGN, e.g. Seyfert 2), where their strength does not only depend on the star formation, but on the nuclear activity as well. Most popular GRB progenitor models require a close connection with massive-star formation, but so far, this has not been confirmed for any of the host galaxies.
Hjorth et al. (2000) suggested that the host galaxy of GRB990712 may be a Seyfert 2 galaxy on the basis of the \[O[iii]{}\] ł5007/H$\beta$ ratio being greater than three (see Shuder & Osterbrock 1981), and its location in the log(\[O[iii]{}\] ł5007/H$\beta$) vs. log(\[O[ii]{}\]/\[O[iii]{}\] ł5007) diagram (see Fig. 2 of Baldwin, Phillips & Terlevich 1981). We also measure a ratio of \[O[iii]{}\] ł5007/H$\beta$ that is greater than three: 4.6 $\pm$ 1.0. However, from the more recent work of Rola, Terlevich & Terlevich (1997), who employ the Canada-France Redshift Survey (CFRS) sample of emission-line galaxies at redshifts 0 $< z \leq$ 0.3, it is clear that a value of 4.6 is actually very typical for H[ii]{} galaxies (see their Fig. 1). Combined with our value for log(\[O[ii]{}\]/H$\beta$) of 0.4 $\pm$ 0.1, the host of GRB990712 is located clearly within the H[ii]{} galaxy regime. We note that this diagram is corrected for extinction intrinsic to the distant galaxies, while the values in our Table \[tab:712lines\] are not. However, the \[O[iii]{}\] ł5007/H$\beta$ ratio is only slightly affected by reddening. Rola et al. (1997) also build non-extinction corrected diagrams to distinguish between H[ii]{} galaxies and other emission-line galaxies; in all but one of these, where its location is on the border of the H[ii]{} galaxy and Seyfert 2 regimes, the host galaxy of GRB990712 is classified as an H[ii]{} galaxy (e.g. Table \[tab:712lines\] gives C$_{3727}$–C$_{4861}$ = –0.28 $\pm$ 0.03, whereas Fig. 4 of Rola et al. 1997 shows all definite Seyfert 2s have C$_{3727}$–C$_{4861} >$ 0.4), i.e. the emission lines are produced by H[ii]{} regions that are being ionized by O and B stars. We conclude GRB990712 is most likely an H[ii]{} galaxy, and not a Seyfert 2.
We have estimated the host galaxy extinction, by comparing the observed ratio of H$\gamma$/H$\beta$ (0.26 $\pm$ 0.09) with the expected ratio for case B recombination (0.469 $\pm$ 0.009; Osterbrock 1989). Using the Galactic extinction curve of Cardelli et al. (1989), we obtain A$_V$ = [$3.4^{+2.4}_{-1.7}$]{}. The relative large error is due to the marginal detection of H$\gamma$.
We can now estimate the star formation rate (SFR) in the host galaxy of GRB990712 in three different ways: through the \[O[ii]{}\] and H$\beta$ line luminosities (Kennicutt 1998), and through the continuum flux at 2800 Å (Madau et al. 1998). For all these estimates a Salpeter initial mass function (IMF) has been assumed. Combining equation (3) of Kennicutt (1998), a luminosity distance of 6.8 $\times$ 10$^{27}$ cm (taking H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_0$=0.3, and $\Lambda$=0), and the \[O[ii]{}\] ł3727 line flux from Table \[tab:712lines\] (the fluxes in this table have already been corrected for Galactic extinction) we obtain SFR(\[O[ii]{}\]) = 2.7 $\pm$ 0.8 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, consistent with the value found by Hjorth et al. (2000). Taking into account the measured extinction (at H$\alpha$, due to the fact that the \[O[ii]{}\] SFR method is calibrated through H$\alpha$), using the Galactic extinction curve (Cardelli et al. 1989), we find SFR(\[O[ii]{}\]) = [$35^{+178}_{-25}$]{} M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Using equation (2) of Kennicutt (1998), the case B (large optical depth) line ratio [*j*]{}$_{H\alpha}$/[*j*]{}$_{H\beta}$ of 2.85 (Osterbrock 1989) and the H$\beta$ flux of Table \[tab:712lines\], we find SFR(H$\beta$) 1.7 $\pm$ 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Corrected for reddening, this becomes SFR(H$\beta$) = [$64^{+770}_{-54}$]{} M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Finally, equation (2) of Madau et al. (1998), combined with the 2800 Å flux (which is located at 4013 Å at a redshift of 0.4331), gives SFR(2800 Å) = 2.8 $\pm$ 0.9 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, which becomes $\sim$ 400 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, using A$_V$ = 3.4. The \[O[ii]{}\] method, although it is indirectly calibrated through H$\alpha$ and sensitive to the abundance and ionization state of the gas, is probably the least uncertain of the three. The H$\beta$ estimate is uncertain due to the unknown host galaxy stellar absorption underneath the emission. The SFR based on the ultra-violet continuum is very uncertain due to the fact that our flux calibration is an extrapolation below the V band, and, more importantly, the extinction correction at ultra-violet wavelengths is very uncertain. Normally, the 2800 Å SFR is found to be lower by a factor of 2–3 (at redshifts up to $z$ = 2.8) as compared to the H$\alpha$ luminosity SFR method (Glazebrook et al. 1999, Yan et al. 1999).
For the GRB host galaxies for which a SFR has been determined so far, even for the \[O[ii]{}\] method alone, the values range from 0.5 $\pm$ 0.15 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (GRB970228; Djorgovski et al. 1999a) to 20 $\pm$ 9 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (GRB980703; Djorgovski et al. 1998); host galaxy extinction is not included, so these values should be considered as lower limits. Normalized by the host B band luminosity, this range is narrowed down to spread a factor of three. It has been noted (e.g. Djorgovski et al. 1998), that the range of SFRs for GRB host galaxies does not seem to be extra-ordinarily high, as compared to field galaxies at similar redshifts. E.g. Glazebrook et al. (1999) find a range of 20-60 M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (using H$\alpha$), for 13 field galaxies at $z$ = 1, drawn from the CFRS. However, the galaxies at high redshifts for which these rates have been measured tend to be much brighter than the typical GRB host galaxy, and are therefore expected to have much higher SFRs. The \[O[ii]{}\] equivalent width, which effectively is the star formation rate normalized by the blue band luminosity of the host galaxy, allows a more useful comparison. The mean $W_{\rm rest}$(\[O[ii]{}\]) of the Glazebrook et al. sample is 33 with a standard deviation of 15 Å, while we measure $W_{\rm rest}$(\[O[ii]{}\]) = 46 $\pm$ 1 Å for the host of GRB990712. This comparison also suggests that GRB990712 occurred in a galaxy that is vigorously forming stars.
Using the oxygen and H$\beta$ emission lines, we can estimate the global oxygen abundance of the host of GRB990712 (see Kobulnicky, Kennicutt & Pizagno 1999, and references therein). From the values in Table \[tab:712lines\] we obtain $R_{23} \equiv (I_{3727} + I_{4959}
+ I_{5007})/H\beta = 8.9 \pm 1.5$, corresponding to log(O/H) = –3.7 $\pm$ 0.4 (we note that log(O/H)$_{\odot}$ = –3.1; Cox et al. 1999). This estimate is based on fluxes not corrected for reddening, but such a correction would not change the abundance estimate substantially. For comparison: the oxygen abundances for a sample of 22 relatively nearby spiral galaxies range from log(O/H) = –2.7 to –3.5 (Kobulnicky, Kennicutt & Pizagno 1999).
The time dependence of the [Mg[ii]{}]{} feature
===============================================
It is now well established that GRBs are the most energetic events in the universe, with peak isotropic luminosities up to 10$^{53}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Kulkarni et al. 1998). Also when the radiation from GRBs is beamed, the impact of the shock on the circumburst material is the same as in an isotropic explosion, and could be observable as time-resolved evolution of the Fe K$\alpha$ line and edge in the X-ray regime (Weth et al. 1999, and references therein) and of ultra-violet (UV) absorption lines, redshifted to the optical domain (Perna & Loeb 1998). By monitoring the line evolution it is possible to obtain information on the density structure surrounding the explosion, and – in case the density can be measured by an independent method – the redshift to the burst may be obtained (Perna & Loeb 1998).
Our spectral observations of the afterglows of GRB990510 and GRB990712 extend over several nights, and both contain absorption lines, so that we can look for possible temporal evolution of these features. They are expected to decrease in time, if a considerable fraction of the atoms responsible for the absorption are in the vicinity of the site of the burst, and are ionized by the explosion (Perna & Loeb 1998). Alternatively, the burst may release atoms that are locked in the dust, which could result in a corresponding increase of the EWs. The clearest absorption feature in both bursts is Mg[ii]{}. In the May 11 and May 14 spectra of GRB990510 (0.8 and 3.9 days after the burst, respectively), we measure $W_{\rm rest}$ = 2.6 $\pm$ 0.4 Å (May 11) and $W_{\rm rest}$ = 2.3 $\pm$ 0.6 Å (May 14). For GRB990712 we obtain $W_{\rm rest}$ = 8.3 $\pm$ 1.4 Å, $W_{\rm rest}$ = 9.7 $\pm$ 1.9 Å and $W_{\rm rest}$ = 13.7 $\pm$ 4.5 Å for 0.5, 0.7 and 1.5 days after the burst, respectively. For both bursts, the values are constant within the errors. This is not very surprising; the Mg[ii]{} feature is most likely saturated in the spectra of both bursts. This means that over a wide range of column densities, the EW is not expected to change by a detectable amount. On the other hand, a significant change in the EW would have indicated a large change in the column density. The Mg[i]{} feature in GRB990712, which is possibly saturated as well, is also constant within the errors.
Conclusions
===========
GRB afterglows allow us to probe galaxies that would otherwise be extremely difficult or impossible to study spectroscopically. We have determined a lower limit to the redshift of GRB990510 through identification of several spectral absorption lines. The strength of the Mg[i]{} line is indicative of a cool, dense environment, which leads to the conclusion that the measured $z$ = 1.6187 $\pm$ 0.0015 most likely reflects absorption in the host galaxy ISM.
Using both the absorption and emission lines in the spectrum of GRB990712, we determine its redshift at $z$ = 0.4331 $\pm$ 0.0004. The emission-line ratios indicate that the host of GRB990712 is an H[ii]{} galaxy, with an \[O[ii]{}\] star formation rate (reddening corrected) of [$35^{+178}_{-25}$]{} M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. The large \[O[ii]{}\] equivalent width, compared to that of field galaxies at $z
\leq$ 1, also suggests that the host is vigorously forming stars.
In order to put meaningful constraints on the circumsource medium, high resolution, high signal-to-noise spectra at several epochs after the burst are needed to resolve the velocity structures of the non-saturated lines, and allow determination of the circumsource density distribution and its evolution. This may become possible with the launch of HETE-II, since this satellite will allow follow-up observations of optical transients at early times, i.e. when they are bright (R $\sim$ 16). Determination of the density profile could provide a major advance in solving the progenitor problem.
PMV and ER are supported by the NWO Spinoza grant. CK acknowledges support from NASA grant NAG 5-2560. TJG acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation. LK is supported by a fellowship of the Royal Academy of Sciences of the Netherlands. We especially want to thank the ESO/VLT staff on Cerro Paranal who performed most of the TOO observations and assisted us during the nights of FORS Consortium guaranteed time.
Bakos, G. et al. 1999, IAU Circ. 7225
Baldwin, J.A., Phillips, M.M. & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5
Beuermann, K. et al. 1999, A&A, 352, L26
Bloom, J. et al. 2000, GCN Circ. 756
Briggs, M.S. et al. 2000, [*Proceedings of Gamma-Ray Bursts: 5th Huntsville Symposium*]{}, eds. R.M. Kippen, R. Mallozzi, G. Fishman
Cardelli, J.A., Clayton, G.C. & Mathis, J.S. 1989, , 345, 245
Costa, E. et al. 1997, Nature, 387, 783
Covino, S. et al. 1999, A&A, 348, L1
Cox, A.N. et al. 1999, [*Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities*]{}, ed. A.N. Cox
Dadina, M. et al. 1999, IAU Circ. 7160
Djorgovski, S.G. et al. 1998, , 508, L17
Djorgovski, S.G. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 289
Fruchter, A. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 386
Fruchter, A. et al. 2000, GCN Circ. 757
Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K. & Ichikawa, T. 1995, PASP, 107, 945
Galama, T.J. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670
Galama, T.J. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 388
Glazebrook, K. et al. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 843
Grevesse, N. & Sauval, A.J. 1999, A&A, 347, 348
Hansen, B.M.S. & Phinney, E.S. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 569
Harrison, F.A. et al. 1999, , 523, L121
Heise, J. et al. 1999, IAU Circ. 7221
Hjorth, J. et al. 2000, , 539, L75; 534, L147
Hurley, K. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 309
Janka, H.-T., Eberl, T., Ruffert, M. & Fryer, C.L. 1999, ApJ, 527, L39
Jannuzi, B.T. et al. 1998, , 118, 1-125
Jenkins, E.B. & Wallerstein, G. 1995, , 440, 227
Kennicutt, R.C. 1998, , 36, 189
Kippen, R.M. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 322
Kobulnicky, H.A., Kennicutt, R.C. & Pizagno, J.L. 1999, , 514, 544
Kulkarni, S.R. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 35
MacFadyen, A.I. & Woosley, S.E. 1999, , 524, 262
Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., & Dickinson, M. 1998, , 498, 106
Mészáros, P. 2000, Nuclear Physics B, 80, [*Proceedings of the XIXth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology*]{}, eds. E. Aubourg, T. Montmerle, J. Paul and P. Peter
Morton, D.C. 1991, , 77, 119
Narayan, R., Paczyński, B. & Piran, T. 1992, ApJ, 395, L83
Osterbrock, D.E. 1989, [*Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei*]{}, publ. University Science Books
Perna, R. & Loeb, A. 1998, , 501, 467
Pettini, M. et al. 1997, , 486, 665
Piran, T. 1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575
Portegies Zwart, S.F. & Yungelson, L.R. 1998, A&A, 332, 173
Rol, E. et al. 2000a, in preparation
Rol, E. et al. 2000b, , accepted, preprint astro-ph/0007015
Rola, C.S., Terlevich, E. & Terlevich, R.J. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 419
Sahu, K. et al. 2000, , in press, preprint astro-ph/0003378
Savage, B.D. & Sembach, K.R. 1996, , 34, 279
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P. & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Sembach, K.R. & Savage, B.D. 1996, , 457, 211
Shuder, J.M. & Osterbrock, D.E. 1981, , 250, 55
Spitzer, L. 1978, [*Physical processes in the interstellar medium*]{}, publ. J. Wiley
Stanek, K.Z. et al. 1999, , 522, L39
Van Paradijs, J. et al. 1997, Nature, 386, 686
Van Paradijs, J., Kouveliotou, C. & Wijers, R.A.M.J. 2000, , in press
Vreeswijk, P.M. et al. 1999, GCN Circ. 310
Weth, C. et al. 2000, , 534, 581
Whittet, D.C.B. 1992, [*Dust in the Galactic Environment*]{}, New York: Inst. Phys.
Wijers, R.A.M.J. et al. 1999, , 523, L33
Woosley, S.E. 1993, , 405, 273
Yan, L. et al. 1999, , 519, L47
[^1]: deceased
[^2]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile; proposal no. 63.O-0567
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Colour is a key component in the successful dissemination of information. Since many real-world concepts are associated with colour, for example [*danger*]{} with red, linguistic information is often complemented with the use of appropriate colours in information visualization and product marketing. Yet, there is no comprehensive resource that captures concept–colour associations. We present a method to create a large word–colour association lexicon by crowdsourcing. A word-choice question was used to obtain sense-level annotations and to ensure data quality. We focus especially on abstract concepts and emotions to show that even they tend to have strong colour associations. Thus, using the right colours can not only improve semantic coherence, but also inspire the desired emotional response.'
author:
- |
Saif M. Mohammad\
Institute for Information Technology\
National Research Council Canada.\
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Even the Abstract have Colour:\
Consensus in Word–Colour Associations
---
Introduction
============
Colour is a vital component in the successful delivery of information, whether it is in marketing a commercial product [@SableA10], in web design [@Meier88; @Pribadi90], or in information visualization [@Christ75; @CardMS99]. Since real-world concepts have associations with certain colour categories (for example, [*danger*]{} with red, and [*softness*]{} with pink), complementing linguistic and non-linguistic information with appropriate colours has a number of benefits, including: (1) strengthening the message (improving semantic coherence), (2) easing cognitive load on the receiver, (3) conveying the message quickly, and (4) evoking the desired emotional response. Consider, for example, the use of red in stop signs. Drivers are able to recognize the sign faster, and it evokes a subliminal emotion pertaining to possible danger, which is entirely appropriate in the context. The use of red to show areas of high crime rate in a visualization is another example of good use of colour to draw emotional response. On the other hand, improper use of colour can be more detrimental to understanding than using no colour [@Marcus82; @Meier88].
A word has strong association with a colour when the colour is a salient feature of the concept the word refers to, or because the word is related to a such a concept. Many concept–colour associations, such as [*swan*]{} with white and [*vegetables*]{} with green, involve physical entities. However, even abstract notions and emotions may have colour associations ([*honesty*]{}–white, [*danger*]{}–red, [*joy*]{}–yellow, [*anger*]{}–red). Further, many associations are culture-specific [@Gage99; @Chen05]. For example, [*prosperity*]{} is associated with red in much of Asia.
Unfortunately, there exists no lexicon with any significant coverage that captures these concept–colour associations, and a number of questions remain unanswered, such as, the extent to which humans agree with each other on these associations, and whether physical concepts are more likely to have a colour association than abstract ones.
In this paper, we describe how we created a large word–colour lexicon by crowdsourcing with effective quality control measures (Section 3), as well as experiments and analyses to show that:
More than 30% of the terms have a strong colour association (Sections 4).
About 33% of thesaurus categories have strong colour associations (Section 5).
Abstract terms have colour associations almost as often as physical entities do (Section 6).
There is a strong association between different emotions and colours (Section 7).
Thus, using the right colours can not only improve semantic coherence, but also inspire the desired emotional response.
Related Work
============
The relation between language and cognition has received considerable attention over the years, mainly on answering whether language impacts thought, and if so, to what extent. Experiments with colour categories have been used both to show that language has an effect on thought [@BrownL54; @Ratner89] and that it does not [@Bornstein85]. However, that line of work does not explicitly deal with word–colour associations. In fact, we did not find any other academic work that gathered large word–colour associations. There is, however, a commercial endeavor—Cymbolism[^1].
Child et al. , Ou et al. , and others show that people of different ages and genders have different colour preferences. (See also the online study by Joe Hallock[^2].) In this work, we are interested in identifying words that have a strong association with a colour due to their meaning; associations that are not affected by age and gender preferences.
There is substantial work on inferring the emotions evoked by colour [@Luscher69; @Kaya04]. Strapparava and Ozbal compute corpus-based semantic similarity between emotions and colours. We combine a word–colour and a word–emotion lexicon to determine the association between emotion words and colours.
Berlin and Kay , and later Kay and Maffi , showed that often colour terms appeared in languages in certain groups. If a language has only two colour terms, then they are white and black. If a language has three colour terms, then they tend to be white, black, and red. Such groupings are seen for up to eleven colours, and based on these groupings, colours can be ranked as follows:
> 1\. white, 2. black, 3. red, 4. green, 5. yellow, 6. blue, 7. brown, 8. pink, 9. purple, 10. orange, 11. grey (1)
There are hundreds of different words for colours.[^3] To make our task feasible, we chose to use the eleven basic colour words of Berlin and Kay (1969). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database [@Coltheart81] has, among other information, the [*imageability ratings*]{} for 9240 words.[^4] The imageability rating is a score given by human judges that reflects how easy it is to visualize the concept. It is a scale from 100 (very hard to visualize) to 700 (very easy to visualize). We use the ratings in our experiments to determine whether there is a correlation between imageability and strength of colour association.
white black red green yellow blue brown pink purple orange grey
--------- ------- ------- ------ ------- -------- ------ ------- ------ -------- -------- ------
overall 11.9 12.2 11.7 12.0 11.0 9.4 9.6 8.6 4.2 4.2 4.6
voted 22.7 18.4 13.4 12.1 10.0 6.4 6.3 5.3 2.1 1.5 1.3
Crowdsourcing
=============
We used the [*Macquarie Thesaurus*]{} [@Bernard86] as the source for terms to be annotated by people on Mechanical Turk.[^5] Thesauri, such as the [*Roget’s*]{} and [*Macquarie*]{}, group related words into categories. These categories can be thought of as coarse senses [@Yarowsky92; @MohammadH06b]. If a word is ambiguous, then it is listed in more than one category. Since we were additionally interested in determining colour signatures for emotions (Section 7), we chose to annotate all of the 10,170 word–sense pairs that Mohammad and Turney used to create their word–emotion lexicon. Below is an example questionnaire:
Q1 is a word choice question generated automatically by taking a near-synonym from the thesaurus and random distractors. If an annotator answers this question incorrectly, then we discard information from both Q1 and Q2. The near-synonym also guides the annotator to the desired sense of the word. Further, it encourages the annotator to think clearly about the target word’s meaning; we believe this improves the quality of the annotations in Q2.
The colour options in Q2 were presented in random order. We do not provide a “not associated with any colour" option to encourage colour selection even if the association is weak. If there is no association between a word and a colour, then we expect low agreement for that term. We requested annotations from five different people for each term. The annotators on Mechanical Turk, by design, are anonymous. However, we requested annotations from US residents only.
Word–Colour Association
=======================
About 10% of the annotations had an incorrect answer to Q1. Since, for these instances, the annotator did not know the meaning of the target word, we discarded the corresponding colour association response. Terms with less than three valid annotations were discarded from further analysis. Each of the remaining terms has, on average, 4.45 distinct annotations. The information from multiple annotators was combined by taking the majority vote, resulting in a lexicon with 8,813 entries. Each entry contains a unique word–synonym pair, majority voted colour(s), and a confidence score—number of votes for the colour / number of total votes. (For the analyses in Sections 5, 6, and 7, ties were broken by picking one colour at random.) A separate version of the lexicon that includes entries for all of the valid annotations by each of the annotators is also available.[^6]
The first row in Table \[tab:col votes\] shows the percentage of times different colours were associated with the target term. The second row shows percentages after taking a majority vote of the annotators. Even though the colour options were presented in random order, the order of the most frequently associated colours is identical to the Berlin and Kay order (Section 2:(1)).
The number of ambiguous words annotated was 2924. 1654 (57%) of these words had senses that were associated with at least two different colours. Table \[tab:sensecolours\] gives a few examples.
[**target**]{} [**sense**]{} [**colour**]{}
---------------- ---------------- ----------------
bunk nonsense grey
bunk furniture brown
compatriot nation red
compatriot partner white
frustrated hindrance red
frustrated disenchantment black
glimmer idea white
glimmer light yellow
stimulate allure red
stimulate encouragement green
: Example target words that have senses associated with different colours.
\[tab:sensecolours\]
[rrrrrrr]{}\
one &two &three &four &five &$\geq$ two &$\geq$ three\
15.1 &52.9 &22.4 &7.3 &2.1 &84.9 &32.0\
\[tab:col agreement\]
Table \[tab:col agreement\] shows how often the majority class in colour associations is 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. If we assume independence, then the chance that none of the 5 annotators agrees with each other (majority class size of 1) is $1 \times 10/11 \times 9/11 \times 8/11 \times 7/11 = 0.344$. Thus, if there was no correlation among any of the terms and colours, then 34.4% of the time none of the annotators would have agreed with each other. However, this happens only 15.1% of the time. A large number of terms have a majority class size $\geq$ 2 (84.9%), and thus have more than chance association with a colour. One can argue that terms with a majority class size $\geq$ 3 (32%) have [*strong*]{} colour associations.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
Below are some reasons why agreement values are much lower than certain other tasks, for example, part of speech tagging:
The annotators were not given a “not associated with any colour" option. Low agreement for certain instances is an indicator that these words have weak, if any, colour association. Therefore, inter-annotator agreement does not correlate with quality of annotation.
Words are associated with colours to different degrees. Some words may be associated with more than one colour by comparable degrees, and there might be higher disagreement.
The target word–sense pair is presented out of context. We expect higher agreement if we provided words in context, but words can occur in innumerable contexts, and annotating too many instances of the same word is costly.
Nonetheless, the lexicon is useful for downstream applications because any of the following strategies may be employed: (1) choosing colour associations from only those instances with high agreement, (2) assuming low-agreement terms have no colour association, (3) determining colour association of a category through information from many words, as described in the next section.
white black red green yellow blue brown pink purple orange grey
-------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------ -------- -------- ------
anger words 2.1 [**30.7**]{} [**32.4**]{} 5.0 5.0 2.4 6.6 0.5 2.3 2.5 9.9
anticipation words [**16.2**]{} 7.5 11.5 [**16.2**]{} 10.7 9.5 5.7 5.9 3.1 4.9 8.4
disgust words 2.0 [**33.7**]{} [**24.9**]{} 4.8 5.5 1.9 9.7 1.1 1.8 3.5 10.5
fear words 4.5 [**31.8**]{} [**25.0**]{} 3.5 6.9 3.0 6.1 1.3 2.3 3.3 11.8
joy words [**21.8**]{} 2.2 7.4 [**14.1**]{} 13.4 11.3 3.1 11.1 6.3 5.8 2.8
sadness words 3.0 [**36.0**]{} [**18.6**]{} 3.4 5.4 5.8 7.1 0.5 1.4 2.1 16.1
surprise words 11.0 13.4 [**21.0**]{} 8.3 [**13.5**]{} 5.2 3.4 5.2 4.1 5.6 8.8
trust words [**22.0**]{} 6.3 8.4 14.2 8.3 [**14.4**]{} 5.9 5.5 4.9 3.8 5.8
\[tab:col sig1\]
white black red green yellow blue brown pink purple orange grey
---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------- ------ ------- ------ -------- -------- ------
negative 2.9 [**28.3**]{} [**21.6**]{} 4.7 6.9 4.1 9.4 1.2 2.5 3.8 14.1
positive [**20.1**]{} 3.9 8.0 [**15.5**]{} 10.8 12.0 4.8 7.8 5.7 5.4 5.7
\[tab:col sig2\]
Category–Colour Association
===========================
Different words within a thesaurus category may not be strongly associated with any colour, or they may be associated with many different colours. We now determine whether there exist categories where the semantic coherence carries over to a strong common association with one colour.
We determine the strength of colour association of a category by first determining the colour $c$ most associated with the terms in it, and then calculating the ratio of the number of times a word from the category is associated with $c$ to the number of words in the category associated with any colour. Only categories that had at least four words that also appear in the word–colour lexicon were considered; 535 of the 812 categories from [*Macquarie Thesaurus*]{} met this condition. If a category has exactly four words that appear in the colour lexicon, and if all four words are associated with different colours, then the category has the lowest possible strength of colour association—0.25 (1/4). 19 categories had a score of 0.25. No category had a score less than 0.25. Any score above 0.25 shows more than random chance association with a colour. There were 516 such categories (96.5%). 177 categories (33.1%) had a score 0.5 or above, that is, half or more of the words in these categories are associated with one colour. We consider these to be strong associations.
Imageability
============
It is natural for physical entities of a certain colour to be associated with that colour. However, abstract concepts such as [*danger*]{} and [*excitability*]{} are also associated with colours—red and orange, respectively.\
[Figure \[fig:scatter\]]{} displays an experiment to determine whether there is a correlation between imageability and association with colour.
We define imageability of a thesaurus category to be the average of the imageability ratings of words in it. We calculated imageability for the 535 categories described in the previous section using only the words that appear in the colour lexicon. Figure \[fig:scatter\] shows the scatter plot of these categories on the imageability and strength of colour association axes. If higher imageability correlated with greater tendency to have a colour association, then we would see most of the points along the diagonal moving up from left to right. Instead, we observe that the strongly associated categories are spread all across the imageability axis, implying that there is only weak, if any, correlation. Imageability and colour association have a Pearson’s product moment correlation of 0.116, and a Spearman’s rank order correlation of 0.102.
The Colour of Emotion Words
===========================
Emotions such as joy, sadness, and anger are abstract concepts dealing with one’s psychological state. As pointed out in Section 2, there is prior work on emotions evoked by colours. In contrast, here we investigate the colours associated with emotion words. We combine the word–emotion association lexicon compiled by Mohammad and Turney and our word–colour lexicon to determine the colour signature of emotions—the rows in Table \[tab:col sig1\]. Notably, we see that all of the emotions have strong associations with certain colours. Observe that anger is associated most with red. Other negative emotions—disgust, fear, sadness—go strongest with black. Among the positive emotions: anticipation is most frequently associated with white and green; joy with white, green, and yellow; and trust with white, blue, and green. Table \[tab:col sig2\] shows the colour signature for terms marked positive and negative (these include terms that may not be associated with the eight basic emotions). Observe that the negative terms are strongly associated with black and red, whereas the positive terms are strongly associated with white and green. Thus, colour can add to the potency of emotional concepts, yielding even more effective visualizations.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
We created a large word–colour association lexicon by crowdsourcing. A word-choice question was used to guide the annotator to the desired sense of the target word, and to ensure data quality. We observed that abstract concepts, emotions in particular, have strong colour associations. Thus, using the right colours in tasks such as information visualization, product marketing, and web development, can not only improve semantic coherence, but also inspire the desired psychological response. Interestingly, we found that frequencies of colour choice in associations follow the same order in which colour terms occur in language [@BerlinK69]. Future work includes developing automatic corpus-based methods to determine the strength of word–colour association, and the extent to which strong word–colour associations manifest themselves as more-than-random chance co-occurrence in text.
[^1]: http://www.cymbolism.com/about
[^2]: http://www.joehallock.com/edu/COM498/preferences.html
[^3]: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_colors
[^4]: http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/mrcdatabase/uwa\_mrc.htm
[^5]: Mechanical Turk: www.mturk.com
[^6]: Please contact the author to obtain a copy of the lexicon.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Low Temperature Laboratory, Department of Applied Physics, Aalto University, PO Box 15100, FI-00076 AALTO, Finland'
author:
- 'V. V. Zavjalov[^1],'
title: Linear NMR in the polar phase of $^3$He in aerogel
---
Order-parameter field and energies {#order-parameter-field-and-energies .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
We are studying the polar phase of $^3$He in nematically ordered aerogel. The order parameter in this system is $$\label{eq:order_par}
A_{aj} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\Delta\ e^{i\varphi} d_a l_j,$$ where $\varphi$ is the phase, and $\bf d$ and $\bf l$ are unit vectors in spin and orbital spaces respectively. The orbital unit vector $\bf l$ is directed along the aerogel strands and can not move.
There are three components of the Hamiltonian which are important for spin dynamics: magnetic energy, energy of spin-orbit interaction and gradient energy: $$\label{eq:ham}
\mathcal{H} = F_M + F_{SO} + F_\nabla,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:en_m0}
F_M &=& - ({\bf S} \cdot \gamma {\bf H})
+ \frac{\gamma^2}{2}\chi_{ab}^{-1} S_a S_b,\\
\label{eq:en_d0}
F_{SO}
&=& 3g_D \Big[
A^*_{jj}A_{kk}
+ A^*_{jk}A_{kj}
- \frac23 A^*_{jk}A_{jk}\Big],\\
\label{eq:en_g0}
F_\nabla
&=& \frac32 \Big[
K_1 (\nabla_j A^*_{ak})(\nabla_j A_{ak})\\\nonumber
&+& K_2 (\nabla_j A^*_{ak})(\nabla_k A_{aj})
+ K_3 (\nabla_j A^*_{aj})(\nabla_k A_{ak}) \Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\bf S$ is spin and $\bf H$ is the magnetic field. Susceptibility $\chi$ is anisotropic, the axis of anisotropy is $\bf d$ and minimum of the magnetic energy corresponds to $\bf S \perp d$. This can be written as $$\chi_{ab}^{-1} =
\frac{1}{\chi_\perp} ( \delta_{ab} + \delta\ d_a d_b)
,\quad
\delta = (\chi_\perp-\chi_\parallel)/\chi_\parallel > 0.$$
Substituting the order parameter (\[eq:order\_par\]) into energies and using the fact that $\bf l$ is uniform we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:en_m1}
F_M &=& - ({\bf S} \cdot \gamma {\bf H})
+ \frac{\gamma^2}{2\chi_\perp}
\left[{\bf S}^2 + \delta\ ({\bf d} \cdot {\bf S})^2\right],\\
\label{eq:en_d1}
F_{SO}
&=& 2\Delta^2g_D\ \Big[({\bf d} \cdot {\bf l})^2-\frac13\Big],\\
\label{eq:en_g1}
F_\nabla
&=& \frac{\Delta^2}{2} K_{jk}\ [
(\nabla_j \varphi) (\nabla_k \varphi) + (\nabla_j d_a)(\nabla_k d_a)],\end{aligned}$$ where symmetric matrix $K_{jk} = K_1 \delta_{jk} + (K_2+K_3) l_j l_k$ is introduced. Motion of the phase $\varphi$ (sound) is not coupled with the motion of $\bf d$ (spin waves). Terms with the phase gradients give only a constant contribution to the energy and can be skipped.
Equilibrium texture {#equilibrium-texture .unnumbered}
-------------------
Let’s first study the static picture. In the equilibrium $\partial\mathcal{H}/\partial S_a=0$. This means $$\label{eq:dHdS}
{\bf S^0} + \delta\ ({\bf d^0} \cdot {\bf S^0})\ {\bf d^0}
=\frac{\chi_\perp}{\gamma}\ {\bf H},$$ where $\bf S^0$ and $\bf d^0$ are equilibrium values of $\bf S$ and $\bf
d$. Multiplying this by ${\bf d^0}$ we can find $({\bf d^0} \cdot
{\bf S^0}) =\chi_\parallel/\gamma \ ({\bf d^0} \cdot {\bf H})$. then substituting it back to (\[eq:dHdS\]) we find the value for the spin in the equilibrium: $$\gamma S^0_a =
\Big[ \chi_\perp \delta_{ab} - (\chi_\perp - \chi_\parallel) d^0_a d^0_b\Big] H_b
= \chi_{ab} H_b$$
For calculation of the equilibrium distribution (texture) of the $\bf d$ vector we will use a coordinate system where $\bf H\parallel\bf\hat z$ and $\bf l$ is in $\bf\hat z- \hat y$ plane (See Fig.1). This can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:angles}
&&{\bf H} = {\bf\hat z} H
,\qquad
{\bf l} = {\bf\hat y} \sin\mu + {\bf\hat z} \cos\mu
,\\\nonumber
&&{\bf d^0} = ({\bf\hat x} \cos\alpha
+ {\bf\hat y} \sin\alpha)\sin\beta + {\bf\hat z}\cos\beta.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mu$ is angle between $\bf l$ and magnetic field, it is set by the experimental setup because direction of $\bf l$ is determined by aerogel; $\beta$ is angle between $\bf d^0$ and the field; $\alpha$ is azimuthal angle of the $\bf d$ in the plane, perpendicular to the magnetic field, it is counted from the line, perpendicular to both $\bf
H$ and $\bf l$ which corresponds to the minimum of energy.
![. 1. Angles, used in the texture calculations[]{data-label="image:vec"}](full_vec.eps)
The energies (\[eq:en\_m1\])-(\[eq:en\_g1\]) (without constant terms) are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:en_m2}
F_M &=&
\frac12(\chi_\perp - \chi_\parallel)H^2 \ \cos^2\beta,
\\
\label{eq:en_d2}
F_{SO}
&=& 2g_D\Delta^2
\ (\sin\alpha\sin\beta \sin\mu + \cos\beta \cos\mu)^2,
\\
\label{eq:en_g2}
F_\nabla
&=& \frac{\Delta^2}{2} K_{jk}
\ [\sin^2\beta (\nabla_j\alpha)(\nabla_k\alpha) + (\nabla_j\beta)(\nabla_k\beta)]\end{aligned}$$
There are two scales introduced by these energies. Ratio of magnetic and gradient energies gives the magnetic length $\xi_H$ and ratio of spin-orbit and gradient energies gives the dipolar length $\xi_D$. Since the gradient energy is anisotropic, we have different values in directions perpendicular and parallel to the $\bf l$ vector: $$\xi^2_{Hjk} = \frac{K_{jk}\Delta^2}{H^2 (\chi_\perp - \chi_\parallel)}
,\quad
\xi^2_{Djk} = \frac{K_{jk}}{4 g_D}$$ In the high-field limit $\xi_D\gg\xi_H$. Magnetic energy is in the minimum everywhere excluding small regions of the $\xi_H$ size (for example cores of spin vortices). The small volume of this regions makes them invisible in NMR experiments. In the rest of the volume $\beta=\pi/2$, only variations of $\alpha$ are important and the energy is: $$\label{eq:en_alpha}
\mathcal{H}
= \frac12 K_{jk}\Delta^2
\ (\nabla_j\alpha)(\nabla_k\alpha)
+ 2g_D\Delta^2\ \sin^2\alpha\sin^2\mu$$
The equilibrium state corresponds to the minimum: $\delta\mathcal{H}/\delta\alpha = 0$. Since the energy depends on the gradient we have to use variational derivative $$\frac{\delta\mathcal{H}}{\delta\alpha}
=
\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\alpha}
- \nabla_j\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\nabla_j\alpha}.$$ Using this for energy (\[eq:en\_alpha\]) we have a simple equation for the distribution of $\alpha$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eq_alpha}
2\bar\xi^2_{Djk}\ \nabla_j\nabla_k\alpha
&=& \sin2\alpha
,\\\nonumber
\qquad\mbox{where}\quad
\bar\xi^2_{Djk}
&=& \frac{\xi_{Djk}}{\sin^2\mu}.\end{aligned}$$ One can see that in the case of $\bf H\parallel \l$ (or $\mu=0$) there is no length scale in this problem. $\bf d$ can freely move in the plane perpendicular to the field and only the gradient term is important. Tilting the magnetic field from the $\bf l$ direction makes the $\bar\xi_D$ finite. At $\bf H\perp l$ the length scale reaches its minimum value, $\xi_D$.
Textural defects {#textural-defects .unnumbered}
----------------
Equation (\[eq:eq\_alpha\]) shows that in a tilted magnetic field there are two possible uniform textures with $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=\pi$. Vector $\bf d$ is oriented perpendicularly to both $\bf H$ and $\bf l$ and can point in two possible directions. Between this two states there is a [*$d$-soliton*]{}. One can also imagine a [*spin vortex*]{} in which vector $\bf d$ rotates by $2\pi$ around the vortex line. Two $d$-solitons should end at this vortex. Looking at the order parameter formula (\[eq:order\_par\]) one can see that there can be also a [*half-quantum vortex*]{}, in which both vector $\bf d$ and phase $\phi$ rotate by $\pi$ around the vortex line. This is possible because $A_{\alpha j}({\bf d}, \phi) = A_{\alpha j}(-{\bf d}, \phi+\pi)$. In the tilted magnetic field one $d$-soliton should end at the vortex. On Fig. 2 two types of vortices are shown.
![. 2. The half-quantum vortex and the spin vortex in the polar phase of $^3$He. Vector $l$ is perpendicular to the picture plane. Angle $\alpha=0$ is changing by $\pi$ between upper and lower parts of the picture. This can be done via either a $d$-soliton or a $\pi$ jump in the phase (which is shown by color gradient).[]{data-label="image:vort"}](full_vort.eps)
The form of the infinite $d$-soliton can be found analytically. In this one-dimentional problem equation (\[eq:eq\_alpha\]) has a form of static sine-Gordon equation: $$\label{eq:d2alpha}
\bar\xi^2_D\ \alpha''(x) = \frac12 \sin2\alpha(x),$$ where $x$ is a coordinate perpendicular to the wall. Here the value of $\bar\xi_D$ depends on the wall orientation: if $x$ coordinate goes perpendicular or parallel to $\bf l$, it should be $\bar\xi_{D\perp}$ or $\bar\xi_{D\parallel}$ respectively.
The analytical solution can be obtained by multiplying the equation by $a'$ and integrating with proper boundary conditions. Then for a single soliton with $\sin\alpha(\pm\infty)=0$ and $\alpha'(\pm\infty)=0$ we have $$\label{eq:dalpha2}
\bar\xi^2_D\ (\alpha')^2 = \sin^2\alpha,$$ and then for the domain wall at $x=0$: $$\label{eq:alpha_sol}
\alpha(x) = 2\arctan\left(\exp(x/\bar\xi_D)\right)$$
In the 2D case with isotropic $\xi_D$ (which takes place when the texture is uniform along $\bf l$-direction) the sine-Gordon equation has analytic solutions for a number of configurations with spin vortices and solitons [@Hudak1982; @Nakamura1983]. This includes, in particular, the kink on soliton, which represents the $2\pi$ spin vortex with two $\pi$-solitons being on the opposite sides of it (see right part of Fig. 2). The linear chain of the alternating $2\pi$ and $-2\pi$ vortices (kinks on straight soliton) has also analytic solution. The configuration with two solitons crossing each other may also represent the spin vortex, if each soliton has a kink and the positions of two kinks coincide. This is $4\pi$ spin vortex, from which four $\pi$-solitons emerge. Such analytic solutions do not take into account the pinning of vortices which exists in the real system.
Spin dynamics {#spin-dynamics .unnumbered}
-------------
To study spin dynamics we write Hamilton equation using Poisson brackets. Motion of any value $A$ in this approach is given by $\dot A =
\{\mathcal{H},A\}$. Choice of coordinates is quite arbitrary as far as we know Poisson brackets for them. Brackets can be found from microscopic considerations, from commutation rules in quantum mechanic, or from symmetry [@poisson]. For spin $\bf S$ and a vector $\bf d$ in the spin space the Poisson brackets are $$\label{eq:brackets_d}
\{S_a, S_b\} = -e_{abc} S_c, \quad
\{d_a, d_b\} = 0,$$ $$\{d_a, S_b\} = \{S_a, d_b\} = -e_{abc} d_c,$$ and equations of motion: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ham_eq0a}
\dot S_a
= \{\mathcal{H}, S_a\}
&=&
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta S_b} \{S_b,S_a\}
+ \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta d_b} \{d_b,S_a\}\\\nonumber
&=&
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta {\bf S}} \times {\bf S}
+ \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta {\bf d}} \times {\bf d},\\
\label{eq:ham_eq0b}
\dot d_a
= \{\mathcal{H}, d_a\}
&=&
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta S_b} \{S_b,d_a\}
+ \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta d_b} \{d_b,d_a\}\\\nonumber
&=&
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta {\bf S}} \times {\bf d}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these equations one can show that $\frac{d}{dt}({\bf d\cdot S}) = 0$ and thus the value $({\bf d\cdot S})$ is an integral of motion.
Derivatives of the Hamiltonian are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:der1}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta S_a}
&=&
- \gamma H_a
+ \frac{\gamma^2}{\chi_\perp}
\left[S_a + \delta\ ({\bf d} \cdot {\bf S}) d_a\right],\\
\label{eq:der2}
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta d_a}
&=&
\frac{\delta\ \gamma^2}{\chi_\perp}
({\bf d} \cdot {\bf S}) S_a\\\nonumber
&+& 4g_D\Delta^2\ ({\bf d} \cdot {\bf l}) l_a
- K_{jk}\Delta^2\ (\nabla_j\nabla_k d_a).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[eq:der1\]), (\[eq:der2\]), and (\[eq:brackets\_d\]) into equations (\[eq:ham\_eq0a\]-\[eq:ham\_eq0b\]) one has: $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf\dot S}
&=&
[{\bf S} \times \gamma {\bf H}] \\\nonumber
&+&4g_D\Delta^2\ ({\bf d} \cdot {\bf l}) [{\bf l \times d}]
- K_{jk}\Delta^2\ [\nabla_j\nabla_k {\bf d} \times {\bf d}],
\\[2mm]
{\bf\dot d}
&=&
\gamma \left[{\bf d} \times
\left({\bf H} - \frac{\gamma}{\chi_\perp} {\bf S} \right)
\right].\end{aligned}$$ Note that the anisotropy of susceptibility do not affect dynamics.
Linearized dynamics {#linearized-dynamics .unnumbered}
-------------------
Consider small oscillations near the equilibrium: $${\bf S} = {\bf S^0} + {\bf\delta S}(t),\qquad
{\bf d} = {\bf d^0} + {\bf\delta d}(t)$$
Linearize equations, differentiate the first one and exclude $\delta {\bf d}$. The result can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\ddot S_a &=&
[\delta {\bf\dot S} \times \gamma {\bf H}]_a + \Lambda_{ab}\ \delta S_b,\\[2mm]
\nonumber
\Lambda_{ab} &=& \Omega_P^2\ \big[
({\bf d^0} \cdot {\bf l})^2 \delta_{ab}
- [{\bf l} \times {\bf d^0}]_a [{\bf l} \times {\bf d^0}]_b
- ({\bf d^0} \cdot {\bf l}) d^0_a l_b
\big]\\\nonumber
&+&c_{jk}^2\ \big[
(\delta_{ab} - d^0_a d^0_b) \nabla_j\nabla_k
- 2 d^0_b (\nabla_j d^0_a) \nabla_k\\\nonumber
&&\qquad +\ d^0_a (\nabla_j\nabla_k d^0_b)
- d^0_b (\nabla_j\nabla_k d^0_a)
\big]\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced parameters $$\Omega_P^2 = 4g_D \frac{\Delta^2\gamma^2}{\chi_\perp},\qquad
c_{jk}^2 = K_{jk}\frac{\Delta^2\gamma^2}{\chi_\perp} = \Omega_P^2 \xi_{Djk}^2,$$ and use the fact that $c_{jk} = c_{kj}$.
Consider $H\parallel\hat z$ and look for a harmonic solution $\delta {\bf
S} = {\bf s}\exp(i\omega t)$. Then the equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
-\omega^2 s_x &=&\Lambda_{xb}\ s_b + i \omega_L \omega\ s_y,\\\nonumber
-\omega^2 s_y &=&\Lambda_{yb}\ s_b - i \omega_L \omega\ s_x,\\\nonumber
-\omega^2 s_z &=&\Lambda_{zb}\ s_b\end{aligned}$$
In high field (comparing with dipolar and gradient effects) motion of the spin is close to a Larmor precession with frequency $\omega \approx \omega_L = \gamma H$ and $\Lambda \ll \omega_L^2$. One can separate equations by putting $s_y$ from the second equation to the first one and vise versa and neglecting small terms. We get the same equations for $s_x$ and $s_y$. This can be written as a single equation for a complex coordinate $s_+ = (s_x + i s_y)/\sqrt{2}$: $$\label{eq:seq0}
(\omega_L^2-\omega^2) s_+ = i (\Lambda_{xy}-\Lambda_{yx}) s_+ + (\Lambda_{xx} + \Lambda_{yy}) s_+$$
In high field $\bf d^0$ is perpendicular to the field and we can use angles (\[eq:angles\]) with $\beta_n=\pi/2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Lambda_{xx} + \Lambda_{yy} &=&
\Omega_P^2\ \big[ (1+\sin^2\alpha )\sin^2\mu - 1 \big]
+c_{jk}^2\ \nabla_j\nabla_k
\\
\Lambda_{xy}-\Lambda_{yx} &=&
- \frac12 \Omega_P^2\ \sin 2\alpha\ \sin^2\mu \\\nonumber
&&¥+ 2 c_{jk}^2\ \big[
(\nabla_j \nabla_k \alpha)
+ (\nabla_j \alpha) \nabla_k
\big].\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this into (\[eq:seq0\]) and using (\[eq:eq\_alpha\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spinwaves}
&&(\omega^2-\omega_L^2) s_+
= \Omega_P^2\ \Big\{\cos^2\mu - \sin^2\alpha\sin^2\mu\Big\}\ s_+
\\\nonumber
&&- c_{jk}^2\ \Big\{
\nabla_j\nabla_k
+ i \big[
(\nabla_j \nabla_k \alpha)
+ 2 (\nabla_j \alpha) \nabla_k
\big]
\Big\}\ s_+.\end{aligned}$$ One can rewrite the equation in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ab_spinwaves}
(\omega^2-\omega_L^2) s_+
&=& \Omega_P^2\ \Big\{ \cos^2\mu - \sin^2\alpha\sin^2\mu\Big\}\ s_+
\\\nonumber
&-& c_{jk}^2\ \Big\{
-\left( \frac{\nabla}{i} + \nabla\alpha \right)^2_{jk} + (\nabla\alpha)^2_{jk}
\Big\}\ s_+.\end{aligned}$$ where we use notation $(A)^2_{jk} = A_j A_k$ (Discussion of Aharonov-Bohm effect, hermitian operators and real/complex solutions.)
It is useful to make a substitution $\bar s_+ = s_+ \exp(i\alpha)$. Then the equation contains no imaginary terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:real_spinwaves}
(\omega^2-\omega_L^2) \bar s_+
&=& \Omega_P^2\ \Big\{\cos^2\mu - \sin^2\alpha\sin^2\mu\Big\}\ \bar s_+
\\\nonumber
&-& c_{jk}^2\ \Big\{ \nabla_j\nabla_k
+ (\nabla_j \alpha)(\nabla_k \alpha)
\Big\}\ \bar s_+,\end{aligned}$$ The inverse transformation is needed if one need to calculate the actual distribution of magnetization.
![. 3. An example of the calculated texture and the spin wave in 1D soliton structures. Black curves correspond to an infinite soliton, blue and purple ones correspond to periodic structures with same and alternating soliton orientations. The distance between solitons is $D=4\xi_D$. [**(a)**]{} Texture $\alpha(x)$. [**(b)**]{} Potential for a real-value wave $\bar s_+$. Energy levels for all three textures are the same, $\lambda=-1$. [**(c)**]{} The real-value wave $\bar s_+$. Note, that phase of the actual magnetization $s_+$ rotates by $\pi$ across each soliton in the direction determined by the soliton orientation. One can check that the total magnetization $|\int s_+\,dx|$ for both waves is non-zero. [**(d)**]{} Distribution of the amplitude and phase of the actual magnetization $s_+ = \bar s_+ \exp(-i\alpha)$. []{data-label="image:per_sol"}](full_per_sol.eps)
NMR in the uniform texture and in the d-soliton {#nmr-in-the-uniform-texture-and-in-the-d-soliton .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------
To obtain frequency of the uniform NMR in the uniform texture we put $\alpha=0$ in (\[eq:real\_spinwaves\]). Then the frequency is $$\label{eq:nmr_uniform}
\omega_u = \sqrt{\omega_L^2 + \Omega_P^2\ \cos^2\mu}.$$ This formula can be used to measure $\Omega_P$.
To find the spin wave, localized in the infinite d-soliton we use (\[eq:real\_spinwaves\]) and the soliton equation (\[eq:alpha\_sol\]) for the distribution of $\alpha$. This gives us $$\bar s_+ = \cosh^{-1} (x/\bar\xi_D),$$ where as in (\[eq:alpha\_sol\]) the value of $\xi_D$ depends on the domain wall orientation. The frequency is $$\label{eq:nmr_soliton}
\omega_s = \sqrt{\omega_L^2 + \Omega_P^2\cos2\mu}.$$ On NMR experiments two peaks are observed, one from the uniform texture and another from the state localized in solitons. The difference between peaks is $$\delta\omega \approx \frac{\Omega_P^2}{2\omega}\sin^2\mu$$ An important parameter of the wave is the integral ratio $$I^M = \frac{\big|\int_V s_+\big|^2}{\int_V |s_+|^2}.$$ It connects the total transverse magnetization $M_\perp$, measured in NMR experiments and energy $E$ stored in the wave: $M_\perp^2 = 2\chi_\perp I^M E$. For the infinite soliton with length $L$ ($L\gg\xi_D$) the ratio is $I^M = 2L$.
Numerical study of soliton structures {#numerical-study-of-soliton-structures .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------
It is interesting to study how various effects can change the frequency of the wave in the soliton. We will do it numerically in one and two-dimentional cases, with solitons perpendicular to the $l$ vector. Using coordinates in units of $\bar\xi^2_{D\perp}$ one can write the equation (\[eq:eq\_alpha\]) for the texture as $$\label{eq:num_text}
\nabla^2\alpha = \frac12\sin2\alpha,$$ and equation (\[eq:real\_spinwaves\]) for the real-value waves as: $$\label{eq:num_wave}
- \nabla^2\ \bar s_+
+ U(x)\ \bar s_+
= \lambda\ \bar s_+,$$ where potential $U(x)=-(\nabla\alpha)^2 - \sin^2\alpha$ and $$\lambda = \frac{\omega^2-\omega_L^2 - \Omega_P^2 \cos^2\mu}{\Omega_P^2 \sin^2\mu}
= -\frac{\omega^2-\omega_u^2}{\omega_s^2-\omega_u^2}.$$ In the case of an infinite soliton $\omega=\omega_s$ and $\lambda=-1$.
Using the equation (\[eq:num\_text\]) we can numerically calculate distribution of $\alpha$. Then, using equation (\[eq:num\_wave\]) we can calculate eigenvalues $\lambda$.
First consider a 1D periodic structure of parallel solitons, located at some distance $D$ from each other. Solitons have an orientation (direction of $\nabla\alpha$), and two simplest structures which we study are sequences of solitons with same and alternating orientations.
The solution for this problem is shown on Fig. \[image:per\_sol\]. Parameter $\lambda$ for both periodic structures has the same value $-1$ as for the infinite soliton.
Let’s also study an effect of a finite-length soliton. Consider a two-dimensional problem with two half-quantum vortices parallel to the $l$ vector. Distance between vortices is $D$. The same equations (\[eq:num\_text\]) and (\[eq:num\_wave\]) are solved numerically in 2D space using [*deal.II*]{} library [@dealII]. The code is available in [@dealIIprog]. An example of the calculation is presented on Fig. \[image:calc\_text1\].
![. 5. Calculated values of $\lambda$ and $I^M/L$ for various soliton structures. []{data-label="image:num_res"}](full_num_res.eps)
Near a half-quantum vortex, at a distance much smaller then $\bar\xi_{D\perp}$, the textural angle $\alpha \approx
\varphi/2+\mbox{const.}$, where $\varphi$ is the azimuthal coordinate. One can see that the potential in (\[eq:num\_wave\]) is $U(x) \approx
(\nabla\alpha)^2 \approx 1/4r^2$ (where $r$ is distance from the vortex core). The real-value wave $\bar s_+$ can not fall into this hole because of Aharonov-Bohm effect: it should be zero along some radial direction to allow a smooth $s_+$ distribution. The symmetry reasons tell, that in the case of two vortices with a soliton the wave is zero on the line connecting vortices outside them. The corresponding solution of the wave equation is $\bar s_+
\approx \cos(\phi/2 + \mbox{const.})$, this kind of discontinuity is clearly seen on the calculated wave near vortices.
On Fig. \[image:num\_res\] calculated values of $\lambda$ and $I^M/L$ (where $L$ is the soliton length) are plotted as a function of some structure dimension $D/\bar\xi^2_{D\perp}$. There are five structures which are shown on the upper part of the figure: a single soliton with a finite length $D$; A periodic structures of infinite solitons with the period $D$ and same or alternating soliton orientations; the combination of both effects, periodic structures of finite solitons with equal length and period (this corresponds to a square lattice of vortices). For large $D$ all curves come to the values for a single infinite soliton: $\lambda=-1$, $I^M=2L$. The numerical studies show that noticeable deviation of $\lambda$ from the asymptotic value appears only at high vortex dencities, when the inter-vortex distance $D$ is less then a few $\bar\xi_D$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I thank G.E. Volovik for useful discussions. This work has been supported in part by the Academy of Finland (project no. 284594).
[15]{}
Polar phase of superfluid 3He in anisotropic aerogel. V.V. Dmitriev, A.A. Senin, A.A. Soldatov, A.N. Yudin, *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, [**115**]{}, 165304 (2015), arXiv:1507.04275
Observation of half-quantum vortices in superfluid $^3$He. S. Autti, V.V. Dmitriev, V.B. Eltsov, J. Mäkinen, G.E. Volovik, A.N. Yudin, V.V. Zavjalov, arXiv:1508.02197
On vortex configurations in two-dimensional sine-Gordon systems with applications to phase transitions of the Kosterlitz-Thouless type and to Josephson junctions. O. Hudak, Phys. Lett. [**89A**]{}, 245–248 (1982).
Relation Between Certain Quasi-Vortex Solutions and Solitons of the Sine-Gordon Equation and Other Nonlinear Equations. A. Nakamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**52**]{}, 1918–1920 (1983).
Poisson brackets in condensed matter physics. I.E. Dzyaloshinskii and G.E. Volovick, Annals of Physics, [**125**]{}, 67-97 (1980)
Satellite magnetic resonances of a bound pair of half-quantum vortices in rotating superfluid $^3$He-A. Chia-Ren Hu, Kazumi Maki, *Phys. Rev. B*, [**36**]{}, 6871–6880 (1987)
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given an $r\times r$ complex matrix $T$, if $T=U|T|$ is the polar decomposition of $T$, then, the Aluthge transform is defined by $$\Delta\left(T \right)= |T|^{1/2} U |T |^{1/2}.$$ Let $\Delta^{n}(T)$ denote the n-times iterated Aluthge transform of $T$, i.e. $\Delta^{0}(T)=T$ and $\Delta^{n}(T)=\Delta(\Delta^{n-1}(T))$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We prove that the sequence $\{\Delta^{n}(T)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges for every $r\times r$ [**diagonalizable**]{} matrix $T$. We show that the limit $\Delta^{\infty}( \cdot)$ is a map of class $C^\infty$ on the similarity orbit of a diagonalizable matrix, and on the (open and dense) set of $r\times r$ matrices with $r$ different eigenvalues.'
author:
- 'Jorge Antezana[^1]'
- 'Enrique R. Pujals [^2]'
- 'Demetrio Stojanoff [^3]'
title: '**Convergence of iterated Aluthge transform sequence for diagonalizable matrices**'
---
Depto. de Matemática, FCE-UNLP, La Plata, Argentina and IAM-CONICET
e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
Instituto Nacional de Matemática Pura y Aplicada (IMPA), Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
e-mail: [email protected]
1.5truecm
2truecm
Aluthge transform, Stable manifold theorem, similarity orbit, polar decomposition.
Primary 37D10. Secondary 15A60.
Introduction
============
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a Hilbert space and $T$ a bounded operator defined on ${\mathcal{H}}$ whose polar decomposition is $T=U|T|$. The *Aluthge transform* of $T$ is the operator ${\Delta\left(T\right)}=|T|^{1/2}U\ |T|^{1/2}$. This was first studied in [@[Aluthge]] in relation with the so-called p-hyponormal and log-hyponormal operators. Roughly speaking, the Aluthge transform of an operator is closer to being normal.
The Aluthge transform has received much attention in recent years. One reason is the connection of Aluthge transform with the invariant subspace problem. Jung, Ko and Pearcy proved in [@[JKP0]] that $T$ has a nontrivial invariant subspace if an only if ${\Delta\left(T\right)}$ does. On the other hand, Dykema and Schultz proved in [@[Dykema]] that the Brown measures is unchanged by the Aluthge transform.
Another reason is related with the iterated Aluthge transform. Let ${\Delta^{0}\left(T\right)}=T$ and ${\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}={\Delta\left({\Delta^{n-1}\left(T\right)}\right)}$ for every $n\in\N$. It was conjectured in [@[JKP0]] that the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ converge in the norm topology. Although this conjecture was stated for operators on an arbitrary Hilbert space, it was corrected and restated for matrices in [@[JKP1]] by Jung Ko and Pearcy and receantly extended to finite factors in [@[Dykema]] by Dykema and Schultz. In these spaces, it still remains open and there only exist some partial results. For instance, Ando and Yamazaki proved in [@[Ando-Yamaza]] that the conjecture is true for $2\times 2$ matrices and Dykema and Schultz in [@[Dykema]] proved that the conjecture is true for an operator $T$ in a finite factor such that the unitary part of its polar decomposition normalizes an abelian subalgebra that contains $|T|$. (see [@[Ando]], [@[Wu]] and [@[Yamazaki]] for other results that support the conjecture in finite factors).
A result proved independently by Jung, Ko and Pearcy in [@[JKP1]], and by Ando in [@[Ando]], states that, given an $r\times r$ matrix $T$, the limit points of the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ are normal matrices with the same characteristic polynomial as $T$. In particular, if the sequence of iterated Aluthge transforms converge, the limit function, defined by $\displaystyle T\mapsto
\lim_{n\to\infty}{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}$, whould be a retraction from the space of matrices onto the set of normal operators.
Another important result, concerning the finite dimensional case, states that it is enough to prove the conjecture for invertible matrices (see for example [@[AMS]]). Note that, for an invertible matrix $T$ $${\Delta\left(T\right)}=|T|^{1/2} \, T\, |T|^{-1/2}.$$ So the Aluthge transform of $T$ belongs to the similarity orbit of $T$. This suggest that we can study the Aluthge transform restricted to the similarity orbit of some invertible operator.
From that point of view, the diagonalizable case has some advantages. First of all, note that the similarity orbit of a diagonalizable operator contains a compact submanifold of fixed points, and the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ goes to this submanifold as $n\to\infty$. In fact, since $T$ is diagonalizable, the similarity orbit of $T$ coincides with the similarity orbit of some diagonal operator $D$, which we denote ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$. The unitary orbit of $D$, denoted by ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$, is a compact submanifold of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ that consists of all normal matrices in ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$. Hence ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is fixed by the Aluthge transform and the limits points of the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ belongs to ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$. In contrast, for non-diagonalizable operators, the similarity orbit does not have fixed points, and the sequence of iterated Aluthge transforms goes to points that do not belong to the similarity orbit.
On the other hand, numerical computations, as well as Ando-Yamazaki’s $2\times 2$ computations (see [@[Ando-Yamaza]]), suggest that the rate of convergence of the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$, for diagonalizable operators $T$, becomes exponential after some iterations. However, it seems that this behavior is not shared by the non-diagonalizable case.
For these reasons, we decided to study the diagonalizable case. Note that if we restrict the Aluthge transform to the similarity orbit of an invertible diagonalizable matrix $T$, a dynamical system approach can be performed.
In fact, we show that for any $N\in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$ there is a local submanifold $\ewe_N^s$ transversal to ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ characterized by the matrices that converges with a exponential rate to $N$ by the iteration of the Aluthge transform. Moreover, the union of these submanifolds form an open neighbourhood of ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ (see Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\]). Thus, since the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ goes towards ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$, for some $n_0$ large enough the sequence of iterated Aluthge tranforms enters this open neighborhood and converge exponentially.
These results follow from the classical arguments of stable manifolds (first introduced independently by Hadamard and Perron, see theorem \[pseudohyperbolic\]; for details and general results about the stable manifold theorem see [@[HPS]] or the Appendix at the end of this work). To conclude that, it is shown that the derivative of the Aluthge transform in any $N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$ has two invariant complementary directions, one tangent to ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$, and other transversal to it, where the derivative is a contraction (see Theorem \[the key\]). Using these results, we prove that the sequence $\{\Delta^{n}(T)\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges for every $r\times r$ [**diagonalizable**]{} matrix $T$. We also show that the limit $\Delta^{\infty}( \cdot)$ is a map of class $C^\infty$ on the similarity orbit of a diagonalizable matrix, and on the (open and dense) set of $r\times r$ matrices with $r$ different eigenvalues.
This paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we collect several preliminary definitions and results about the the stable manifold theorem, about the geometry of similarity and unitary orbits, and about known results on Aluthge transform. In section 3, we prove the convergence results and we study the smoothness of the limit map $T \mapsto {\Delta^{\infty}\left(T\right)}$, mainly for $r\times r$ matrices with $r$ different eigenvalues. The basic tool, to apply the stable manifold theorem to the similarity orbit of a diagonal matrix, is the mentioned Theorem \[the key\], whose proof, somewhat technical, is done in section 4. In the Appendix, we sketch the proof of the classical version of the stable manifold theorem in order to show how it can be modified in our context, where the invariant set is a smooth submanifold consisting of fixed points, getting stronger results on the regularity conditions of the prelamination $\{\ewe_N^s\}_{N\in {\cU \left({D}\right)}}$.
We would like to aknowledge Prof. M. Shub for comments and suggestion about the stable manifold theorems, and Prof. G. Corach who told us about the Aluthge transform, and shared with us fruitful discussions concerning these matters.
Preliminaries.
==============
In this paper ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ denotes the algebra of complex $r\times r$ matrices, ${\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }$ the group of all invertible elements of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, ${\mathcal{U}(r)}$ the group of unitary operators, and ${\mathcal{M}_r^{h}(\C) }$ (resp. ${\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }$) denotes the real algebra of hermitian (resp. antihermitian) matrices. Given $T \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, $R(T)$ denotes the range or image of $T$, $\ker(T)$ the null space of $T$, $\sigma (T)$ the spectrum of $T$, $\operatorname{tr}(T)$ the trace of $T$, and $T^*$ the adjoint of $T$. If $v \in {\mathbb{C}^r}$, we debote by $\mbox{\rm diag}(v) \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ the diagonal matrix with $v$ in its diagonal. We shall consider the space of matrices ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ as a real Hilbert space with the inner product defined by $${\displaystyle \left \langle A,\ B \right\rangle}=\operatorname{\R\mbox{e}}\big(\operatorname{tr}(B^*A)\big).$$ The norm induced by this inner product is the so-called Frobenius norm, that is denoted by $\|\cdot \|_2$. Along this note we also use the fact that every subspace $ \ese $ of $ \mathbb C^n$ induces a representation of elements of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ by $2 \times 2$ block matrices, that is, we shall identify each $A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ with a $2\times 2$-block matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
A_{11} & A_{12} \\
A_{21} & A_{22}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{array}{cc}
\ese \\
\ese^\bot
\end{array} ,$$ where $A_{11}=\left. A\right|_{\ese,\,\ese}\,$, $A_{12}=\left. A\right|_{\ese^\bot,\,\ese}\,$, $A_{21}=\left. A\right|_{\ese,\,\ese^\bot}\,$ and $A_{22}=\left. A\right|_{\ese^\bot,\,\ese^\bot}\,$.
On the other hand, let $M$ be a manifold. By means of $TM$ we denote the tangent bundle of $M$ and by means of $T_xM$ we denote the tangent space at the point $x\in M$. Given a function $f\in C^{r}(M)$, where $r=1,\ldots,\infty$, ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${x}$}}}}{f} \left({v}\right)}$ denotes the derivative of $f$ at the point $x$ applied to the vector $v$.
Stable manifold theorem
-----------------------
In this section we state the stable manifold theorem for an invariant set of a smooth endomorphism (see \[teorema 5.5\] below). The stable set is naturally defined for a fixed point of an endomorphism, as the set of points with positive trajectories heading directly towards the fixed point. This notion is the natural extension of the stable eigenspaces of a linear transformation (the ones associated to the eigenvectors with modulus smaller than one) into the nonlinear regimen. In fact, a natural intuitive approach to the idea of the stable manifold is to consider a fixed point of a smooth differentiable map such that the derivative of the map at the fixed point has absolute value smaller than one. In this case, the linear map induced by the derivative is a map that share the same fixed point and such that any trajectory converges by forward iterate to the fixed point with a exponential rate of contraction. Using that the linear map is a “good approximation of the map in a small neighborhood of the fixed point", it follows that the map has the same dynamical behavior of its linear part.
A more general approach is based in the techniques known as graph transform operator. This approach can be naturally extended for invariant sets, being almost straightforward when the set consists of fixed points. An sketched version of the proof of Theorem \[teorema 5.5\], using these techniques, is done in the Appendix at the end of this work (see also [@[HPS] Thm 5.5]).
Let $M$ be a smooth Riemann manifold and $N\subseteq M$ a submanifold (not necessarily compact). Throughout this subsection ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}M$ denotes the tangent bundle of $M$ restricted to $N$.
\[prelamination\] A $C^r$ *pre-lamination* indexed by $N$ is a continuous choice of a $C^r$ embedded disc $\cB_x$ through each $x\in N$. Continuity means that $N$ is covered by open sets $\cU$ in which $x\to B_x$ is given by $$\cB_x=\sigma(x)((-\eps,\eps)^k)$$ where $\sigma: \cU \cap N\to \mbox{Emb}^r((-\eps,\eps)^k,M)$ is a continuous section. Note that $\mbox{Emb}^r((-\eps,\eps)^k,M)$ is a $C^r$ fiber bundle over $M$ whose projection is $\beta\to \beta(0)$. Thus $\sigma(x)(0)=x$. If the sections mentioned above are $C^s$, $1\leq s\leq r$, we say that the $C^r$ pre-lamination is of class $C^s$.
\[self coherent\] A prelamination is *self coherent* if the interiors of each pair of its discs meet in a relatively open subset of each.
\[pseudohyperbolic\] Let $f$ be a smooth endomorphism of $M$, $\rho>0$, and suppose that $\left. f\right|_{N}$ is a homeomorphism. Then, $N$ is *$\rho$-pseudo hyperbolic* for $f$ if there exist two smooth subbundles of ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}M$, denoted by $\cE^s$ and $\cF$, such that
1. ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}M= \cE^s \oplus \cF$;
2. ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${}$}}}}N= \cF$;
3. Both, $\cE^s$ and $\cF$, are $Tf$-invariant;
4. $T\, f$ restricted to $\cF$ is an automorphism, which expand it by a factor greater than $\rho$.
5. ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${x}$}}}}{f}}:\cE_x^s\to\cE_{f(x)}^s$ has norm lower than $\rho$.
Observe that if $N$ is *$\rho$-pseudo hyperbolic* then there exists a positive constant $\la=\la(\rho)<1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dominacion}
\frac{||Df_{\cE^s}||}{m(Df_{|\cF})}<\la \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $m(.)$ means the minimum norm. If $N$ consists of fixed points then, for example, $N$ is *$\rho$-pseudo hyperbolic* (also called *normally hyperbolic*) if there is a $Tf-$invariant subbundle $\cE^s$ (of $T_N M$) complement to $TN$, such that $Tf$ contracts more sharply than any contraction in $TN$. In the case that $\cE^s$ is uniformly contracted, it follows that for any point $x\in N$ it is possible to find an $f-$invariant submanifold transversal to $N$ tangent to $\cE^s$ and characterized as the set of points with trajectories asymptotic to the trajectory of $x.$
\[teorema 5.5\] Let $f$ be a $C^r$ endomorphism of $M$ with a $\rho$-pseudo hyperbolic submanifold $N$ with $\rho< 1$. Then, there is a $f$-invariant and self coherent $C^r$-pre-lamination of class $C^0$, $\ewe^s: N\to \mbox{Emb}^r((-1,1)^k,M)$ such that, for every $x \in N$,
1. $\ewe^s(x)(0)=x$,
2. $\ewe_x^s=\ewe^s(x)((-1,1)^k)$ is tangent to $\cE_x^s$ at every $x\in N$,
3. $
\ewe_x^s \inc \Big\{y\in M\ : \ \operatorname*{dist}(f^n(x),f^n(y))<\operatorname*{dist}(x,y)\rho^n\Big\}
$.
See the proof in subsection \[teorema 5.5ap\] of the Appendix.
\[teorema 5.5bisbis\] Let $f$, $M$ and $N$ as in Theorem \[teorema 5.5\]. Let us assume that any point $p$ in $N$ is a [**fixed point**]{}. Then $C^r$-pre-lamination $\ewe^s: \cN \to \mbox{Emb}^r((-1,1)^k,M)$ is of class $C^r$.
See Corollary \[teorema 5.5bisbis2\] in the Appendix.
\[aclaraciones\] Observe that, from Theorem \[teorema 5.5\], it holds that, for every $x\in
N$ $${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${x}$}}}}\ewe_x^s=\cE_x^s \ .$$ If $N$ consists on fixed pionts, from the regularity conditions of the pre-lamination $\{\ewe_x^s\}_{x\in N}$ assured by Corollary \[teorema 5.5bisbis\], we get that, for any $x\in N$, there exists $\ga>0$ such that $$B(x,\ga)\subset \bigcup_{x\in N} \ewe_x^s \ .$$ In other words, it means that $\bigcup_{x\in N} \ewe_x^s$ contains an open neighborhood $\ewe(N)$ of $N$ in $M$. Therefore, condition 3 of Theorem \[teorema 5.5\] implies that for every $x\in N$ there exists an open neighborhood $\cU$ of $x$ (open relative to $M$) such that $$\label{converge}
\ewe_x^s\cap \cU=\Big\{y\in \cU:\ \operatorname*{dist}(x,f^n(y))< \ \operatorname*{dist}(x,y)\, \rho^n \Big\}.$$ In particular, $\ewe_x^s\cap \ewe_y^s = \varnothing $ if $x \neq y$. Moreover, we can assure that the (well defined) map $$\label{proyecta}
p : \ewe(N) \to N { \quad \text{ given by } \quad }
p(a) = x { \quad \text{ if } \quad } a \in \ewe_x^s(x)$$ is of class $C^r$.
Similarity orbit of a diagonal matrix
-------------------------------------
In this subsection we recall some facts about the similarity orbit of a diagonal matrix.
Let $D\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$. By means of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ we denote the similarity orbit of $D$: $${\ese \left({D}\right)} = \{ \ SDS\inv\ : \ S \in {\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }\ \} \ .$$ On the other hand, ${\cU \left({D}\right)}= \{ \ UDU^* \ : \ U \in {\mathcal{U}(r)}\ \}$ denotes the unitary orbit of $D$. We donote by ${{\pi}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}} : {\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }\to {\ese \left({D}\right)} \inc {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ the $C^\infty$ map defined by ${{\pi}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}(S) = SDS\inv $. With the same name we note its resrtiction to the unitary group: ${{\pi}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}} : {\mathcal{U}(r)}\to {\cU \left({D}\right)} $.
\[son variedades\] The similarity orbit ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ is a $C^\infty$ submanifold of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, and the projection ${{\pi}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}} : {\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }\to {\ese \left({D}\right)}$ becomes a submersion. Moreover, ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is a compact submanifold of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$, which consists of the normal elements of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$, and ${{\pi}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}} : {\mathcal{U}(r)}\to {\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is a submersion.
For every $N=UDU^*\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, it is well known (and easy to see) that $$\begin{aligned}
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}\,{\ese \left({D}\right)}&= {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${I}$}}}}( \pi_N ) ({\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\,) =\{[A,N]=AN-NA: \ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\}. \nonumber\\
\intertext{In particular}
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\,{\ese \left({D}\right)}&=\{AD-DA: \ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\} \nonumber
\\\label{tan1} &=\{X\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }:\ X_{ij}=0 \ \mbox{for every $(i,j)$ such that $d_i=d_j$}\}.\\
\intertext{Note that, }
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}\,{\ese \left({D}\right)}&=\{[A,N]=AN-NA: \ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\}\nonumber
\\&=\{(UBU^*)UDU^*-UDU^*(UBU^*): \ B\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\}\nonumber
\\&=\{U[B,D]U^*=BD-DB: \ B\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }\}=U\Big({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\, {\ese \left({D}\right)}\Big)U^*\ .\\
\intertext{On the other hand, since ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${I}$}}}}\, {\mathcal{U}(r)}= {\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }= \{ A \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }: A^* = -A\}\,$, we obtain}
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\,{\cU \left({D}\right)}
&= {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${I}$}}}}( \pi_D ) ({\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }\,) =\{[A,D]=AD-DA: \ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }\} { \quad \text{ and } \quad }
\ ,\nonumber\\
\label{ss}{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}\,{\cU \left({D}\right)}&=\{[A,N]=AN-NA: \ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }\}=U\Big({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\,{\cU \left({D}\right)}\Big) U^* \ . \end{aligned}$$
Finally, along this paper we shall consider on ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ (and in ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$) the Riemannian structure inherited from ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ (using the usual inner product on their tangent spaces). For $S, T \in {\ese \left({D}\right)}$, we denote by $\operatorname*{dist}(S, T)$ the Riemannian distance between $S$ and $T$ (in ${\ese \left({D}\right)}\,$). Observe that, for every $U \in {\mathcal{U}(r)}$, one has that $U{\ese \left({D}\right)} U^* = {\ese \left({D}\right)} $ and the map $T \mapsto UTU^*$ is isometric, on ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$, with respect to the Riemannian metric as well as with respect to the $\| \cdot \|_2$ metric of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$.
Definition and basic facts about Aluthge transforms
---------------------------------------------------
Let $T\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, and suppose that $T=U|T|$ is the polar decomposition of $T$. Then, we define the Aluthge transform of $T$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta\left(T\right)}&={\left|T\right|^{1/2}U\left|T\right|^{1/2}}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, ${\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}$ denotes the n-times iterated Aluthge transform of $T$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta^{0}\left(T\right)}=T; { \quad \text{ and } \quad }
{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}={\Delta\left({\Delta^{n-1}\left(T\right)}\right)}\quad n\in\N.\end{aligned}$$
The following proposition contains some properties of Aluthge transforms which follows easily from its definition.
\[facilongas\] Let $T\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$. Then:
1. ${\Delta\left(cT\right)}=c{\Delta\left(T\right)}$ for every $c\in \C$.
2. ${\Delta\left(VTV^*\right)}=V{\Delta\left(T\right)}V^*$ for every $V\in{\mathcal{U}(r)}$.
3. If $T=T_1\oplus T_2$ then ${\Delta\left(T\right)}={\Delta\left(T_1\right)}\oplus {\Delta\left(T_2\right)}$.
4. $\|{\Delta\left(T\right)}\|_2\operatorname{\leqslant}\|T\|_2$.
5. $T$ and ${\Delta\left(T\right)}$ have the same characteristic polynomial, in particular, ${\sigma\left( {\Delta\left(T\right)}\right)}={\sigma\left( T\right)}$.
The following theorem states the regularity properties of Aluthge transforms (see [@[Dykema]]).
\[continuidad\] The Aluthge transform is $(\|\cdot\|_2\ ,\ \|\cdot\|_2)$-continuous in ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ and it is of class $C^\infty$ in ${\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }$.
Now, we recall a result proved independently by Jung, Ko and Pearcy in [@[JKP1]], and by Ando in [@[Ando]].
\[puntos limites normales\] If $T\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, the limit points of the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in \N}$ are normal. Moreover, if $L$ is a limit point, then ${\sigma\left( L\right)}={\sigma\left( T\right)}$ with the same algebraic multiplicity.
Finally, we mention a result concerning the Jordan structure of Aluthge transforms proved in [@[AMS]]. We need the following definitions.
Let $T \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ and $\mu \in {\sigma\left( T\right)}$. We denote
$m(T, \mu)$ the $algebraic$ $multiplicity$ of the eigenvalue $\mu$ for $T$.
$m_0(T, \mu)= \dim \ker( T-\mu I )$, the $geometric$ $multiplicity$ of $\mu$.
\[algeo\] Let $T\in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$.
If $\ 0 \in {\sigma\left( T\right)}$, then, there exists $n\in\N$ such that $$m(T, 0)= m_0({\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}, 0) = \dim \ker( {\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}).$$
For every $\mu \in \sigma(T)$, $m_0(T, \mu ) \operatorname{\leqslant}m_0( {\Delta\left(T\right)}, \mu ).$
Observe that this implies that, if $T$ is diagonalizable (i.e. $m_0(T, \mu ) = m(T, \mu ) $ for every $\mu$), then also ${\Delta\left(T\right)}$ is diagonalizable.
The iterated Aluthge transform
==============================
Convergence of iterated Aluthge transform sequence for diagonalizable matrices {#convergencia}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove the convergence of iterated Aluthge transforms for diagonalizable matrices. The key tool, which allows to use the stable manifold theorem \[teorema 5.5\], is the following theorem, whose proof is rather long and technical. For this reason, we postpone it until section \[la prueba\], and we continue in this section with its consequences.
\[the key\] Let $D= \mbox{\rm diag}(d_1,\ldots,d_r) \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be an invertible diagonal matrix. The Aluthge transform ${\Delta\left(\cdot\right)}:{\ese \left({D}\right)}\to{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ is a $C^\infty$ map. For every $N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, there exists a subspace ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ of the tangent space ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ such that
1. ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}={{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s\oplus {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$;
2. Both, ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ and ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, are $T\,\Delta$-invariant;
3. $\left\|\left. T\,\Delta\right|_{{{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s}\right\|\leq{{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}<1$, where $\displaystyle {{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}=\max_{i,\,j\,:\ d_i\neq d_j}\frac{|1+e^{i(\arg(d_j)-\arg(d_i))}|\, |d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}$;
4. If $U\in{\mathcal{U}(r)}$ satisfies $N=UDU^*$, then ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s=U({{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^s)U^*$.
In particular, the map ${\cU \left({D}\right)} \ni N \mapsto {{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ is smooth. This fact can be formulated in terms of the projections $P_N$ onto ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ parallel to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$.
\[entorno y algo mas\] Let $D= \mbox{\rm diag}(d_1,\ldots,d_r) \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be an invertible diagonal matrix. Let ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ and $k_D$ as in Theorem \[the key\]. Then, in ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ there exists a $\Delta$-invariant $C^\infty$-pre-lamination $\{\ewe_N\}_{N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}}$ of class $C^\infty$ such that, for every $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$,
1. $\ewe_N$ is a $C^\infty$ submanifold of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$.
2. ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}\ewe_N={{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s\,$.
3. If $k_D <\rho<1$, then $\operatorname*{dist}({\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}-N)\leq \operatorname*{dist}(T, N) \rho^n$, for every $T\in \ewe_N\,$.
4. If $N_1\neq N_2$ then $\ewe_{N_1}\cap\ewe_{N_2}=\varnothing$.
5. There exists an open subset $\ewe(D)$ of ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ such that
6. ${\cU \left({D}\right)} \inc \ewe(D) \inc \displaystyle \bigcup_{N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}}\ewe_N$, and
7. The projection $p:\ewe(D)\to {\cU \left({D}\right)}$, defined by $p(T)=N$ if $\,T\in\ewe_N$, is of class $C^\infty$.
By Theorem \[the key\], for every $k_D< \rho < 1$, ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is $\rho$-pseudo hyperbolic for $\Delta$ (see Definition \[pseudohyperbolic\]), and it consists of fixed points. Thus, by Corollary \[teorema 5.5bisbis\] and Remark \[aclaraciones\], we get a $C^\infty$ and $\Delta$-invariant prelamination of class $C^\infty$, $\{\ewe_N\}_{N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}}$ which satisfies all the properties of our statement.
In order to prove the convergence of iterated Aluthge transforms for diagonalizable matrices, we first reduce the problem to the invertible case. In [@[AMS]] it was proved that if the sequence of iterated Aluthge transforms converge for every invertible matrix, then it converge for every matrix. In our case, we need to prove that if the sequence of iterated Aluthge transforms converge for every diagonalizable invertible matrix, then it does for every diagonalizable matrix. The proof of the second statement is essentially the same as the previous one, but, for a sake of completeness, we include its proof.
\[reeduccion de conjetura\] If the sequence $\{{\Delta^{m}\left(S\right)}\}_{m\in\N}$ converges for every diagonalizable invertible matrix $S\in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ and every $r \in \N$, then the sequence $\{{\Delta^{m}\left(T\right)}\}_{m\in\N}$ converges for every diagonalizable matrices $T\in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ and every $r \in \N$.
Let $T \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$. As we have observed after Proposition \[algeo\], if $T$ is diagonalizable, then ${\Delta\left(T\right)}$ is also diagonalizable. So, if we begin with a diagonalizable matrix $T$, then every element of the sequence $\{{\Delta^{m}\left(T\right)}\}_{m\in\N}$ is diagonalizable. By Proposition \[algeo\], we can also assume that $m(T, 0) = m_0(T, 0)$. Note that, in this case, $\ker( {\Delta\left(T\right)})=\ker (T)$ because $\ker (T)\subseteq \ker ({\Delta\left(T\right)})$ and $m({\Delta\left(T\right)}, 0 ) = m(T, 0 )$. On the other hand, $R({\Delta\left(T\right)})\subseteq R(|T|)$ so that $R({\Delta\left(T\right)})$ and $\ker({\Delta\left(T\right)})$ are orthogonal subspaces. Thus, there exists a unitary matrix $U$ such that $$U{\Delta\left(T\right)} U^*=\begin{pmatrix}S &0 \\ 0&0\end{pmatrix}$$ where $S\in M_s(\C )$ is invertible and diagonalizable ($s = n - m(T, 0)$). Since for every $m \operatorname{\geqslant}2$ $${\Delta^{m}\left(T\right)}=U^* \begin{pmatrix}{\Delta^{m-1}\left(S\right)} &0 \\
0&0\end{pmatrix}U \ ,$$ the sequence $\{{\Delta^{m}\left(T\right)}\}$ converges, because the sequence $\{{\Delta^{m-1}\left(S\right)}\}$ converges by hypothesis.
\[convergencia para diagonalizables\] Let $T\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be a [**diagonalizable**]{} matrix. Then $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ converges.
Using Lemma \[reeduccion de conjetura\], we can assume that $T$ is invertible. Then, $T\in {\ese \left({D}\right)}$ for some invertible diagonal matrix $D$. By Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\] and Remark \[aclaraciones\], we get on ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ a $C^\infty$ and $\Delta$-invariant prelamination of class $C^\infty$, denoted by $\{\ewe_N\}_{N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}}$, such that
The set $\bigcup _{N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}} \ewe_N $ contains an open neighborhood $\ewe(D)$ of ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ in ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$.
If $k_D <\rho<1$, then $\|{\Delta^{n}\left(A\right)} - N \|_2 \le
\operatorname*{dist}({\Delta^{n}\left(A\right)}-N)\leq \operatorname*{dist}(A, N) \rho^n$, for every $A\in \ewe_N\,$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[puntos limites normales\], there exists $m \in \N$ such that $A = {\Delta^{m}\left(T\right)} \in \bigcup _{N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}} \ewe_N $. Thus, for $n >m$, ${\Delta^{n}\left(T\right)} = {\Delta^{n-m}\left(A\right)} {\xrightarrow[n\rightarrow\infty]{}}N$, where $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is the unique element of ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$ such that $A \in \ewe_N$.
From Theorem \[convergencia para diagonalizables\] it can be deduced Ando and Yamazaki’s result on the convergence of the iterated Aluthge sequence for $2\times 2$ matrices. Indeed, in $\eme_2(\C)$, the spectrum of matrices uncovered by Theorem \[convergencia para diagonalizables\] must be a singleton. Therefore, by Proposition \[puntos limites normales\], the iterated Aluthge sequence for those matrices has only one limit point. So, it converges.
\[retraccion\] Let $D\in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be diagonal and invertible. Then the sequence $\{\Delta ^n\}_{n\in\N}$, resticted to the similarity orbit ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$, converges uniformly on compact sets to a $C^\infty$ limit function $\Delta^\infty:{\ese \left({D}\right)}\to{\cU \left({D}\right)}$. In particular, $\Delta^\infty$ is a $C^\infty$ retraction from ${\ese \left({D}\right)}$ onto ${\cU \left({D}\right)}$.
Let $\Delta^\infty$ be the limit function, which exists by Theorem \[convergencia para diagonalizables\]. We can apply Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\], and we shall use its notations. Fix $T\in{\ese \left({D}\right)}$. By Proposition \[puntos limites normales\] there exists $k\in\N$ such that ${\Delta^{k}\left(T\right)}\in\ewe(D)$. By the continuity of ${\Delta\left(\cdot\right)}$, there exists a neighborhood $\cU$ of $T$ such that ${\Delta^{k}\left(\cU\right)}\subseteq \ewe(D)$. Hence, if $p$ is the projection defined in Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\], $\left.\Delta^\infty\right|_{\cU}=\left.(p\circ \Delta^k)\right|_\cU\ $, which proves that the map $\Delta^\infty$ is $C^\infty$ at $T$.
On the other hand, to prove that the convergence of $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(\cdot\right)}\}_{n\in\N}$ is uniform on compact sets, suppose that $\cU$ has compact closure, and denote by $$C = \sup \{ \operatorname*{dist}( {\Delta^{k }\left(S\right)}, {\Delta^{\infty }\left(S\right)}): S \in \cU \} \ .$$ Fix $\eps>0$ and take $m_0>k$ such that $Ck_D^{m_0-k}<\eps$. Then, using (4) of Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\], for every $m\geq m_0$ and every $S\in\cU$ $$\operatorname*{dist}({\Delta^{m}\left(S\right)}-{\Delta^{\infty}\left(S\right)})= \operatorname*{dist}\big({\Delta^{m-k }\left({\Delta^{k }\left(S\right)}\,\right)}-{\Delta^{\infty}\left({\Delta^{k }\left(S\right)}\,\right)}\big) \leq \eps.$$ This proves that for every $T\in{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ there exists a neighborhood of $T$ where the convergence is uniform. Therefore, by standard arguments, it follows that the convergence is uniform on compact sets.
Let $D\in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be diagonal but not invertible. If $T\in {\ese \left({D}\right)}$, by arguments similar to those used in the proofs of Lemma \[reeduccion de conjetura\] and Proposition \[retraccion\] it can be proved that ${\Delta\left(T\right)}\in {\ese \left({D}\right)}$, and the map $\Delta^{\infty} \big|_{{\ese \left({D}\right)}} : {\ese \left({D}\right)} \to {\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is a retraction of calss $C^\infty$.
Smoothness of the map $T \mapsto {\Delta^{\infty}\left(T\right)}$ on ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$ be the set of diagonalizable and invertible matrices in ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ with $r$ different eigenvalues (i.e. every eigenvalue has algebraic multiplicity equal to one). Observe that ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$ is an open dense subset of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ and it is invariant by the Aluthge transform. If ${\Delta^{\infty}\left(\cdot\right)}$ denotes the limit of the sequence of iterated Aluthge transforms, which is defined on the set of diagonalizable matrices by Theorem \[convergencia para diagonalizables\], we shall show that $T \mapsto {\Delta^{\infty}\left(T\right)}$ is of class $C^\infty$ on ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$. The proof of this result essentially follows the same lines as Proposition \[retraccion\]. For this reason, we expose a sketched version of the proof, where we only point out the main differences.
We already know that the map ${\Delta^{\infty}\left(\cdot\right)}$ is of class $C^\infty$ if it is restricted to the orbits ${\ese \left({T}\right)}$ for any $T \in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$. In order to study the behavior of this map outside the orbit of $T$, we need to define the following sets: let $D\in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$ be a diagonal matrix and let $\eps >0$; then $$\begin{aligned}
{\cB(D,\, \eps)}&=\Big\{D'\in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}: \ D'\
\mbox{is diagonal and $\|D-D'\|_2<\eps$}\Big\};\\
{\ese \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}&= \Big\{SD'S^{-1}:\ D'\in {\cB(D,\,\eps)}\ \mbox{and}\ S\in{\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }\Big\}
= \bigcup _{ D'\in {\cB(D,\,\eps)}} {\ese \left({D'}\right)} ;\\
{\cU \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}&=\Big\{UD'U^*:\ D'\in{\cB(D,\,\eps)}\
\mbox{and}\ U\in{\mathcal{U}(r)}\Big\} = \bigcup _{ D'\in {\cB(D,\,\eps)}} {\cU \left({D'}\right)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The set ${\ese \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}$ is invariant for ${\Delta\left(\cdot\right)}$ and it is also open in ${\mathcal{G}\textit{l}\,_r(\C) }$ for $\eps$ small enough. Since $D \in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$, it can be proved that ${\cU \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}$ is a smooth submanifold of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, and it consists on the fixed points of ${\ese \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}$. For each $N \in {\cU \left({D,\, \eps}\right)}$, if $\{N\}'$ denotes the subspace $\{A \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }: AN = NA\}$, the tangent space ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$ can be decomposed as $
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)} = {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)} \oplus \{N\}' \ .
$ Then, ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}={\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ can be decomposed as $$\label{summma}
{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D,\,\eps}\right)} = {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)} \oplus \{N\}'
= \Big( {{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s\oplus {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}\Big) \oplus \{N\}'
={{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s\oplus {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)} \ ,$$ where the subspaces ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ are the same as those constructed in Theorem \[the key\]. Since $D \in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$ then, with the notations of Theorem \[the key\], $\displaystyle \rho = \max_{D'\in {\cB(D,\, \eps)} } k_{D'} <1$ for $\eps$ small enought. Also, for every $N \in {\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$,
1. Both ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ and ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$, are $T_N\,\Delta$-invariant;
2. $\left\|\left. T_N\,\Delta\right|_{{{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s}\right\|\leq\rho<1$, and $T_N\,\Delta \Big|_{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}} $ is the identity map of ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$.
The distribution of the subspaces ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ is still smooth, since the (oblique) projection $E_N$ onto ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ parallel to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$ moves smoothly on ${\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$. A brief justification of these facts can be found in the following Remark:
\[CFH\] Let $d = \frac{1-\rho}{3}\, $. Consider the open discs $\cU = \{z \in \C : |z|<\rho+d\}$ and $\cV = \{z \in \C : |1-z|<d\}$, which have disjoint closures. By Eq. , and items 1 and 2 of the previous discusion, one can deduce that the spectrum of $T_N\,\Delta$ is contained in $\cU\cup \cV$ for every $N \in {\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$. Moreover, if $f : \cU\cup \cV \to \C$ is the holomorphic map $f = \aleph_\cU\,$ (the charcateristic map of $\cU$), then $E_N = f(T_N\,\Delta )$ for every $N \in {\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$. If $\cM(\cU\cup \cV ) =
\{ T \in \cM_{r^2}(\C) : {\sigma\left( T\right)} \inc \cU\cup \cV \}$, which is an open subset of $\cM_{r^2}(\C)$, then the map $$\cM(\cU\cup \cV ) \ni T \mapsto f(T) { \quad \text{ is of class $C^\infty$ } \quad }$$ (see Theorem 5.16 of Kato’s book [@Kato]). Therefore, the distribution ${\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)} \ni N \mapsto E_N = f(T_N\,\Delta )$ is of class $C^\infty$. A similar type of argument can be used to show that ${\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$ is a smooth submanifold of ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, for $\eps$ small enough.
\[contdiagdis\] The map ${\Delta^{\infty}\left(\cdot\right)}$ is of class $C^\infty$ on ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$, and the sequence $\{{\Delta^{n}\left(\cdot\right)}\}_{n\in\N}\,$, resticted to ${\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$, converges uniformly on compact sets to $\Delta^\infty (\cdot)$.
Let $T \in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$, denote $N = {\Delta^{\infty}\left(T\right)}$ and let $D\in {\cD_{r}^*(\C)}$, a diagonal matrix such that $N\in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$. We can apply Theorem \[teorema 5.5\] to the pair ${\cU \left({D,\,\eps}\right)} \inc {\ese \left({D,\,\eps}\right)}$, for $\eps$ small. From now on, the proof follows the same steps as the proofs of Corollary \[entorno y algo mas\] and Proposition \[retraccion\].
Proof of Theorem \[the key\] {#prueba del teorema principal}
============================
\[la prueba\]
Matricial characterization of $T_N \Delta$
------------------------------------------
Throughout this section we fix an invertible diagonal matrix $D\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ whose diagonal entries are denoted by $(d_1,\ldots,d_n)$. For every $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, let $d_j=e^{\,i\theta_j}|d_j|$ be the polar decomposition of $d_j$, where $\theta_j\in [0,2\pi]$. Recall from Eq. that the tangent space $T_D {\ese \left({D}\right)}$ consists on those matrices $X \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ such that $X_{ij} = 0$ if $d_i = d_j\,$.
\[producto de Hadamard\] Given $A,B\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, $A\circ B$ denotes their Hadamard product, that is, if $A=(A_{ij})$ and $B=(B_{ij})$, then $(A\circ B)_{ij}=A_{ij} B_{ij}$. With respect to this product, each matrix $A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ induces an operator ${\Psi_{A}}$ on ${\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ defined by ${\Psi_{A}}(B)=A\circ B$, $B \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$.
\[remark sobre hadamard\] Note that, by Eq. , the subspace ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ reduces the operator ${\Psi_{A}}\,$, for every $A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$. This is the reason why, from now on, we shall consider all these operators as acting on ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$. Restricted in this way, it holds that $$\|{\Psi_{A}}\|=\sup\{\|A\circ B\|_2: \ B\in{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)} \ \mbox{and}\
\|B\|_2=1\}=\max_{d_i\neq d_j} |A_{ij}| \ .$$
Let ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}$ and ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}$ be the projections defined on ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ by $${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(B)=\frac{B+B^*}{2} { \quad \text{ and } \quad } {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(B)=\frac{B-B^*}{2}.$$ That is, ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}$ (resp. ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}$) is the restriction to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ of the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of hermitian (resp. anti-hermitian) matrices. Observe that, for every $K \in {\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }$ (i.e., such that $K^* = -K$) and $B\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ it holds that $$\label{commu}
K\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(B)={{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(K\circ B) { \quad \text{ and } \quad } K\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(B)={{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(K\circ B)\ .$$ Denote by ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\,$ the orthogonal projection from ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ onto $({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)})^\bot$.
\[pruyucciun\] Let $J,K\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be the matrices defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
|d_j-d_i|\operatorname{sgn}(j-i)&\mbox{if $d_i\neq d_j$}\\
0 &\mbox{if $d_i = d_j$}
\end{cases}
{ \quad \text{ and } \quad }
J_{ij}=\begin{cases}
(d_j-d_i)K_{ij}^{-1}&\mbox{if $d_i\neq d_j$}\\
1 &\mbox{if $d_i = d_j$}
\end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i,j\leq r$. Then
1. For every $A\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$, $AD-DA=J\circ K\circ A$.
2. It holds that ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\ = {\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1}$.
3. If $H \in {\mathcal{M}_r^{h}(\C) }$ (i.e., if $H^*=H$), then ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}{\Psi_{H}}={\Psi_{H}}{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\,$.
$\ $
1. It is enough to note that $(J\circ K)_{ij}=d_j-d_i$ and $(AD-DA)_{ij}=(d_j-d_i)A_{ij}$.
2. Since $|J_{ij}|=1$ for every $1\leq i,j\leq r$, the operator ${\Psi_{J}}$ is unitary in $({\mathcal{M}_r (\C) },\|\cdot\|_2)$. Hence, ${\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1}$ is an orthogonal projection. Recall that $${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}=\{AD-DA:\ A\in{\mathcal{M}_r^{ah}(\C) }\}.$$ By Eq. , ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{K}}= {\Psi_{K}} {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}\,$. Then, given $X=AD-DA\in {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, $${\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(X)={\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1}({\Psi_{J}}{\Psi_{K}}A)=
{\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{K}}(A)={\Psi_{J}} {\Psi_{K}} {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)=0.$$ So, ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}\subseteq \ker({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})$. But, $\dim{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}=\dim \ker({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})$. Therefore, we have that ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}={\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1}$.
3. It is clear that ${\Psi_{H}}{\Psi_{J}}={\Psi_{J}}{\Psi_{H}}$. On the other hand, since $H$ is hermitian, ${\Psi_{H}}$ also commutes with the projection ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}\,$.
\[la matriz\]Let $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$ and let ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}$ be the orthogonal projection from ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ onto $\big({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}\big)^\bot$. Then ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}$ has the following $2\times 2$ matrix decomposition $$\label{derivada en dos por dos}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}} & I
\end{pmatrix} \barr{l} {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\\ I- {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\earr \ ,$$ because ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}$ acts as the identity on ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$. The next Proposition gives a characterization of the significative parts ${{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} = {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}$ and ${{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}} = (I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}) \big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}$ in the case $N=D$.
\[uno\] Let ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\big({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}\big)^\bot$. Then there exists $H \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ such that, if $H_1 = {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(H)$ and $H_2 = {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(H)$, $${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}={{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\ {\Psi_{H_1}}\ {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}{ \quad \text{ and } \quad } (I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}) \big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}= (I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\ {\Psi_{H_2}}\ {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\, .$$ The matrix $H_1$ can be characterized as $$\begin{aligned}
(H_1)_{ij}&=\frac{\big(1+e^{\,i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}\big)|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}
{ \quad \text{ for every } \quad } 1 \le i, j \le r \ .
\label{h1} $$
Fix a tangent vector $X=AD-DA \in T_D {\ese \left({D}\right)}$, for some $A \in {\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$. Then $${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}=\left.\frac{d}{dt}{\Delta\left(e^{tA}De^{-tA}\right)}\right|_{t=0}.$$ Let $\gamma(t)=\big(e^{tA}De^{-tA}\big)^*\big(e^{tA}De^{-tA}\big)=e^{-tA^*}D^*e^{tA^*}e^{tA}De^{-tA}$. In terms of $\gamma$, we can write the curve ${\Delta\left(e^{tA}De^{-tA}\right)}$ in the following way $${\Delta\left(e^{tA}De^{-tA}\right)}=\gamma^{1/4}(t)(e^{tA}De^{-tA})\gamma^{-1/4}(t).$$ So, using that $(\gamma^{-1/4})'(0)=-\gamma^{-1/4}(0)\ (\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ \gamma^{-1/4}(0)$ (which can be deduce from the identity $\gamma^{1/4}\gamma^{-1/4}=I$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}&= (\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ D\gamma^{-1/4}(0)+\gamma^{1/4}(0)(AD-DA) \gamma^{-1/4}(0)\\&-\gamma^{1/4}(0)\ D\ \gamma^{-1/4}(0)\ (\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ \gamma^{-1/4}(0)\\&=
(\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ D|D|^{-1/2}+|D|^{1/2}(AD-DA) |D|^{-1/2}\\&-|D|^{1/2}\ D\ |D|^{-1/2}\ (\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ |D|^{-1/2}\\
&=
\Big((\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\ D - D\ (\gamma^{1/4})'(0)\Big) |D|^{-1/2} +|D|^{1/2}(AD-DA) |D|^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
If we define the matrices $L,N\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ by $$\begin{aligned}
N_{ij}&=|d_j|^{-1/2},\\
L_{ij}&=|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{-1/2},\\\end{aligned}$$ and take $J,K\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ as in Lemma \[pruyucciun\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}
&=N\circ( J\circ K \circ (\gamma^{1/4})'(0))+L\circ(J\circ K\circ A).\end{aligned}$$
Now, we need to compute $(\gamma^{1/4})'(0)$. Firstly, we shall compute $(\gamma^{1/2})'(0)$, and then we shall repeat the procedure to get $(\gamma^{1/4})'(0)$. Using the identity $\gamma^{1/2}\gamma^{1/2}=\gamma$, we get $$\gamma^{1/2}(\gamma^{1/2})'+(\gamma^{1/2})'\gamma^{1/2}=\gamma'$$ If $A=\gamma^{1/2}(0)$, $B=-\gamma^{1/2}(0)$ and $Y=\gamma'(0)$, we can rewrite the above identity in the following way $$A(\gamma^{1/2})'(0)-(\gamma^{1/2})'(0) B=Y.$$ Therefore, $(\gamma^{1/2})'$ is the solution of Sylvester’s equation $AX-XB=Y$. Using the well known formula for this solution (see [@[Bh] Thm. VII.2.3]), it holds that $$(\gamma^{1/2})'(0)=\int_0^\infty e^{-tA}Ye^{tB}\ dt=
\int_0^\infty e^{-t\gamma^{1/2}(0)} \ \gamma '(0) \ e^{-t\gamma^{1/2}(0)}\ dt.$$ In the same way, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(\gamma^{1/4})'(0)&=\int_0^\infty e^{-t\gamma^{1/4}(0)}\ (\gamma^{1/2})'(0)\ e^{-t\gamma^{1/4}(0)}\ dt\\ &
= \int_0^\infty e^{-t\gamma^{1/4}(0)}\left(\int_0^\infty e^{-s\gamma^{1/2}(0)}\ \gamma'(0) \
e^{-s\gamma^{1/2}(0)}
\ ds\right)e^{-t\gamma^{1/4}(0)}\ dt \\ &
=\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-\big(t\gamma^{1/4}(0) + s\gamma^{1/2}(0)\big) }\ \gamma'(0) \
e^{-\big(t\gamma^{1/4}(0)+s\gamma^{1/2}(0)\big)}\
ds\, dt.\\
\intertext{Finally, as $\gamma(0)=|D|^2$, we obtain}
(\gamma^{1/2})'(0) &
=\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-(t|D|^{1/2} + s|D|)}\ \gamma'(0) \
e^{-(t|D|^{1/2}+s|D|)}\
ds\, dt.\\\end{aligned}$$ So, if $M\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ is the matrix defined by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{ij}&=\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-(t|d_i|^{1/2}+s|d_i|)}\
e^{-(t|d_j|^{1/2}+s|d_j|)}\ ds\, dt\\
&=\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{-\Big(t(\ |d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})\ +\ s(\ |d_i|+|d_j|)\Big)}\
\ ds\, dt\\
&=\int_0^\infty e^{-s\big(\ |d_i|+|d_j|\ \big)}\ \ ds\
\int_0^\infty e^{-t\big(\ |d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}\big)} \ dt\\
&=\left.\frac{-e^{-s\big(\ |d_i|+|d_j|\ \big)}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}\right|_0^{\infty}\ \left.\frac{-e^{-t\big(\ |d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}\big)}}{|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}}\right|_0^{\infty}\\
&=\frac{1}{|d_i|+|d_j|}\ \frac{1}{|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}},\end{aligned}$$ then $(\gamma^{1/4})'(0)=M\circ \gamma'(0)$. Our next step will be to compute $\gamma'(0)$. $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'(0)&=-A^*D^*D+D^*A^*D+D^*AD-D^*DA
=2D^*{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)D-(D^*DA+A^*D^*D)\\
&=2D^*{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)D-(D^*D{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)+{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)D^*D)-(D^*D{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(A)-{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(A)D^*D)\end{aligned}$$ Let $R,T^+,T^-\in{\mathcal{M}_r (\C) }$ be the matrices defined by $$R_{ij}=2\bar{d}_i d_j \ , \quad
T^+_{ij}=|d_i|^2+|d_j|^2 \ , { \quad \text{ and } \quad }
T^-_{ij}=|d_j|^2-|d_i|^2 \ , \quad 1\le i,j \le r \ .$$ Then, $\gamma'(0)$ can be rewritten in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'(0)=R\circ{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)-T^+\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)+T^-\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(A).\end{aligned}$$ In consequence, ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({AD-DA}\right)}$ can be characterized (in terms of $A$) as $$\begin{aligned}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)} &=N\circ J\circ K\circ M\circ\Big[(R-T^+)\circ
{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(A)+T^-\circ{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(A)\Big]+L\circ J\circ K\circ A.\end{aligned}$$
Now, we shall express ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}$ in terms of $X=J\circ K\circ A$. Recall that, since $K^*=-K$, then ${{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{K}}= {\Psi_{K}} {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}\,$, by Eq. . Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}&=M\circ N\circ (R-T^+)\circ J\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(K\circ A)\\
&+M\circ N\circ T^-\circ J\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(K\circ A)
+L\circ (J\circ K \circ A)\\
&=M\circ N\circ (R-T^+)\circ ({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})(X)\\
&+M\circ N\circ T^-\circ ({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})(X)
+L\circ (X) \end{aligned}$$ Then, using Lemma \[pruyucciun\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}&=\Big(M\circ N\circ (R-T^+)+L\Big)\circ {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}(X)\\
&+\Big(M\circ N\circ T^- +L\Big)\circ (I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})(X).\end{aligned}$$
If $H=M\circ N\circ (R-T^+)+L$, then $H_{i,j}=$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{-1/2}+|d_j|^{-1/2}\frac{2\bar{d}_id_j-(|d_i|^2+|d_j|^2)}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{-1/2}(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)\ +\ 2\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_i|^2|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_j|^{3/2}}{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{|d_i||d_j|^{1/2}+|d_i|^{3/2}+|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|\ +\
2\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_j|^{3/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{|d_i||d_j|^{1/2}+|d_i|^{3/2}+|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|+|d_j|^{3/2}\ +\
2\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-2|d_j|^{3/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=1+2\frac{\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_j|^{3/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
(M\circ N\circ T^- +L)&=|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{-1/2}+|d_j|^{-1/2}\frac{|d_j|^{2}-|d_i|^{2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=|d_j|^{-1/2}\Big(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}-|d_i|^{1/2}\Big)=1\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we get that $
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta} \left({X}\right)}=\Big(\, H {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}+(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\,\Big)(X).
$ Given $Y\in R({{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}(Y) &={{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}(H\circ Y)=({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})(H\circ Y)\\
&=J\circ\Big({{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}Y)\Big)\\
&=\frac12 \ J\circ \left( H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)-\Big(H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\Big)^*\right) \\
&=\frac12 \ J\circ\Big( H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\,+\,H^*\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\Big) \\
&=J\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(H)\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)= {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(H)\circ Y = {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}{\Psi_{{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(H)}} ( Y ) \ .\\
\intertext{Analogously}
(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}(Y) &=(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})(H\circ Y)=({\Psi_{J}}{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}{\Psi_{J}}^{-1})(H\circ Y)\\
&=J\circ\Big({{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\R e}$}}}}}(H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}Y)\Big)\\
&=\frac12 \ J\circ\left(H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)+\Big(H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\Big)^*\right)\\
&=\frac12 \ J\circ\Big( H\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\,-\,H^*\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)\Big)\\
&=J\circ {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(H)\circ {\Psi_{J}}^{-1}(Y)= {{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(H) \circ Y = (I- {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}) {\Psi_{{{{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\mathbb{I}\mbox{m}}$}}}}}(H)}} ( Y ) \ .\end{aligned}$$ So, Eq. holds. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
(H_1)_{ij} &=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+2\frac{\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_j|^{3/2}} {(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)} +
1+2\frac{\bar{d}_id_j|d_i|^{-1/2}-|d_i|^{3/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\right)\\
&=1+\frac{\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}-|d_j|^{3/2} +
\bar{d}_id_j|d_i|^{-1/2}-|d_i|^{3/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{|d_i||d_j|^{1/2}+|d_j||d_i|^{1/2}
+\bar{d}_id_j|d_j|^{-1/2}+\bar{d}_id_j|d_i|^{-1/2}}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}\Big(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2}
+e^{\,i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}|d_i|^{1/2}
+e^{\,i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}|d_j|^{1/2}\Big)}
{(|d_i|^{1/2}+|d_j|^{1/2})(|d_i|+|d_j|)}\\
&=\frac{\big(1+e^{\,i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}\big)
|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|} \ , $$ which completes the proof.
\[descomposicion\] Given $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$, consider the matrix decomposition $${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}} & I
\end{pmatrix} \barr{l} {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\\ I- {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\earr \ ,$$ as in Remark \[la matriz\]. Then $\displaystyle \|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}}\|\leq \max_{i,\,j\,:\ d_i\neq d_j}\frac{|1+e^{i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}|\,
|d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}<1$.
Let $N=UDU^*\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, for some $U \in {\mathcal{U}(r)}$. Then, $${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\Big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\Big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}
{ \quad \text{ and } \quad } {{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\Big({{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\Big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}\ .$$ Since ${{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}:{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}\to{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ is an isometric isomorphism, it holds that $$\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}}\|=\left\|{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\big( {{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}} \big) {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\right\|=
\left\|{{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\Big({{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\big( {{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}} \big){{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\Big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\inv \right\|=
\left\|{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\big( {{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}} \big){{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\right\|=\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}\|.$$ Take the selfadjoint matrix $H_1$ given by Proposition \[uno\]. Hence, $$\displaystyle\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}\|\leq \|{\Psi_{H_1}}\|=\max_{i,\,j\,:\ d_i\neq d_j}\frac{|1+e^{i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}|\, |d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|} \ .$$ Finally, this maximum is strictly lower than one because, by the triangle inequality and the arithmetic-geometric inequality, $$\frac{|1+e^{i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}|\, |d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}\ \leq \
\frac{2\, |d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}\ \leq \ 1 \ .$$ But the equality holds only if $\theta_j=\theta_i \mod(2\pi)$ and $|d_i|=|d_j|$, that is, if $d_i=d_j\,$.
It is easy to see, using Lemma \[pruyucciun\] and Eq. , that ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}$ is invertible, and therefore $\Delta$ is a local diffeomorphism near $D$, if and only if $e^{i(\theta_j-\theta_i)}\neq -1$ for every $i,j$. This means that there are not pairs $d_i$, $d_j$ such that $d_i \cdot d_j \in \R_{<0}\,$.
The proof
---------
Now we rewrite the statement of Theorem \[the key\] and conclude its proof:
The Aluthge transform ${\Delta\left(\cdot\right)}:{\ese \left({D}\right)}\to{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ is a $C^\infty$ map, and for every $N\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, there exists a subspace ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ in the tangent space ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ such that
1. ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}={{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s\oplus {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$;
2. Both, ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ and ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, are $T_N\,\Delta$-invariant;
3. $\left\|\left. T_N\,\Delta\right|_{{{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s}\right\|\leq{{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}<1$, where $\displaystyle {{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}=\max_{i,\,j\,:\ d_i\neq d_j}
\frac{\big |1+e^{i(\arg(d_j)-\arg(d_i))}\big|\, |d_i|^{1/2}|d_j|^{1/2}}{|d_i|+|d_j|}$;
4. If $U\in{\mathcal{U}(r)}$ satisfies $N=UDU^*$, then ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s=U({{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^s)U^*$.
In particular, the map ${\cU \left({D}\right)} \ni N \mapsto {{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ is smooth. This fact can be formulated in terms of the projections $P_N $ onto ${{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ parallel to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, $N \in {\cU \left({D}\right)}$.
Fix $N=UDU^*\in{\cU \left({D}\right)}$. By Corollary \[descomposicion\] $\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}}\|<1$, so the operator $I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}}$ acting on $R({{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}})$ is invertible. Let $\cE^s_N$ be the subspace defined by $$\cE^s_N=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}
y\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1} y
\end{pmatrix}:\ y\in R({{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}) \right\},$$ where ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}$, as in Corollary \[descomposicion\], is the orthogonal projection onto $\big({{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}\big)^\bot$. A straightforward computation shows that $${{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}=\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{array}{cc}
{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\\
I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\end{array}$$ is a projection onto $\cE_N^s$ parallel to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$. Therefore $${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}=\cE^s_N \oplus {{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}.$$ Moreover, since ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\Big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\Big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}$, ${{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\Big({{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}\Big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}$, and ${{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}$ can be written as $${{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}={{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}-(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}})({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}){{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\big(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}){{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}\big)^{-1}{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}},$$ it holds that $${{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}({{P}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}.$$ This shows that $\cE^s_N=U(\cE^s_D)U^*$ as we desired. On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}})&=\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}} & I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}= \
\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}\Big(I-(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1}\Big) & 0
\end{pmatrix}\\&=
\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}\Big(-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}}\Big)(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix} \, \quad= \ \begin{pmatrix} {{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1}{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.\\
\intertext{and}
({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}){{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}& =\begin{pmatrix}
I & 0\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}} & I
\end{pmatrix}= \ \begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2N}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}})^{-1}{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1N}$}}}} & 0
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ So, ${{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}} = {{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}} {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}}$. This implies that both, $\cE^s_N$ and ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$, are invariant for ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}$. Clearly, ${{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}$ restricted to ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\cU \left({D}\right)}$ is the identity. Hence, it only remains to prove that $\left.\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big)\right|_{\cE^s_N}$ has norm lower or equal to ${{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}$. Observe that it is enough to make the estimation at ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$. Indeed, for every $X\in\cE^s_N$, it holds that $
{{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\Delta}}(X)={{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}\big({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}}\big){{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}(X),
$ ${{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}^{-1}(X)\in \cE^s_D$, and ${{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${U}$}}}}$ is an isometric isomorphism from ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$ onto ${{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}{\ese \left({D}\right)}$. So, let $Y=\begin{pmatrix}
y\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} y
\end{pmatrix} \in \cE^s_D$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}})\,(Y)\|_2^2&=
\left\|\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}} & 0\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}} & I
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
y\\
-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} y
\end{pmatrix}\right\|_2^2\\&=
\left\|\begin{pmatrix}
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}(y)\\
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(y)-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)
\end{pmatrix}\right\|_2^2\\&=
\left\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}(y)\right\|_2^2 +\left\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(y)-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\right\|_2^2\\&\leq {{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^2
\left\|y\right\|_2^2 +\left\|-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\right\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality holds because, by Corollary \[descomposicion\], $\|{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}\|\leq{{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}$. On the other hand, by Lemma \[pruyucciun\], we know that ${\Psi_{H_1}}{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}={{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}{\Psi_{H_1}}\,$. So, using Proposition \[uno\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\right\|_2^2&=
\left\|-(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\,{\Psi_{H_2}}\, {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\, {\Psi_{H_1}}\, {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\Big((I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\Big)
\right\|_2^2\\&=
\left\|-{\Psi_{H_1}}(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\,{\Psi_{H_2}}\, {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\Big((I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\Big)\right\|_2^2\\&\leq
\|{\Psi_{H_1}}\|^2\left\|-(I-{{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}})\,{\Psi_{H_2}}\, {{{Q}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}}\Big((I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\Big)\right\|_2^2\\&={{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^2\left\|-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\right\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\|({{{T}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}{\Delta}})\,(Y)\|_2^2&\leq {{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^2\ \|y\|_2^2+{{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^2\ \left\|-
{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${2D}$}}}}(I-{{A}_{\mbox{\tiny{${1D}$}}}})^{-1} (y)\right\|_2^2={{k}_{\mbox{\tiny{${D}$}}}}^2\|Y\|_2^2\ .\end{aligned}$$ The smoothness of the map ${\cU \left({D}\right)} \ni N \mapsto {{\cE}_{\mbox{\tiny{${N}$}}}}^s$ follows from item (4) and the existence of $C^\infty$ local cross sections for the map $\pi_D : {\mathcal{U}(r)}\to {\cU \left({D}\right)}$, which exist by Proposition \[son variedades\]. For example, if $\sigma_D : \cU \to {\mathcal{U}(r)}$ is such a section near $D$, then by item (4) and Eq. $$P_N = {{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\sigma_D (N)\,}$}}}} P_D {{Ad}_{\mbox{\tiny{${\sigma_D (N)^* \,}$}}}} \quad , \quad N \in \cU \ .$$ This completes the proof.
[XXXXXX]{}
A. Aluthge, *On p-hyponormal operators for $0<p<1$*, Integral Equations Operator Theory 13 (1990), 307-315.
T. Ando, *Aluthge Transforms and the Convex Hull of the Eigenvalues of a Matrix*, Linear Multilinear Algebra 52 (2004), 281-292.
T. Ando and T. Yamazaki, *The iterated Aluthge transforms of a 2-by-2 matrix converge*, Linear Algebra Appl. 375 (2003), 299-309.
J. Antezana, P. Massey and D. Stojanoff, *$\lambda$-Aluthge transforms and Schatten ideals*, Linear Algebra Appl. 405 (2005), 177-199.
R. Bhatia, Matrix Analysis, Berlin-Heildelberg-New York , Springer 1997.
K. Dykema and H. Schultz, *On Aluthge Transforms: continuity properties and Brown measure*, Available online at www.arxiv.org/PS\_cache/math/pdf/0512/0512197.pdf
M. W. Hirsch, C. C. Pugh, and M. Shub, *Invariant manifolds*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 583. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1977.
I. Jung, E. Ko, and C. Pearcy, *Aluthge transform of operators*, Integral Equations Operator Theory 37 (2000), 437-448.
I. Jung, E. Ko, and C. Pearcy, *The Iterated Aluthge Transform of an operator*, Integral Equations Operator Theory 45 (2003), 375-387.
T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators. Reprint of the 1980 edition. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
C. Pugh, M. Shub, A. Wilkinson *Holder foliations* Duke Math. J. 86, No.3 (1997), pp.517-546.
M. Shub, *Stabilite Globale des Systemes Dynamiques*, Asterisque, Vol. (56), 211 pages, Societe Mathematique de France, Paris, 1978.
M. Shub, *Global Stability of Dynamical Systems, Springer*, 1986 (this book is a translation of the French edition with added chapters and corrections).
P. Y. Wu, *Numerical range of Aluthge transform of operator*, Linear Algebra and Appl. 357(2002), 295-298.
T. Yamazaki, *An expression of the spectral radius via Aluthge tranformation*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), 1131-1137.
[^1]: Partially supported by CONICET (PIP 4463/96), Universidad de La PLata (UNLP 11 X350) and ANPCYT (PICT03-09521).
[^2]: Partially supported by CNPq
[^3]: Partially supported by CONICET (PIP 4463/96), Universidad de La PLata (UNLP 11 X350) and ANPCYT (PICT03-09521).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A clear and well-documented LaTeX document is presented as an article formatted for publication by ACM in a conference proceedings or journal publication. Based on the “acmart” document class, this article presents and explains many of the common variations, as well as many of the formatting elements an author may use in the preparation of the documentation of their work.'
author:
- Esha Sarkar
- Hadjer Benkraouda
- Michail Maniatakos
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'FaceHack: Triggering backdoored facial recognition systems using facial characteristics'
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10002978.10003022.10003027</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Security and privacy Social network security and privacy</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10002978.10003029.10003032</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Security and privacy Social aspects of security and privacy</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Severe pollution induced by traditional fossil fuels arouses great attention on the usage of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) and renewable energy. However, large-scale penetration of PEVs combined with other kinds of appliances tends to cause excessive or even disastrous burden on the power grid, especially during peak hours. This paper focuses on the scheduling of PEVs charging process among different charging stations and each station can be supplied by both renewable energy generators and a distribution network. The distribution network also powers some uncontrollable loads. In order to minimize the on-grid energy cost with local renewable energy and non-ideal storage while avoiding the overload risk of the distribution network, an online algorithm consisting of scheduling the charging of PEVs and energy management of charging stations is developed based on Lyapunov optimization and Lagrange dual decomposition techniques. The algorithm can satisfy the random charging requests from PEVs with provable performance. Simulation results with real data demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can decrease the time-average cost of stations while avoiding overload in the distribution network in the presence of random uncontrollable loads.'
author:
- 'Bo Yang, Jingwei Li, Qiaoni Han, Tian He, Cailian Chen, Xinping Guan [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
title: Distributed Control for Charging Multiple Electric Vehicles with Overload Limitation
---
=1
[2.0]{}
Electric vehicle, charging scheduling, renewable energy, smart grid, Lyapunov optmization.
Introduction
============
Nowadays pollution engendered by massively burning fossil fuel is serious. Hence more attention is paid on electric vehicles (EVs), to replace the traditional vehicles. The report by International Energy Agency (IEA) [@Trigg] shows that the number of global EV sales in 2012 reached 113,000, double of sales in 2011, and predicts that the expected number of EV on the road by 2020 will be up to 20 million. Therefore, massive plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)/EVs will appear on the road in the near future, leading to huge amount of charging demands. This new kind of demand will surely be a challenge for the power grid, according to the survey conducted by Su *et al.* [@SuEichi]. The safety of distribution network to support the huge demand from PEVs/EVs is essential in regulating the demand from vehicles. Parts of EVs’ influences on the power grid have been studied in [@WuMohsenian-Rad]. Good simulation frameworks in [@Darabi] also show the interactions between plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and the power grid.
Meanwhile, it is possible to integrate more renewable energy sources into the power network due to the two-way communication and regulation capability of smart grid. Studies in [@WuSun] give some inspiration for better utilization of distributed renewable energy generation. However, the uncertainty and intermittence of such renewable sources makes it difficult to use them stably and consecutively. A method to tackle this problem is to introduce storage devices, which can store renewable energy when it is abundant, and release the stored energy when renewable sources do not work. The objective of storage is similar with that in Rechargeable Sensor Networks [@HeChen]. Moreover, the storage device can be used to cut down the electricity cost by serving the load when electricity price is high. However, the time-diversity pattern of electricity price does not always match that of renewable energy generation, which depends on weather conditions mostly. Thus, how to minimize the non-renewable energy cost through optimal management of the storage device, renewable energy and on-grid energy comes to be a practical problem. As to PEV charging, there are already some real applications of renewable-powered charging stations, such as the wind powered stations in Barcelona, Spain [@ugei] and the charging stations with roof-top solar panels in Downtown Westport, Connecticut, USA [@Tushar]. Although they are not massively deployed, these examples demonstrate the technique feasibility for charging EVs/PEVs by renewable energy.
Prior works [@Rahbari-Asr]-[@Ghavami] have considered regulations of EV loads in a distribution network. Rahbari-Asr *et al.* in [@Rahbari-Asr] consider to maximize the total utility of PEV/EV users, as well as avoiding line/node overload. The distributed charging regulation algorithms are designed to ensure certain system optimality and line constraints by means of utility maximization framework and game theory in [@Ardakanian] and [@Ghavami], respectively. The scheme in [@Ardakanian] also considers the effects of residential loads on overloading the same distribution network that provides charging service to EVs. The similar effects are further discussed in [@Safdarian]-[@MaHu]. In general the above works regard EVs as time shiftable loads and regulate them to charge at different time slots in order to maintain power network safety and decrease electricity cost by utilizing the time diversity of electricity price. In other words, [@Ardakanian]-[@Angelis] and [@Sun1] are more suitable for slow charging scenario. As for fast charging, it usually lasts for less than one hour with large power consumption. Thus where to charge turns to be another practical problem, since it is important to avoid overload at individual place of a distribution network. Saovapakhiran *et al.* propose to guide EVs and HEVs to the optimal charging station in order to maximize system utility in [@Saovapakhiran]. [@Wang] offers a coordinated charging strategy relying on the vehicle network communication to enhance the cooperation among mobile EVs. Compared with these papers that utilize conventional power grid to supply charging vehicles, Misra *et al.* in [@Misra] consider to use pricing to attract EVs to charge at different microgrids, which can be powered by renewable energy sources. However, the intermittent nature of renewable energy is not considered in [@Misra]. Recently, we design an online algorithm to guide EV charging at different stations, which are supplied by both on-grid energy and time-varying renewable energy [@LiYang].
As to dealing with the stochastic issue of renewable energy generation, Lyapunov optimization technique [@Georgiadis] has been applied to energy systems [@Neely1]-[@Chen] and wireless communications in smart grid [@Shah]. There are also other techniques that can be used to exploit the time-varying nature of renewable energy, such as Markov decision process in [@Zhang] and game theory in [@Maharjan]. However, the problem formulation in [@Zhang]-[@Maharjan] has to rely on the priori knowledge of the underlying stochastic process. This paper also utilizes Lyapunov optimization method to regulate PEVs to charge with on-grid power or renewable energy. Moreover, this paper further considers that each charging station is equipped with non-ideal energy storage with inefficient charging and discharging to store extra renewable energy. Thus, the framework of the algorithm designed for ideal storage in the aforementioned articles cannot be applied to this paper directly.
In this paper, a distribution network is considered, where there are multiple charging stations. Also many non-EV loads are connected to every transformer and transmission line in this distribution network. It is supposed that each charging station is equipped with a renewable energy generator and a non-ideal storage, which will absorb the abundant renewable energy. If the energy generated by renewable source is insufficient, charging stations are supposed to draw energy from the local storage or gain energy from the power grid. Hence this paper tries to minimize the time average non-renewable energy cost in a distribution network by coordinating the charging of PEVs and renewable energy management, while satisfying the safety of distribution networks by limiting the overload probability under a certain permitted bound. The contribution of this paper are threefold:
1. A stochastic optimization problem is formulated to minimize the time-average cost for serving PEVs by renewable energy with non-ideal storage and power networks that supply some uncontrollable loads at the same time.
2. An online algorithm consisting of guidance of PEV charging and energy management at stations is proposed based on Lyapunov optimization and Lagrange dual decomposition techniques. The algorithm can result in provable performance with non-ideal storage and ensure the safety of the distribution network.
3. Simulations with real data demonstrate that the asymptotic optimality and comparative waiting time can be achieved.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: system models are introduced in Section ; problem formulation is given in Section ; an online algorithm is developed in Section ; mathematical proofs of algorithm performance can be found in Section ; simulations are demonstrated in Section ; at last, conclusion of this paper is given in Section . The key mathematical notations used in the paper are listed in Table 1.
Notation Physical interpretation
------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$l,\textbf{L}$ Index and set of transformers and lines (nodes), $\textbf{L}\!=\!\{1,2,...,L\}$
$i,\textbf{I}$ Index and set of charging stations, $\textbf{I}\!=\! \{1,2,3,...,N\}$
$j,\textbf{J}_i$ Index and set of charging outlets belonging to the $i$-th charging station, $\textbf{J}_i\!=\!\{1,2,...,J_i\}$
$k,\textbf{K}$ Index and set of entry points, $\textbf{K}\!=\!\{1,2,...,K\}$
$[tT, (t+1)T)$ $t$-th interval with $T$ being the length of a slot
$P_l$ Capacity of the $l$-th transformer/line
$X_{li}$ Indicating variable for the relationship between the $l$-th node and the $i$-th charing station
$N_l(t)$ Amount of uncontrollable loads connected to the $l$-th node in time slot $t$
$U_i(t)$ Production rate of a renewable energy generator for thr $i$-th station
$B_i(t)$ Energy level of the storage device for the $i$-th charging station
$R_i(t)$ Charging rate renewable energy charged into the $i$-th charging station’s battery
$r_{ij}(t)$ Charging rate of the charging outlet $j$ in the $i$-th charging station
$D_i^d(t)$ Energy flow from the grid to charging outlets directly
$\epsilon$ Maximum probability of the overload chance
$c(t)$ Power price in time slot $t$ in the system
$\sigma_{N_l}$ Standard deviation of $N_l(t)$
$e_k(t)$ Amount of energy demand at the $k$-th entry point in time slot $t$
$\eta_k(t)$ Whether there is a PEV carrying an amount of energy demand of $e_k(t)$ in time slot $t$
$E_k(t)$ Energy demand arrives at the $k$-th entry point in time slot $t$
$p_k$ Probability of PEVs sending request to the $k$-th entry point
$W_{k,ij}(t)$ Indicating variable for connections between $k$-th entry point and $i$-th charging station’s $j$-th outlet in time slot $t$
$Q_{ij}(t)$ Demand queue of the $j$-th outlet of the $i$-th charging station at the beginning of time slot $t$
$\eta^+,\eta^-$ Charging efficiency, discharging efficiency
$H_i(t)$ Shift version of $B_i(t)$
$\overrightarrow{\theta(t)}$ State of system queues at the beginning of time slot $t$
$\mathcal L(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})$ Lyapunov function
$\triangle(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})$ Lyapunov drift
: Mathematical notations[]{data-label="tab:1"}
System Models
=============
This section introduces the system model of a distribution network, which includes several charging stations, uncontrollable non-PEV loads, and random request of PEVs.
Distribution Network and Charging Stations
------------------------------------------
In this paper, a distribution network (Fig. 1), composed of multiple transformers and lines, is considered. The set of transformers and lines is $\textbf{L}\!=\!\{1,2,...,L\}$. Every transformer and transmission line has its power capacity, determined by the type of conductor, the highest temperature permitted, and other physical and environmental factors, and the capacity of the $l$-th ($l\!\in\!\textbf{L}$) transformer/line is denoted by $P_l$. The considered system is modeled as a slotted one and it is referred to the $t$-th interval $\![tT, (t+1)T\!)$, where $T$ is the length of a slot. In the following $T$ is normalized to unit for easier presentation.
![Distribution network.[]{data-label="fig_1"}](DisNet.eps){width="90mm"}
Let $i\!\in\!\textbf{I}\!=\!\{1,2,\cdots,N\}$ denote the $i$-th charging station and $j\!\in\!\textbf{J}_i\!=\!\{1,2,...,J_i\}$ denote the $j$-th charging outlet in the $i$-th station, where $\textbf{J}_i$ is the set of charging outlets belonging to the $i$-th charging station. In this distribution network, different charging stations are connected to different transformers/lines, represented by different nodes later for consistency. Therefore, the matrix $\textbf{X}_{(L\times I)}$ is used to indicate the relationship between different nodes and charing stations, where $X_{li}\!=\!1$ means that the $i$-th station is downstream of the $l$-th node, otherwise $X_{li}\!=\!0$. It should be noted that the network constraint is not explicitly modelled here as in generic AC networks. We only use the matrix $\mathbf{X}_{\!\left(L\times I\!\right)}$ to reflect the DC power flow relationship between different nodes and charging stations to present the problem clearly. Meanwhile, other non-EV loads, such as factories, households, and shopping malls, are also fed by this distribution network. The amount of uncontrollable loads connected to the $l$-th node is $N_l(t)$ in time slot $t$.
To alleviate the burden imposed by charging stations on the distribution networks, every charging station is equipped with a renewable energy generator, whose production rate is $U_i(t)\!\in\![0,U_{max}]$ for the $i$-th station, and the cost to use its own renewable energy is neglected in this scenario. We do not consider the initial investment cost for deploying renewable energy generators, since it is a constant. Note that it is easy to incorporate the storage degradation cost due to charging/discharging by the model in [@Sun2]. Since the renewable energy production is intermittent and unpredictable, a storage device, for example a battery, is equipped for every charging station. It can also cut down the electricity cost since a battery as a buffer can store energy when electricity price is low and release energy for EVs’ charging when price is high, to reduce the cost. The energy level of the storage device for the $i$-th charging station is $B_i(t)$, bounded by $[0,B_{i,max}]$, and $B_{i,max}\!\in\! (0,B_{max}]$. In the following, we refer the battery as the storage device in each station except for other specification. Given that the SOC of each battery is upper bounded by the battery’s capacity, not all amount of renewable energy $U_i(t)$ in time slot $t$ is charged into it. For every charging outlet $j$ in the $i$-th charging station, the charging rate $r_{ij}\!(t\!)$ is also constrained by $r_{ij}(t)\!\in\![0,r_{i,max}]$ and $r_{i,max}\in(0,r_{max}]$. The PEV charging load is firstly supplied by harvested energy from renewable energy generator. If there is still redundant energy, it is then charged into the battery[^5]. Let $R_{i}\!\left(t\!\right)$ be the current charging rate to the battery and thus $R_{i}\!\left( t\!\right)\!\in\!\left[0,\min\!\left\{R_{i}^{\max},\!\left(U_{i}\!\left(t\!\right)\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\!r_{ij}\!\left( t\!\right)\!\right)^{+}\!\right\}\!\right]$, where $\!\left( x\!\right) ^{+}\!\hat{=}\!\max\!\left\{ 0,x\!\right\}$. Otherwise an amount of $\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left(t\right)-U_{i}\left(t\right)\right)^{+}$ load will be served either by the battery or by the distribution networks depending on the energy availability in battery and usage cost of power grid. Let $D_{i}^{d}\left(t\right)\!\in\!\left[0,D^{d,\max}\!\right] $ denote the amount of energy withdrawn from the distribution network and $\!\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\!\left(t\!\right)\!-\!U_{i}\!\left(t\!\right)\!\right)^{+}\!\!-\!\!D_{i}^{d}\!\left(t\!\right)$ the amount of energy supplied by the battery. To ensure that the distribution network can sustain the charging load independently, we assume $D^{d,\max}\!>\!r_{i,\max }$. Thus the total loads imposed on the $l$-th node is $\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!D_i^d(t)\!+\!N_l(t)$.
If no overload is permitted, $\sum\nolimits_{i:X_{li}=1}\!D_i^d(t)\!+\!N_l(t)\!\leq\!P_l$ should stand for every time slot $t$. Since the uncontrollable loads are time varying and each node always allows slight overload for the safety reason [@Ardakanian], the above inequality can be slacked to the “chance constraint”: $$\label{eq_1}
\begin{small}
Pr[\sum\nolimits_{i:X_{li}=1}\!D_i^d(t)\!+\!N_l(t)\!>\!P_l]\!\leq\!\epsilon,
\end{small}$$where $\epsilon$ is chosen to ensure that the node is safe even with a little overload.
At the end of this subsection, let $c(t)$ denote the power price in time slot $t$ in the system, and it is also bounded by $[C_{min},C_{max}]$.
PEVs’ Request and Guidance
--------------------------
In the area supplied by this distribution network, there are numerous entry points for PEVs to join, which can be considered as fixed data uploading workstations on the roadside, and the number of such entry points is $K$. Here we just use the entry point to describe the parallel process of multiple PEVs’ request. PEVs randomly send charging requests to an idle entry point, and the variable $\xi_k(t)$ denotes whether there is a PEV carrying an amount of energy demand of $e_k(t)$, sending request to the $k$-th ($k\!\in\!\textbf{K}\!=\!\{1,2,\cdots,K\}$) entry point. If there is a PEV uploading request to the $k$-th entry point, let $\xi_k(t)\!=\!1$, otherwise $\xi_k(t)\!=\!0$. Therefore the energy demand arrives at the $k$-th entry point is $E_k(t)\!=\!e_k(t)\xi_k(t)\!\leq\!E_{max}\!<\!\infty$. Notably, the probability of PEVs sending request to the $k$-th entry point is denoted by $p_k$, which means $Pr[\xi_k(t)=1]=p_k$.
The proposed directing policy in Section decides which charging outlet the PEVs arriving at each entry point should be guided to. Hence the binary variable $W_{k,ij}(t)\!\in\!\{0,1\}$ is used to denote the connections between the $k$-th entry point and the $j$-th outlet of the $i$-th charging station, where $W_{k,ij}(t)\!=\!1$ means the PEVs sending request to the $k$-th entry point shall be guided to the $j$-th outlet in the $i$-th charging station. It is reasonable that each charging outlet can only serve one entry point and only one outlet can be connected to each entry point simultaneously. Therefore, $W_{k,ij}(t)$ satisfies $$\label{eq_2}
\begin{small}
\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{I}\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^{J_i}\!W_{k,ij}(t)\!\leq\!1 ~~(\forall k\!\in\!\textbf{K}),
\end{small}$$ $$\label{eq_3}
\begin{small}
\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^K\!W_{k,ij}(t)\!\leq\!1 ~~(\forall i\!\in\!\textbf{I}, j\!\in\!\textbf{J}_i).
\end{small}$$
The dynamic operation of this system is stated here. At the beginning of every time slot, the central controller collects the energy demand at each entry point and some information of each charging station before broadcasting the guidance information. At the same time, every node computes the overload indication according to current PEV loads and uncontrollable loads imposed on it. Finally, each charging station computes other control variables $D_i^d(t)$ and $R_{i}(t)$ in a distributed way based on the local information and the overload indication.
Battery Dynamics and Demand Queue
---------------------------------
For each charging station, its battery’s energy state satisfies the following iterating equation: $$\label{eq_4}\begin{small}
B_{i}\!\left(t+1\!\right)\!=\!B_{i}(t)\!-\!\eta^{-}\!\left(\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\!r_{ij}(t)\!-\!U_{i}
(t)\!\right)^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}(t)\!\right)\!+\!\eta^{+}\!R_{i}(t),
\end{small}$$where $0\!<\!\eta^{+}\!\leq\!1$ and $\eta ^{-}\!\geq\!1$ represent the charging and discharging efficiency respectively, and $\eta ^{-}\left(\!\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}(t)\!-\!U_{i}(t)\!\right)^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}(t)\!\right)$ denotes the amount of energy that the $i$-th charging station extracts from its battery. The following inequality stands for every battery: $$\label{eq_5}\begin{small}
0\!\leq\!\eta ^{-}\!\left(\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right) ^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) \right)\!\leq\!B_i(t)\!\leq\!B_{i,max},
\end{small}$$which means charging outlets in the $i$-th charging station cannot obtain amounts of energy from the battery more than the battery’s residual energy and the battery also has its capacity constraint. The algorithm given in Section can guarantee it perfectly.
Since PEVs’ charging request is random, the following virtual demand queues are introduced to measure the relationship between charging request and energy supply. The stability of demand queues, defined in Section , can be reached by regulating charging rate at every outlet and directing policy in Section to realize the supply-demand balance. The stability of demand queue means that the time-average charging requests can be satisfied. For every outlet, the demand queue is denoted by: $$\label{eq_6}
\begin{small}
Q_{ij}(t+1)=[Q_{ij}(t)-r_{ij}(t)+E_k(t)W_{k,ij}(t)1_{\{Q_{ij}(t)=0\}}]^+,
\end{small}$$ where $[a]^+$ stands for $\max\{a,0\}$. The expression $1_{\{Q_{ij}(t)=0\}}$ here denotes that only if the demand queue is empty at the beginning of time slot $t$, can any new PEV’s demand be directed to this charging outlet.
Problem Formulation
===================
The goal of this paper is to minimize the time-average expected cost from the power grid with constraints of battery and stable demand queues, as well as the safety of the distribution networks. The problem can be formulated as a stochastic optimization problem. $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{P1:}~~&\min~\lim _{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{t=0}^{\tau-1}\sum_{i=1}^I\textbf{E}\{c(t)D_i^d(t)\} \\
&\mbox{s.t.}\,\,\text{stability of}~~ Q_{ij}(t)~~(\forall i\in \textbf{I},\forall j\in \textbf{J}_i), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) \notag\end{aligned}$$where the expectation above is with respect to the potential randomness of the control policy. The stability of these queues are defined in Definition 1.
\[def\_1\] A discrete queue evolving like $Q(t+1)=[Q(t)-S(t)]^+ +D(t)$ is *strongly stable* if: $$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\sup \frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau =0}^{t-1}\textbf{E}\{Q(\tau)\}<\infty.$$
If demand queues including the battery dynamics iteration (4) are *strongly stable*, the system is stable. According to Neely’s monograph [@Neely2], a *strongly stable* queue must be *rate stable* for finite service $S(t)$ and stochastic arrival $D(t)$. Furthermore, if and only if $d\leq s$ holds, $Q(t)$ is *rate stable*, where $d=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau =0}^{t-1}\textbf{E}\{D(\tau)\}$ and $s=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{t}\sum_{\tau =0}^{t-1}\textbf{E}\{S(\tau)\}$.
There is time coupling difficulty in solving P1 due to (4), that is to say the current charging and discharging decisions will affect the energy level in battery in the future. To tackle this difficulty, a relaxed problem will be studied: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\textbf{P1}\textbf{:}~&\min~~
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{t=0}^{\tau-1}\!\sum_{i=1}^I\!\textbf{E}\{c(t)D_i^d(t)\} \\
\mbox{s.t.}\,\,&\text{stability of}~Q_{ij}(t)~(\forall i\in \textbf{I},\forall j\in \textbf{J}_i), (1), (2), (3), (6),\\
&\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{\tau }\sum\limits_{t=0}^{\tau -1}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ \eta ^{-}\!\left( \!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right)^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\right)\!\right\}\!\geq \!\lim_{\tau \rightarrow\infty}
\frac{1}{\tau}\!\sum\limits_{t=0}^{\tau-1}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ \eta^{+}R_{i}\left(t\right)\!\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Denote the optimal value of **P1** as $P^*$ and $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ as $P_{re}^*$. Notice that any feasible solution of **P1** is also a feasible solution of $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ since $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ is less constrained than **P1**. Therefore, $P_{re}^*\leq P^*$. We will solve $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ first. Later we will prove the performance gap between the proposed algorithm and the optimal solution to **P1**. More interestingly, the proposed algorithm for $\widetilde\textbf{P1}$ also satisfies the constraints of (\[eq\_5\]).
Problem Decomposition and Solution
==================================
One challenge in solving $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ is due to the fact that the supply, demand and price are all stochastic processes. If all statistical information is known, it can be solved offline. However, the solution to this problem should be achieved by real-time implementations. Firstly, some transformation of constraint (1) shall be done to write it into a deterministic form.
Transformation of Chance Constraint
-----------------------------------
Assume the distribution of uncontrollable load $N_l(t)$ is symmetric about its mean. Then there is $$\label{eq_8}\begin{split}
Pr[N_l(t)\!\!\geq\!\! P_l\!\!-\!\!\!\!\!\!\displaystyle \sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!\!\!\!D_i^d(t)]\!\!
&=\!\!\frac{1}{2}Pr[|N_l(t)\!\!-\!\!\textbf{E}\{\!N_l(t)\!\}|\!\!\geq\!\! P_l\!\!-\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!\!\!\!D_i^d(t)\!\!-\!\!\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}]\\
&\leq \!\frac{1}{2} \frac{\sigma_{N_l}^2}{[P_l-\!\!\displaystyle\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}D_i^d(t)\!-\!\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}]^2}\leq \epsilon,
\end{split}$$where $\sigma_{N_l}$ is the standard deviation of $N_l(t)$. As in [@Tarasak], Chebyshev’s inequality is given below: $$\begin{small}
Pr[|x|\geq a]\leq{\sigma_x^2}/{a^2}
\end{small}$$ for a zero-mean random variable $x$, and $\sigma_x$ is the standard deviation of $x$. Therefore, the constraint in (\[eq\_8\]) is transferred to $$\label{eq_9}
\begin{small}
P_l\!-\!\displaystyle\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!D_i^d(t)\!-\!\textbf{E}\!\{N_l(t)\!\}\!\geq\!\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}.
\end{small}$$
Real-time Decomposition
-----------------------
In order to develop algorithm to regulate the SOC of each battery to satisfy (\[eq\_5\]), the shifted version of $B_i(t)$, $H_i(t)\!=\!B_i(t)\!-\!T_{max}\!-\!\eta^-\!J_ir_{i,max}$ is given, where $T_{max}$ is a constant which will be defined in Section . Like $B_i(t)$, $H_i(t)$ also satisfies $$\label{eq_10}
\begin{small}
H_{i}\!\left( t+1\!\right)\!=\!H_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\eta ^{-}\!\left(\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right)^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\right)\!+\!\eta ^{+}R_{i}\left( t\right).
\end{small}$$ The technique for shifted queue is also utilized in [@Guo]. Then the state of system queues is described as $\overrightarrow{\theta(t)}=(Q_{11}(t),...,Q_{IJ_I}(t),H_1(t),...,H_I(t))$.
Define Lyapunov function as: $$\label{eq_11}
\begin{small}
\mathcal{L}(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^I\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}Q_{ij}^2(t)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^IH_i^2(t).
\end{small}$$
The Lyapunov drift is given by $$\label{eq_12}
\begin{small}
\triangle(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})=\textbf{E}\{\mathcal{L}(\overrightarrow{\theta(t+1)})-\mathcal{L}(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})| \overrightarrow{\theta(t)}\}.
\end{small}$$
From (\[eq\_6\]) and (\[eq\_10\]), it is easy to see that $$\label{eq_13}
\begin{small}
\frac{1}{2}(Q_{ij}^2(t+1)\!-\!Q_{ij}^2(t))\!\leq\!\alpha_{\max}\!-\!Q_{ij}(t)r_{ij}(t)
\!-\!r_{ij}(t)\!\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{K}\!E_k(t)W_{k,ij}(t)1_{\{Q_{ij}(t)=0\}},
\end{small}$$ $$\label{eq_14}
\begin{small}
\frac{1}{2}(H_{i}(t+1)\!-\!H_{i}^2(t))\!\leq\!\beta_{\max}\!-\!H_{i}(t)\!\left(\eta^{-}\!\left(\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}(t)\!-\!U_{i}( t)\right)^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}(t)\!\right)\!+\!\eta ^{+}R_{i}(t)\right),
\end{small}$$ where $\alpha_{\max}\!\!=\!\!\frac{1}{2}r_{max}^2\!\! +\!\! \frac{1}{2}E_{max}^2\!\! <\!\! \infty$ and $\beta _{\max }=\frac{1}{2}\max \left\{ \left( \eta ^{+}U_{\max }\right)^{2},\max_{i}\left\{ J_{i}^{2}r_{i,\max }^{2}\right\} \right\}\!\!<\!\!\infty$ are finite constants.
Substitute (\[eq\_13\]) and (\[eq\_14\]) into (\[eq\_12\]). We consider the following drift plus penalty expression as in [@Jin]. The Lyapunov drift is used to measure stability and the penalty item accounts for system performance. The tradeoff between system stability and optimal performance is achieved by the parameter $V$. $$\label{eq_15}
\begin{split}
&\triangle(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})\!+\!V\textbf{E}\{c(t)\sum_{i=1}^{I}D_i^d(t)|\overrightarrow{\theta(t)}\}
\!\leq\!\delta_{\max}\!-\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!\left( Q_{ij}\left( t\right)
\!+\!H_{i}\left( t\right)\eta ^{-}\!\right)\!\cdot\!1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left(
t\right)>0\right\} }\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right.\!\right\}\\
&\!-\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\mathbf{E}\left\{
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) \left(
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}E_{k}\left( t\right) W_{k,ij}\left( t\right)
\!+\!H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\right) \cdot 1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left(
t\right) =0 \sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) \geq
U_{i}\left( t\right) \right\} }\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left(
t\right) }\right. \right\}\\
&\!+\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ H_{i}\left( t\right) R_{i}\left(
t\right) \eta ^{+}\!\cdot\!1_{\left\{ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left(
t\right)\!<U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right\} }\!\left\vert\! \overrightarrow{\theta
\left( t\right) }\right. \right\}\!+\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\cdot\!1_{\left\{
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) \geq U_{i}\left( t\right)
\right\} }\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right.
\right\}\\
&+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\mathbf{E}\left\{
D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) \left( H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\!+\!Vc\left(
t\right) \right) \cdot 1_{\left\{ \sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left(
t\right) \geq U_{i}\left( t\right) \right\} }\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right. \right\},
\end{split}$$where $\delta_{max} \!\!= \!\!\sum_{i=1}^{I}J_i\alpha_{max}\!\! +\!\! I\beta_{max}\!\! <\!\! \infty$, and $V$ is an important parameter in regulating the trade-off between system cost and storage capacity. By adopting the framework of Lyapunov optimization, two sub-problems only relying on current information are derived by minimizing the right hand side of (\[eq\_15\]) approximately subject to the constraints in $\widetilde\textbf{P1}$. Later it is proven that the proposed algorithm can satisfy the constraints of (\[eq\_5\]). Notice that (\[eq\_1\]) has been replaced by (\[eq\_9\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_16}
&\textbf{P2:}~~\text{If}~~Q_{ij}(t)\!>\!0 \notag\\
&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\left\{\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left(
t\right) \left( Q_{ij}\left( t\right)\!+\!H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\right)
\!\cdot\!1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left( t\right)>0\right\}}\!+\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!\left(
\!\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}\!E_{k}\left( t\right) W_{k,ij}\left( t\right)
\!+\!H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\right)\!\cdot\!1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left(
t\right) =0\right\}}\right.\notag\\
&\left.\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) \left( H_{i}\left( t\right)
\eta ^{-}\!+\!Vc\left( t\right) \right)\!-\!H_{i}\left( t\right) R_{i}\left(
t\right) \eta ^{+}\right\} \\
&\mbox{s.t.}\,\,(9), r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!\in\!\left[ 0,r_{i,\max }\right], R_{i}\left(
t\right)\!\in\!\left[ 0,\min\!\left\{ R_{i}^{\max },\!\left( U_{i}\left( t\right)
\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\!r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!\right) ^{+}\!\right\}\!\right], \forall i\!\in\!\mathbf{I}.\notag\end{aligned}$$
Another subproblem can be extracted from **P2**, to decide the connections between PEV requests at different entry points and charging outlets, for $\forall Q_{ij}(t)=0$, shown as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_17}
\textbf{P3:}~~&\max_{W_{k,ij}(t)}~~\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}E_{k}\left( t\right) W_{k,ij}\left( t\right)
+H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\\
&\mbox{s.t.}\,\,(2), (3) \notag\end{aligned}$$which means that the algorithm should meet the largest amount of demand with the empty charging outlet whose battery’s residual energy is the most.
Notice that there is variable coupling due to the constraint (\[eq\_9\]) in **P2**. To decouple this constraint, Lagrange dual method will be employed in the next subsection.
Decoupling of Primal Problems
-----------------------------
Considering Lagrangian relaxation for **P2**, two functions are defined in the case of $Q_{ij}(t)>0$ and $Q_{ij}(t)=0$ respectively: $$\begin{split}
&F_t^1(\overrightarrow{r}\!,\!\overrightarrow{D^d}\!,\!\overrightarrow{R}\!,\!\overrightarrow{\lambda})\!\!=\!\!\sum_{i=1}^I\{\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\!r_{ij}(t)[Q_{ij}(t)\!\!+\!\!H_i(t)]\!-\!\!
D_i^d(t)(H_i(t)\eta^-\!\!+\!\!Vc(t))\!\!-\!\!H_i(t)R_{i}(t)\eta^+\}\!\\&
+\!\!\sum_{l=1}^L\lambda_l(P_l\!-\!\!\!\!\!\!\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!\!\!\!D_i^d(t)\!\!-\!\!\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}\!\!-\!\!\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}),
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
&F_t^2(\!\overrightarrow{r}\!,\!\overrightarrow{D^d}\!,\!\overrightarrow{R}\!,\!\overrightarrow{\lambda})\!\!=\!\!\sum_{i=1}^I\!\{\sum_{j=1}^{J_i}\!r_{ij}(t)[\sum_{k=1}^K E_k(t)W_{k,ij}(t)\!\!+\!\!H_i(t)\eta^-]\!\!\\&
\!\!-\!\!(D_i^d(t)\!\!+\!\!D_i^b(t))(H_i(t)\eta^-\!\!+\!\!Vc(t))\!\!-\!\!H_i(t)R_{i}(t)\eta^+\}\!\!+\!\!
\sum_{l=1}^L\lambda_l(P_l\!\!-\!\!\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}D_i^d(t)\!\!-\!\!\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}\!\!-\!\!\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}),
\end{split}$$where $\overrightarrow{r}=(r_{11}(t),...,r_{IJ_i}(t))$, $\overrightarrow{D^d}=(D_1^d(t),...,D_I^d(t))$, $\overrightarrow{R}=(R_1(t),...,R_I(t))$, and $\overrightarrow{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,...,\lambda_L)$.
The dual functions $\Gamma_t^1(\overrightarrow{\lambda})$ and $\Gamma_t^2(\overrightarrow{\lambda})$ are defined as the partial maximum of $F_t^1(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R},\overrightarrow{\lambda})$ and $F_t^2(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R},\overrightarrow{\lambda})$ with respect to $\overrightarrow{r}$, $\overrightarrow{D^d}$, $\overrightarrow{R}$: $$\Gamma_t^1(\overrightarrow{\lambda})=\max_{\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R}} F_t^1(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R},\overrightarrow{\lambda}),~\Gamma_t^2(\overrightarrow{\lambda})=\max_{\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R}} F_t^2(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{R},\overrightarrow{\lambda})$$
s.t. $D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\!\in\!\!\left[ 0,\left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right) \right)
^{+}\!\right], R_{i}\left( t\right)\!\!\in\!\!\left[0,\min\!\left\{ R_{i}^{\max },\!\left(
U_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) \right)^{+}\right\}\!\right], (\forall i\!\in\!\textbf{I},j\!\in\!\textbf{J}_i)$
Now scrutinizing the dual functions above, it can be decomposed into subproblems for each charging outlet, renewable energy generator, and charging station. The following problems **P4(a)** and **P4(b)** are for every charging outlet to decide their charging rates. Problem **P5** is for station’s private renewable energy generator to regulate the charging rate $R_{i}(t)$ to the battery. And problem **P6** is for every charging station to determine the energy they consume from the grid.
If $Q_{ij}(t)\!>\!0$, $$\textbf{P4(a)}:~~\max_{0\leq r_{ij}(t)\leq r_{i,max}}~~~r_{ij}(t)[Q_{ij}(t)\!+\!H_i(t)\eta^-] \label{eq_18}$$
If $Q_{ij}(t)\!=\!0$, $$\textbf{P4(b)}:~~\max_{0\leq r_{ij}(t)\!\leq\!r_{i,max}}~~r_{ij}(t)[\sum_{k=1}^K\!E_k(t)W_{k,ij}(t)\!+\!H_i(t)\eta^-] \label{eq_19}$$$\sum_{k=1}^K E_k(t)W_{k,ij}(t)+H_i(t)\eta^-$ in **P4(b)** will be solved by directing policy in the next subsection, which is the solution of **P3**. $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{P5:}~~&\min_{R_{i}\left( t\right) }~~\sum_{i=1}^{I}\!H_{i}\left( t\right)
R_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{+} \\ \label{eq_20}
&\mbox{s.t.}~~0\!\leq\!R_{i}\left( t\right)\!\leq\!\min\!\left\{ R_{i}^{\max
},U_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)
\!\right\} \notag\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{P6:}~~&\min_{\!D_i^d(t)}~~\phi_t(\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{\lambda})
\!=\!\sum_{i=1}^I\!D_i^d(t)\!\left(\!H_i(t)\eta^-+Vc(t)\!\right)\!+\!\sum_{l=1}^L\!\lambda_l
\!\left(\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}D_i^d(t)\!-\!P_l\!+\!\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}\!+\!\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}\!\right) \\ \label{eq_21}
&\mbox{s.t.}~~D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\in\!\left[ 0,\left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right) \right)
^{+}\right] \notag\end{aligned}$$
Notice that **P4(a)**, **P4(b)**, and **P5** are independent of Lagrangian multipliers. Thus only the dual problem of **P6** shall be considered as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat \textbf{P6}\textbf{:}~~&\max_{\overrightarrow{\lambda}}~\min_{D_i^d(t)}~~\phi_t(\overrightarrow{D^d},\overrightarrow{\lambda}) \\ \label{eq_22}
&\mbox{s.t.}~~\lambda_l\geq 0~~~\forall l\in \textbf{L}, \notag\end{aligned}$$which is equivalent to: $$\label{eq_23}
\begin{small}
\max_{\overrightarrow{\lambda}}\{\sum_{l=1}^L\lambda_l(\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}+\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}-P_l)+ \min_{\begin{subarray}{1} D_i^b(t)\end{subarray}}\sum_{i=1}^I\Lambda_i(D_i^d(t),\overrightarrow{\lambda})\},
\end{small}$$where $\Lambda_i(D_i^d(t),\overrightarrow{\lambda})=D_i^d(t)(H_i(t)\eta^-+Vc(t)+\sum_{l:X_{li}=1}\lambda_l)$.
Directing Policy and Distributed Energy Allocation Laws
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, the solutions of **P3**$\sim$**P6** will be given. The whole algorithm consists of directing policy and energy allocation laws. Directing policy, the solution of **P3**, decides which outlet that the PEV registered at the $k$-th entry point should be charged in. Distributed energy allocation laws, implemented by each charging station, are solutions of **P4**$\sim$**P6**.
### Directing Policy
After every PEV uploads their energy demands via entry points, and every charging station uploads their battery state, the central controller implements the following Algorithm \[alg\_1\].
$E_k(t),H_i(t)\eta^-$ The decision variable $W_{k,ij}(t)$ Define two sets: $\textbf{Y}\!\!=\!\!\{k|E_k(t)\!>\!0\}$ and $\textbf{Z}\!\!=\!\!\{(i,j)|Q_{ij}\!=\!0\}$ to include the nonempty entry points and empty outlets in time slot $t$ respectively. Let all $W_{k,ij}(t)=0$. Choose the entry point having the largest demand $E_k(t)$ from **Y**. Search for an empty outlet $(i,j)$ among **Z** to get the maximum of $E_k(t)+H_i(t)\eta^-$. Let $W_{k,ij}(t)=1$, remove $k$ from **Y** and $(i,j)$ from **Z**.
### Charging Rate of PEV
For every charging outlet, the charging rate is determined by solving problems **P4(a)** and **P4(b)**, case by case.
$a)$ For outlet that is non-empty ($Q_{ij}(t)>0$) at the beginning of $t$: The charging rate depends on the demand queue state and battery state.
$b)$ For outlet that is empty ($Q_{ij}(t)=0$) at the beginning of $t$: The charging rate depends on the coming demand in this time slot and also battery state.
The charging rate control law shown in Fig. 2 means to serve the demand as fast as possible when the battery has sufficient power.
![A sketch for the whole algorithm.[]{data-label="fig_3"}](2.eps){width="80mm"}
![A sketch for the whole algorithm.[]{data-label="fig_3"}](sketch.eps){width="80mm"}
### Renewable energy input
Every charging station determines the charging rate of their harvested renewable energy at time slot $t$, depending on the battery state, also in a distributed way, $$R_i(t)
= \left\{
\begin{aligned}
\min\{R_{i}^{max},(U_{i}(t)-\sum_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}(t))^+\}~~~~\\
0~~~~\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\begin{aligned}
&\text{if}~ H_{i}(t) \leq 0 \\
&\text{otherwise}~~ ~~
\end{aligned}$$
It is intuitive that $H_i(t)<0$ means that the battery is thirsty so that all available renewable energy should be charged into it; however, when there is enough electricity in the battery, no renewable energy will be charged into, for the sake of battery constraints in (\[eq\_5\]).
### Consumption from the power grid
By introducing the Lagrangian dual problem $\widehat \textbf{P6}$, each charging station can locally solve a subproblem given by $$\label{eq_24}
\begin{array}{cc}
\min & \Lambda _{i}\left( D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) ,\vec{\lambda}\right) \\
\text{s.t.} & 0\!\leq\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\leq\!\left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right) \right)
^{+}.\end{array}$$
The dual problem is solved by using gradient projection method, and the Lagrangian multipliers are updated as following: $$\label{eq_25}
\begin{split}
&\lambda_l(n\!+\!1,t)\!=\!\left[\lambda_l(n,t)\!-\!\kappa\left(P_l\!-\!\!\!\!\sum_{i:X_{li}=1}\!\!D_i^d(n,t)-\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}-\frac{\sigma_{N_l}}
{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}\right)\right]^+,
\end{split}$$ where $\kappa$ is a sufficiently small positive constant, known as the step size and $n$ is the iteration index in time slot $t$.
Since $\Lambda_i$ is a linear function of $D_i^d(t)$, the optimum of (\[eq\_24\]) depends on the monotonicity of $\Lambda_i$. Algorithm 2 states how to choose $D_i^d(t)$, where $M$ is the greatest number of iterations and $\xi$ is the convergence criterion. The following result characterizes the effects of constant step size on the convergence property.
By the above iteration (\[eq\_25\]) with constant stepsize, the dual function (22) is guaranteed to converge to a suboptimal value within a finite number of steps, *i.e.,* $\varphi _{t}^{\text{*}}\left( \vec{\lambda}\right)\!-\!\varphi _{n,t}^{\text{best}}\left( \vec{\lambda}\left( m,t\right) \right)\!<\!\kappa
L\max_{l}\left\{ P_{l}^{2}\!+\!\left( D_{l}^{\max }\!+\!\mathbf{E}\left(
N_{l}\right)\!+\!\frac{\sigma _{N_{l}}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon }}\right) ^{2}\right\} $ within at most $\frac{\left\Vert \vec{\lambda}\left( 0,t\right)\!-\!\vec{\lambda}^{\ast }\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{2}^{2}}{\kappa ^{2}L\max_{l}\left\{
P_{l}^{2}\!+\!\left( D_{{}}^{\max }\!+\!\mathbf{E}\left( N_{l}\right)\!+\!\frac{\sigma
_{N_{l}}}{\sqrt{2\epsilon }}\right) ^{2}\right\} }$ steps, where $\varphi
_{t}^{\ast }\left( \vec{\lambda}\right) $ is the optimal value of (22) and $\varphi _{n,t}^{\text{best}}\left( \vec{\lambda}\left( m,t\right)
\right) \hat{=}\max_{m\in \left\{ 1,\cdots ,n\right\} }\varphi _{m,t}\left(
\vec{\lambda}\left( m,t\right) \right) $ is the best value of (22) till now, $\vec{\lambda}\left( 0,t\right) $ is the initial value of Lagrangian multiplier vector and $\vec{\lambda}^{\ast }\left( t\right) $ is the optimal value vector. The above lemma shows that the stepsize can be used to tradeoff convergence accuracy and speed. Due to space limitation, the detailed proof can be found in [@Boyd].
$H_i(t),c(t),\eta^-$ $D_i^d(t)$ Let all $\lambda_l=\lambda_{max}$. Compute new values of $\overrightarrow{\lambda}$ through (24). $D_i^d(n,t)=0$ $D_i^d(n,t)\!\!=\!\!\left( \sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) -U_{i}\left( t\right)\right) ^{+}$ $n=n+1$ $D_i^d(t)=D_i^d(n,t)$
The whole algorithm for the problem $\widetilde\textbf{P1}$ is given in Fig. \[fig\_3\]. At the beginning of time slot $t$, every entry point uploads the energy demand arriving at them, and every charging station uploads the states of demand queues and batteries, for the central controller to guide different PEVs to charge at different charging outlets. At the same time each node in the distribution network computes the Lagrangian multipliers as the overload indication through (\[eq\_25\]) and broadcasts them to downstream charging stations. When receiving the Lagrange multipliers, each charging station calculates the charging rate, the utilization of renewable energy, and the energy consumption from the power grid.
Performance Analysis
====================
Stability of battery dynamics and demand queues should be guaranteed in the above algorithms. Also the performance gap between the proposed algorithm and the optimal one in solving **P1** is given.
Stability of Queues
-------------------
\[thm\_1\] All demand queues at every charging outlet are stable.
Since only one EV can be served by each outlet, $Q_{ij}(t) \leq E_{\max}$ for all time slot $t$.
\[rem\_1\] This inequality guarantees the worst delay for every PEV. By employing virtual queue as [@Jin], the length of worst delay can be calculated and limited easily.
\[thm\_2\] For any parameter $V$ bounded between $0\!<\!V\!\leq\!V_{\max}$ at any time slot $t$ , where $$\label{eq_26}\begin{split}&
V_{\max}\!=\!\frac{\min\left\{ B_{i,\max }\right\}\!-\!\eta ^{+}U_{\max }\!-\!\eta
^{-}Jr_{\max }\!-\!L\lambda _{\max }}{C_{\max }},
\end{split}$$$T_{\max}\!\!=\!\!VC_{\max}\!\!+\!\!L\lambda_{\max}$, $J_{\max}\!\!=\!\!\max_i\{J_i\}$, the algorithm satisfies: $0\!\!\leq\!\!B_{i}(t)\!\leq\!B_{imax}$. Before the proof of Theorem 2, the following lemma is given first.
The energy management algorithm developed by solving **P5** and **P6** can ensure the following conditions, 1) If $B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\!\geq
\!\!B_{max}\!\!-\!\!\eta ^{+}U_{\max },$ then $R_{i}\left( t\right)\!\!=\!\!0;$ 2) If $
B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\!\leq\!\!\eta ^{-}J_{i}r_{i\max },$ then $D_{i}^{d}\left(
t\right)\!\!=\!\!\sum_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\!\!\left( r_{ij}\!\!-\!\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right) ^{+}.$
If $B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\geq\!B_{max}\!-\!\eta ^{+}U_{\max }$, we have $B_{i}\!\left(t\right)\!-\!\left( J_{i}r_{i\max}\eta^{-}\!+\!\left(B_{max}\!\!-\!\!\eta
^{+}U_{\max}\!\!-\!\!\eta ^{-}Jr_{\max }\!\!-\!\!L\lambda _{\max}\right)\!\!+\!\!L\lambda_{\max}\!\right)\!\geq \!0.$ Due to the definition of $V_{\max }$, it is obtained that $B_{i}\left( t\right) -\left( J_{i}r_{i\max }\eta ^{-}+V_{\max }C_{\max
}+L\lambda _{\max }\right) \geq 0$, i.e., $H_{i}\left( t\right)>0$. Then we have $R_{i}\left( t\right) =0$ according to the solution to **P5.**
If $B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\leq\!\eta ^{-}J_{i}r_{i\max },$ we have $B_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\left(\eta ^{-}J_{i}r_{i,max }\!+\!VC_{max }\!+\!L\lambda_{max }\!\right)\!\leq\!-\!\left( VC_{max }\!+\!L\lambda_{max }\!\right)$. Then we have $H_{i}\left(t\right)\!<\!-\!\left( VC_{max }\!+\!L\lambda _{max }\!\right)$, which results in $H_{i}\left(t\right)\!<\!-\!\frac{Vc\left(t\right)\!+\!\sum_{l:X_{li}=1}\lambda _{l}\left( t\right) }{\eta^{-}}$. Thus, $D_{i}^{d}\left(t\right)\!=\!\sum_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\!\left(r_{ij}\!-\!U_{i}\left(t\right)\!\right)^{+}$ is obtained by solving **P6.**
Now we give the proof of Theorem 2.
The bound of $B_i(t)$ will be proved by induction. At the beginning, the energy level of each battery satisfies: $$0 \leq B_i(0)\leq B_{i,{max}}.$$
$a)$ When $T_{max}+\eta^+J_ir_{i,max}\leq B_i(t)\leq B_{i,{max}}$, $R_{i}\left( t\right) =0$ holds according to the solution to **P5.** Then $$\begin{small}
B_{i}\!\left( t+1\!\right)\!=\!B_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\eta ^{-}\!\left(\!\left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right)
^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\right)\!\leq\!B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\leq
\!B_{i,\max}.
\end{small}$$
$b)$ When $H_i(t)\leq T_{max}\!+\!\eta^+J_ir_{i,max}$, we have $R_{i}\left( t\right)\!=\!\min\!\left\{ R_{i}^{\max },\left( U_{i}\left(
t\right)\!-\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!\right)^{+}\!\right\}.$ Therefore, it is obtained that $$\begin{aligned}
B_{i}\!\left( t+1\!\right)\!\!&\leq&\!\!B_{i}\left( t\right) +\eta ^{+}R_{i}\left(
t\right) <\eta ^{-}Jr_{\max }+VC_{\max }+L\lambda _{\max }+\eta ^{+}\left(
U_{i}\left( t\right) -\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) \right)
^{+} \nonumber \\
&\leq&\!\!\eta ^{-}Jr_{\max }+VC_{\max }+L\lambda _{\max }+\eta ^{+}U_{\max }
\nonumber \\
&\leq &\!\!\eta ^{-}Jr_{\max }+\min \left\{ B_{i,\max }\right\} -\eta
^{+}U_{\max }-\eta ^{-}Jr_{\max }-L\lambda _{\max }+L\lambda _{\max }+\eta
^{+}U_{\max } \\ \label{eq_27}
&\leq &\!\!B_{i,\max}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where (27) is due to the definition of $V_{\max}.$
$c)$ When $0\leq B_{i}\left( t\right) \leq \eta ^{-}Jr_{\max },$ due to the second statement in Lemma 1, we have $$\begin{small}
D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!=\!\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right)^{+},
\end{small}$$which means that the $i$-th station uses grid energy to supply the charging request totally. Therefore, by the dynamics of battery, we have $$\begin{small}
B_{i}\!\left( t+1\!\right)\!\geq\!B_{i}\left( t\right)\!\geq\!0.
\end{small}$$
$d)$ When $B_{i}\left( t\right) \geq \eta ^{-}Jr_{\max },$ we have $R_{i}\left(
t\right) $ according to Lemma 1. Then we have $$\begin{small}
B_{i}\!\left( t+1\!\right)
\!=\!B_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\eta ^{-}\!\left(\!\left(
\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right)
^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\right)\!\geq\!B_{i}\left( t\right)\!-\!\eta
^{-}Jr_{\max }\!\geq\!0.
\end{small}$$
Thus for all time slot $t$, the conclusion in Theorem 2 stands.
Theorem 2 means that the constraint (\[eq\_5\]) is satisfied at every time slot although the proposed algorithm in Fig. \[fig\_3\] solves $\widetilde\textbf{P1}$. The maximum of Lagrangian multipliers ($\lambda_{max}$) exists because the gradient method in Algorithm 2 converges.
Asymptotic Performance
----------------------
Before we state the performance of the proposed algorithm the following Lemma is needed.
(stationary and randomized policy): If all $E_k(t)$, $U_i(t)$, $c(t)$ are *independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)* over time slots, then taking all control decisions $\widehat{r_{ij}(t)}$, $\widehat{D_{i}^d(t)}$, and $\widehat{R_{i}(t)}$ every time slot $t$ only as a function of current system state $\omega(t)=\{E_k(t),U_i(t),c(t)|\forall k\!\!\in\!\!\textbf{K}$, $\forall i\!\!\in\!\!\textbf{I}\}$, the constraints mentioned in problem $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$ are satisfied and the following properties stand: $$\label{eq_28}
\begin{small}
\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ \eta ^{-}\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\widehat{r_{ij}\left( t\right) }\!-\!\widehat{U_{i}\left( t\right) }\!\right) ^{+}\!\right\}\!-\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ \eta ^{-}\widehat{D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) }\!\right\}\!=\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ \eta ^{+}\widehat{R_{i}\left( t\right) }\!\right\},
\end{small}$$ $$\label{eq_29}
\textbf{E}\{c(t)\sum_{i=1}^N\widehat{D_{i}^d(t)}\} = P_{re}^\ast,$$where $P_{re}^\ast$ is the optimal value of problem $\widetilde \textbf{P1}$, and the expectations are with respect to the stationary distribution of $\omega(t)$ and randomized control decisions.
Similar policy is mentioned in the work of Fang *et al.* in [@Guo]. and also proved by Neely *et al.* in [@Georgiadis] and [@Neely2]. So it is omitted here.
\[thm\_3\] If $E_k(t)$, $U_i(t)$, $c(t)$ are *i.i.d.* over slots, an upper bound for the time average expected electricity cost under our algorithm can be obtained and the upper bound is as follows: $$\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\tau}{\sum}_{t=0}^{\tau-1}\textbf{E}\{c(t)\sum_{i=1}^ID_{i}^d(t)\} \leq P^{\ast} + \frac{\delta_{\max}}{V}$$.
From (\[eq\_15\]), the following inequality is tenable: $$\label{eq_30}
\begin{split}
&\triangle(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})\!\!+\!\!V\textbf{E}\{c(t)\!\!\sum_{i=1}^{I}D_i^d(t)]|\overrightarrow{\theta(t)}\!\}\!\leq\! \delta_{max}\!-\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right) Q_{ij}\left( t\right) \cdot
1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left( t\right) >0\right\} }\!\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\!\right. \!\right\} \\
&\!-\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)
\!\sum\limits_{k=1}^{K}\!E_{k}\left( t\right) W_{k,ij}\left( t\right) \cdot
1_{\left\{ Q_{ij}\left( t\right) =0\right\} }\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right. \right\}\!+\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ H_{i}\left( t\right) R_{i}\left(
t\right) \eta ^{+}\!\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\!\right.
\!\right\} \\
&\!-\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta
^{-}\!\left(\!\left(\!\sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}r_{ij}\left( t\right)
\!-\!U_{i}\left( t\right)\!\right) ^{+}\!-\!D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right)\!\right)
\left\vert \overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right.\!\right\} +V\!\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ c\left( t\right)\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\!D_{i}^{d}\left(
t\right)\!\left\vert\!\overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\!\right. \right\},
\end{split}$$since $-T_{max}\!-\!\eta^-J_{i}r_{i,max}\!\leq\!H_i(t)\!\leq\!B_{i,max}\!-\!T_{max}\!-\!\eta^-J_{i}r_{i,max}$ and $B_{i,max}\!>\!T_{max}\!+\!\eta^-J_{i}r_{i,max}.$
Solutions to **P3**$\sim$**P6** are willing to minimize the R.H.S of (\[eq\_30\]) at each time slot $t$ by choosing control decisions among all feasible actions including the optimal one given in Lemma 1. Considering that the policy stated in Lemma 1 is independent on the queues vector $\overrightarrow{\theta(t})$, substitute the optimal decisions $(\widehat {r_{ij}(t)},\widehat {D_{i}^d(t)},\widehat {R_{i}(t)})$ and the conclusion of (\[eq\_28\]) and (\[eq\_29\]) in Lemma 1 into (\[eq\_30\]), and use $P_{re}^{\ast}\leq P^{\ast}$: $$\begin{split}
&\triangle(\overrightarrow{\theta(t)})+V\textbf{E}\{c(t)\sum_{i=1}^{I}D_i^d(t)|\overrightarrow{\theta(t)}\}\\ &\leq\!\!\delta_{max}\!+\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\mathbf{E}\left\{ H_{i}\left( t\right) \widehat{R_{i}\left( t\right) }\eta ^{+}\overrightarrow{\theta \left(t\right)}\right\}\!\!-\!\!\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\mathbf{E}\left\{
H_{i}\left( t\right) \eta ^{-}\left( \left( \sum\limits_{j=1}^{J_{i}}\widehat{r_{ij}\left( t\right) }\!-\!\widehat{U_{i}\left( t\right) }\right)^{+}\!\!-\!\!
\widehat{D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) }\right) \overrightarrow{\theta
\left( t\right) } \right\} \\
&\!+\!V\mathbf{E}\!\left\{ c\left( t\right)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{I}\widehat{D_{i}^{d}\left( t\right) }\left\vert
\overrightarrow{\theta \left( t\right) }\right. \!\right\}\!=\!\delta_{max}+V\textbf{E}\{c(t)\widehat{D_{i}^d(t})|\overrightarrow{\theta(t})\}
\!=\!\delta_{max}\!+\!VP_{re}^{\ast}
\!\leq\!\delta_{max}\!+\!VP^{\ast}.\end{split}$$
Sum over $t \in \{0,1,...,\tau-1\}$ , divide $V\tau$ on both sides, and let $\tau\rightarrow \infty$: $$\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{\tau}{\sum}_{t=0}^{\tau-1}\textbf{E}\{c(t)\sum_{i=1}^ID_{i}^d(t)\} \leq P^{\ast} + \frac{\delta_{\max}}{V}$$holds due to the fact that $\textbf{E}\{\mathcal{L}(\overrightarrow{\theta(\tau)})\}$ is nonnegative and $\textbf{E}\{\mathcal{L}(\overrightarrow{\theta(0)})\}$ is finite.
\[rem\_2\] It is noted that the performance gap between the proposed algorithm and the optimal one for **P1** can be decreased by an increasing $V$, which means the capacity of each battery should be increased according to (\[eq\_26\]).
Simulation
==========
Simulation Setup
----------------
We evaluate our designed algorithms using Matlab on a 19-bus test feeder [@Yunus] shown in Fig. \[fig\_topo\]. The system contains 50 entry points and 18 charging stations, each of which has three charging outlets. All the parameters are set as follows except for other specifications. The capacity of each battery in different stations is 500kWh. Let $r_{1,max}\!=...=\!r_{I,max}\!=\!20$kW, $U_{max}\!=\!225$kW, $D^{d,max}\!=\!20$kW, and $E_{max}\!=\!30$kWh. Assume the uncontrollable loads at each node follow gaussian distributions where the expectation is $\textbf{E}\{N_l(t)\}\!=\!200$kW, and the standard deviation is $\sigma_{N_l}\!=\!100$kW. PEVs charging requests arrive to each entry points according to a geometric distribution with probability 0.9. The charging and discharging efficiency parameters are first assumed to be $\eta^-=\eta^+=1$.
![A 19-bus bus test feeder.\[fig\_topo\]](topo.eps){width="100mm"}
Real wind speed data are taken from Alternative Energy Institute (AEI) [@Wind], and converted to wind energy generation based on the power curve of the Vestas V27 225 kW wind turbine. Fig. \[fig\_4\] shows one wind turbine’s generation data. Real-time electricity price data are from Power Smart Pricing administered for Ameren Illinois [@Pricing], which is shown in Fig. \[fig\_5\]. Both of them are updating every one hour. By linear interpolation for electricity price and spline interpolation for wind energy, the interval of these data is 10min, equal to the length of one time slot. The total length of data is 60h.
![Real-time market price.[]{data-label="fig_5"}](wind_interpolate.eps){width="70mm"}
![Real-time market price.[]{data-label="fig_5"}](Price_interpolate.eps){width="70mm"}
Numerical Results
-----------------
Fig. \[fig\_6\] illustrates the convergent values for the 8 batteries’ energy level under the proposed algorithm. The values are approximately 450kWh, falling in the feasible region of batteries. The existence of convergence for batteries’ energy level indicates that the charging and discharging power amounts are roughly equal.
![Overload: comparison between two different possibilities.[]{data-label="fig_7"}](bars.eps){width="70mm"}
![Overload: comparison between two different possibilities.[]{data-label="fig_7"}](Overload.eps){width="70mm"}
The probability of overload at node 7 in this distribution network is examined in Fig. \[fig\_7\]. Different values for permitted overload probability $\epsilon$ are taken into account. This figure shows good performance for “chance constraint” of the proposed algorithm. When the permitted overload probability is tiny, there is almost no overload possibility for the total loads. Obviously, during 600min-800min, 2100min-2400min, and 3300min-3600min, when the electricity price is low, there are some peaks at the corresponding node.
From Fig. \[fig\_8\], it is obvious that the system cost rises with respect to the increasing probability of PEV’s arrival request at every entry point. Meanwhile, Fig. \[fig\_8\] also illustrates that the larger $V$ is, the less non-renewable energy cost is incurred, which confirms the asymptotically optimal performance of the proposed algorithm shown in Theorem 3. It is also observed that a lower charging efficiency incurs a slightly higher system cost, since the degraded renewable energy utilization results in more on-grid energy consumption.
![Time-average on-grid energy cost v.s. probability of PEVs request.[]{data-label="fig_8"}](V-p.eps){width="80mm"}
For comparison, we consider the charging guidance algorithm in [@Ban]. Specifically, the charging guidance designed in [@Ban] is aimed to optimize the load balance of charging stations and minimize the system waiting time for charging. For fair comparison, we assume the following adapted algorithm consisting of the charging guidance in [@Ban] and the energy management in this paper. At each time slot, the adapted algorithm in [@Ban] is described as follows:
Given the overall charging request $\gamma$, the optimal charging request allocated to each charging station $\gamma_i$ can be calculated based on the solution to a waiting time minimization problem, which considers the coupling among charging stations. Then, the new charging request is guided to the corresponding charging station with probability $\gamma_i/\gamma$. For energy usage, the needed energy for minimizing system waiting time is supplied by renewable generator firstly, and the remaining renewable energy is stored in the battery with the feasibly largest proportion. Otherwise, if the renewable energy is insufficient, the stored energy is used. If the energy is still in shortage, the on-grid energy fills the gap.
A greedy algorithm is also proposed for comparison. At each time slot, if there is at least one idle outlet, the PEV will be guided to an idle outlet in the station that has the most residual energy in the storage device. While the charging rate is always fulfilled by the maximum value given that the distribution network constraint is satisfied.
Fig. \[fig\_9\] shows the comparison of the time-average non-renewable energy cost among the three algorithms. It is found that the system time average cost of the three algorithms decreases as enlarging battery size, since larger batteries can store more renewable energy. In general the cost achieved by the designed algorithm is the smallest no matter with different battery charging efficiency since it can utilize the time diversity of electricity price to absorb on-grid energy.
Fig. \[fig\_10\] illustrates that the average waiting time[^6] under the three algorithms. The average waiting time of the proposed algorithm grows as $B_{max}$ increasing till 500kWh since small battery can store some renewable energy and admit some PEVs into the system but its residual value is not engough to charge PEVs with full rate mostly. Considering that the energy obtained from the grid will increase the system cost, the proposed algorithm chooses to charge PEVs with lower average rate and thus longer waiting time. However, if the battery size is large enough, the average waiting time descends as battery capacity increasing. For the greedy algorithm and the adapted algorithm in [@Ban], the waiting time is almost independent of the battery size, since these two algorithms charge PEVs with available residual energy in battery, otherwise it charges PEVs with on-grid energy directly. It should be noted that the waiting time of the adapted algorithm in [@Ban] is the smallest due to its optimal objective aiming at it. Thus, it can be concluded that the proposed algorithm can result in quicker charging service with less cost if the battery in each station is large enough.
![Waiting time v.s. battery capacity.[]{data-label="fig_10"}](capacity_cost.eps){width="75mm"}
![Waiting time v.s. battery capacity.[]{data-label="fig_10"}](capacity_time.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Waiting time v.s. renewable energy rate.[]{data-label="fig_12"}](rate_cost.eps){width="75mm"}
![ Waiting time v.s. renewable energy rate.[]{data-label="fig_12"}](rate_time.eps){width="75mm"}
We further evaluate the effects of average renewable energy generation rate on the time-average cost and waiting time in Fig. \[fig\_11\] and Fig. \[fig\_12\], respectively. The similar pattern is found in Fig. \[fig\_11\] as in Fig. \[fig\_9\], except that the time-average cost of the proposed algorithm decreases faster as the increase of renewable energy generation rate. This is due to that the generated renewable energy is utilized directly and then the residual is charged into storage for future use. Thus, more on-grid energy is saved than in the case of Fig. \[fig\_9\] for our design. Due to the same reason, it is found in Fig. \[fig\_12\] that the average waiting of our algorithm behaves better than the greedy one after a threshold generation rate.
Conclusion
==========
This paper considers the dynamic charging problem for PEVs in a distribution network, which consists of multiple charging stations and uncontrollable non-EV loads. Each charging station can supply random arrival PEVs with energy from local renewable energy generator directly, the storage device or the distribution network. In order to cut down the on-grid energy cost and avoid overload risk in lines/transformers, Lyapunov optimization and chance constraints are utilized to develop dynamic charging guidance for PEVs and energy management scheme for stations with inefficient storage device. The proposed algorithm does not rely on the statistics of underlying processes but has provable performance. Simulation results with real wind and electricity price profiles are provided to show that the proposed algorithm can achieve lower cost with comparable waiting time compared with peer work and a greedy algorithm.
[1.5]{}
[1]{} T. Trigg, P. Telleen, R. Boyd, F. Cuenot, D. D¡¯Ambrosio, R. Gaghen, M. Wrake, “Global EV Outlook: Understanding the Electric Vehicle Landscape to 2020,” IEA, Paris, France, Apr. 2013. W. Su, H. Eichi, W. Zeng, M. Y. Chow, “A survey on the electrification of transportation in a smart grid environment,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-10, Jan. 2012. C. Wu, H. Mohsenian-Rad, J. Huang, “Vehicle-to-Aggregator Interaction Game,” *IEEE Trans. Smart Grid*, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 434-442, Mar. 2012. Z. Darabi, M. Ferdowsi, “An Event-Based Simulation Framework to Examine the Response of Power Grid to the Charging Demand of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 313-322, Feb. 2013. Y. Wu, X. Tan, L. Qian, et al. “Optimal Pricing and Energy Scheduling for Hybrid Energy Trading Market in Future Smart Grid,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1585-1596, Dec. 2015. S. He, J. Chen, F. Jiang, D.K. Yau, G. Xing, Y. Sun, “Energy Provisioning in Wireless Rechargeable Sensor Networks,” *IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing*, vol.12, no. 10, pp. 1931-1942, Oct. 2013. http://www.ugei.com/case\_study/enterprise/ev\_charging. W. Tushar, C. Yuen, S. Huang, D.B. Smith, H.V. Poor, “Cost Minimization of Charging Stations with Photovoltaics: An Approach with EV Classification,” *IEEE Trans. Intell. Transportation Syst.*, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 156-169, Jan. 2016. N. Rahbari-Asr, M.Y. Chow, Z. Yang, J. Chen, “Network cooperative distributed pricing control system for large-scale optimal charging of PHEVs/PEVs,” in *Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2013-39th Annual Conference of the IEEE.* IEEE, 2013, pp. 6148-6153. O. Ardakanian, S. Keshav, C. Rosenberg, “Real-Time Distributed Control for Smart Electric Vehicle Chargers: From a Static to a Dynamic Study,” *IEEE Trans. Smart Grid*, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1937-1947, 2015. A. Ghavami, K. Kar, S. Bhattacharya, A. Gupta, “Price-driven charging of Plug-in Electric Vehicles: Nash equilibrium, social optimality and best-response convergence,” in *Information Sciences and Systems (CISS), 2013 47th Annual Conference on.* IEEE, 2013, pp. 1-6. A. Safdarian, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M. Lehtonen, “A Distributed Algorithm for Managing Residential Demand Response in Smart Grids,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol.10, no. 4, pp. 2385-2393, Nov. 2014. F. de Angelis, M. Boaro, D. Fuselli, S. Squartini, F. Piazza, Q. Wei, “Optimal Home Energy Management Under Dynamic Electrical and Thermal Constraints,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1518-1527, Aug. 2013. J. Xu, Y. Zou, Y. Niu, “Multi-time scale hierarchical predictive control for energy management of microgrid system with smart users,”, *Proc. the 26th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC)*, pp. 3055-3060, 2014. K. Ma, G. Hu, C. J. Spanos, “Distributed Energy Consumption Control via Real-Time Pricing Feedback in Smart Grid,” *IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.*, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1907-1914, Sept. 2014. Z. Yang, L. Sun, M. Ke, Z. Shi, J. Chen, “Optimal charging strategy for plug-in electric taxi with time-varying profits," *IEEE Trans. Smart Grid*, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2787-2797, 2014. B. Saovapakhiran, G. Michailidis, M. Devetsikiotis, “An algorithm for joint guidance and power control for electric vehicles in the smart grid,” in *Communications (ICC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on.* IEEE, 2012, pp. 3328-3334. M. Wang, H. Liang, R. Zhang, R. Deng, X. Shen, “Mobility-Aware Coordinated Charging for Electric Vehicles in VANET-Enhanced Smart Grid,” *IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1344-1360, Jul. 2014. S. Misra, S. Bera, T. Ojha. “D2P: Distributed Dynamic Pricing Policy in Smart Grid for PHEVs Management,” *IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.*, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 702-712, 2015. J. Li, Y. Bo, X. Yang, C. Chen, X. Guan, W. Zhang, “Scheduling of Electric Vehicle Charging Request and Power Allocation at Charging Stations with Renewable Energy,” in *Control Conference (CCC), 2014 33rd Chinese*, Nanjing, China, Jul. 2014. L. Georgiadis, M. J. Neely, L Tassiulas, “Resource allocation and cross-layer control in wireless networks,”*Found. and Trends in Networking*, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-149, 2006. M. J. Neely, A. S. Tehrani, A. G. Dimakis, “Efficient algorithms for renewable energy allocation to delay tolerant consumers,” in *Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), 2010 First IEEE International Conference on.* IEEE, 2010, pp. 549-554. L. Yu, T. Jiang, Y. Cao, Q. Qi, “Joint Workload and Battery Scheduling with Heterogeneous Service Delay Guarantees for Data Center Energy Cost Minimization,” *IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.*, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1937-1947, 2015. W. Deng, F. Liu, H. Jin, C. Wu, X. Liu, “MultiGreen: Cost-Minimizing Multi-source Datacenter Power Supply with Online Control,” *Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Future energy systems*, 2013, pp. 149-160. S. Chen, N. B. Shroff, P. Sinha, “Heterogeneous Delay Tolerant Task Scheduling and Energy Management in the Smart Grid with Renewable Energy,” *IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1258-1267, Jul. 2013. G. A. Shah, V. C. Gungor, O. B. Akan, “A Cross-Layer QoS-Aware Communication Framework in Cognitive Radio Sensor Networks for Smart Grid Applications,” *IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat.*, vol, 9, no. 3, pp. 1477-1485, Aug. 2013. T. Zhang, W. Chen, Z. Han, Z. Cao, “Charging Scheduling of Electric Vehicles with Local Renewable Energy under Uncertain Electric Vehicle Arrival and Grid Power Price,” *IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.*, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 2600-2612, Jul. 2014. S. Maharjan, Q. Zhu, Y. Zhang, S. Gjessing, “Dependable demand response management in the smart grid: A stackelberg game approach,” *IEEE Trans. Smart Grid*, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 120-132, Mar. 2013. S. Sun, M. Dong, B. Liang, “Real-time welfare-maximizing regulation allocation in dynamic aggregator-EVs system,” *IEEE Trans. Smart Grid* vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1397-1409, 2014. M. J. Neely, “Stochastic Network Optimization with Application to Communication and Queueing Systems,” *Synthesis Lectures on Commun. Networks*, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-211, 2010. P. Tarasak, “Optimal real-time pricing under load uncertainty based on utility maximization for smart grid,” in *Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), 2011 IEEE International Conference on.* IEEE, 2011, pp. 321-326. Y. Guo, M. Pan, Y. Fang, “Optimal power management of residential customers in the smart grid,” *IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst.*, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1593-1606, Sept. 2012. C. Jin, X. Sheng, P. Ghosh, “Optimized Electric Vehicle Charging With Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources,” *IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process.*, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1063-1072, Dec. 2014. S. Boyd, M. Almir, “Subgradient methods,” *Lecture notes of EE364b*, Stanford University, Winter Quarter 2007 (2006). K. Yunus, M.R. Jemal, and K. Srivastava, “Impacts of stochastic residential plug-in electric vehicle charging on distribution grid." *Proc. IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT)*, 2012. Alternative Energy Institute Wind Test Center, online. Available: http://www.windenergy.org/datasites/0000-aeiwtc/. Power Smart Pricing served by Ameren Illinois, online. Available: http://www.powersmartpricing.org/prices/. D. Ban, Michailidis, G. M. Devetsikiotis, “Demand response control for PHEV charging stations by dynamic price adjustments,” *Proc. IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT)*, 2012 IEEE PES, pp. 1-8, Jan. 2012.
[^1]: Copyright (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, collecting new collected works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works.
[^2]: B. Yang, Q. Han, C. Chen, and X. Guan are with the Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Key Laboratory of System Control and Information Processing, Ministry of Education of China, Shanghai, 200240 P. R. China (e-mail: {bo.yang, qiaoni, cailianchen, xpguan}@sjtu.edu.cn).
[^3]: J. Li was with the Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240 P. R. China. She is currently with Centre for Translational Medicine (MD6), National University of Singapore, 14 Medical Drive, Singapore 117599 (email: [email protected]).
[^4]: T. He is with Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, MN, USA. Email: [email protected].
[^5]: If there is still superfluous energy after charging the storage, the renewable generator will self-regulate its generation rate. For example, the output power of a solar panel can be changed by maximum power point tracking method. If the renewable energy generator is connected to the power grid, the redundant energy will be input to the grid. However, in this paper we assume that the local renewable energy generator is run in off-grid mode.
[^6]: Waiting time is defined as the period, beginning with a PEV’s request accepted by an outlet and ending with its demand totally satisfied, divided by the amount of its request.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a binary minimal subshift whose words of length $n$ form a connected subset of the Hamming graph for each $n$.'
author:
- |
Ville Salo\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Minimal subshifts with a language pivot property
---
Background
==========
We paraphrase a question M. Hochman asked in the conference Current Trends in Dynamical Systems and the Mathematical Legacy of Rufus Bowen, organized in Vancouver in 2017. This question (and many more) can be found on the website of the conference [@Trends].
\[q\] Does there exist a minimal subshift $X$ such that for some $k$ and all $n$, the set of words of length $n$ in $X$ is connected in the $k$th power of the Hamming graph? Is such $X$ necessarily topologically mixing?
We give two solutions: For $k = 2$, we prove Sturmian subshifts are an example. For $k = 1$, we construct such a minimal subshift from scratch. We do not solve the second question for $k = 1$.
The example for $k = 1$ was written right after the conference. I have fixed some typos later. The Sturmian example arose in discussions with Nishant Chandgotia, who gave another proof of Theorem \[thm:Sturmian\] in [@chandgotia2018pivot].
Definitions
===========
An *alphabet* is a finite set $\Sigma$ of *symbols*. A *(formal) language* (over $\Sigma$) is a subset of $\Sigma^*$, where $\Sigma^*$ is the set of all (possibly empty) words. We write $\epsilon$ for the empty word. Words over $\Sigma$ form a free monoid with basis $\Sigma$ and identity element $\epsilon$. The monoid operation is concatenation, and is written as $u \cdot v$ or simply $uv$.
We say a set of words $W \subset \Sigma^n$ is *connected* if the graph with nodes $W$ and edges $(u, v)$ for all $u, v \in W$ having Hamming distance $H(u, v) = 1$ is connected.
If $X \subset \Sigma^{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a subshift (closed shift-invariant set), we write ${\mathcal{L}}(X) \subset \Sigma^*$ for its *language* (set of words that appear in its points) and ${\mathcal{L}}_n(X) = {\mathcal{L}}(X) \cap \Sigma^n$. We say $X$ is *language-connected* if for every $n$ the language ${\mathcal{L}}_n(X)$ is connected. A subshift is *minimal* if it has no nontrivial subshifts, equivalently every word in the language appears as a subword of every long enough word in the language. A subshift $X$ is *topologically mixing* (sometimes called strongly mixing) if for any two words $u, v$ in the language of $X$, there exists $n$ such that $$m \geq n \implies \exists w: |w| = m \wedge uwv \in {\mathcal{L}}(X).$$
If $L \subset \Sigma^*$ is a language which is *extendable* in the sense that $$v \in L \implies \exists u, w: |u|, |w| > 0 \wedge uvw \in L,$$ then we write ${\mathcal{L}}^{-1}(L)$ for the subshift $X \subset \Sigma^{\mathbb{Z}}$ whose language is the closure of $L$ under taking subwords, that is, $${\mathcal{L}}(X) = \{v \in \Sigma^* \;|\; \exists u, w: uvw \in L\}$$
We use the usual semiring structure for languages, in particular $L \cdot K = \{u \cdot v \;|\; u \in L, v \in K\}$. We also use the Kleene star operation for $A \subset \Sigma^*$: $$A^* = \{w_1 w_2 \cdots w_k \;|\; k \geq 0, \forall i \in \{1,\ldots,k\}: w_i \in A\}.$$
Sturmian subshifts
==================
It turns out that for Sturmian subshifts (which are minimal and not strongly mixing), the subshift has a connected language when two changes are allowed at once, and we can even make the two changes next to each other. Thus, Sturmian subshifts solve Question \[q\].
The *$k$-change graph* of a language $L \subset \Sigma^n$ has nodes $L$ and edge $(u, v)$ whenever $$u = wu'w', v = wv'w'$$ where $u, u' \in \Sigma^{k'}$ for some $k' \leq k$ and $w,w' \in \Sigma^*$.
\[thm:Sturmian\] Let $X$ be a Sturmian subshift. Then for every $n \geq 2$, the $2$-change graph of ${\mathcal{L}}_n(X)$ is connected.
Configurations in a Sturmian subshift can be characterized as mechanical words, i.e. for a Sturmian subshift there exists an irrational slope $\alpha > 0$ such that every configuration is obtained by drawing a line of slope $\alpha$ on the standard planar embedding of the Cayley graph of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ (i.e. a regular square grid), and writing $0$ whenever the line crosses a horizontal line and $1$ whenever it crosses a vertical line (and the line does not contain an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$).
In particular, words of length $n$ in a Sturmian subshift are obtained by starting a line (that does not contain elements of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$) from some point on $A = ((0,1) \times \{0\}) \cup (\{0\} \times (0,1))$ and following it until it crosses $n$ horizontal or vertical lines.
Thus if $u, v \in {\mathcal{L}}_n(X)$ and $X$ is Sturmian, then both $u$ and $v$ have corresponding finite line segments that start on some points $x_a, x_b \in A$ and end on some horizontal or vertical line of the grid. We think of the line as crossing the horizontal or vertical line of $A$ that it begins on by an infinitesimal amount (depending on the first symbol of $u$), and similarly the line on which it ends is crossed infinitesimally, determined by the last symbol.
Now slide $x_a$ towards $x_b$ along $A$ and have the path cross exactly $n$ lines at all times. The word coded by crossings varies continuously (i.e. does not change at all) as long as the line does not hit an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. There are finitely many points where the line does hit an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. By irrationality of $\alpha$, it cannot hit two at once, so we see that when a central point of the line hits an element of ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$, we will only change $01$ to $10$ or vice versa in the word. When we move from $(0,1) \times \{0\}$ to $\{0\} \times (0,1)$ on $A$, we only flip the initial symbol of the word. When the endpoint of the line crosses an integer point, either only the last symbol changes or the last two symbols change.
I do not know whether it is possible to somehow turn a Sturmian subshift into a language-connected minimal subshift. No simple recoding trick seems to work.
Language-connected example
==========================
There exists a language-connected minimal subshift.
Let $\Sigma = \{0,1\}$. Let $w_{0,0} = 01$ and $w_{0,1} = 11$, $W_0 = \{w_{0,0}, w_{0,1}\}$, $\ell_0 = 2$, $n_0 = 2$.
Assuming $W_i$ has been defined, define $$L_{i,k,g} = (W_i \{\epsilon, 0, \ldots, 0^g\})^{k-1} W_i.$$ Note that $L_{i,k,0} = W_i^k$. If $w$ is a word over this language and we have fixed such a decomposition into the defining form, then we call the maximal words $0^a$ separating words in $W_i$ *gaps*, and refer to the words taken from $W_i$ as the *$W_i$-words* of $w$. There may be multiple decompositions of a word of $L_{i,k,g}$, but we usually work with, and consistently modify, a fixed such decomposition. This should not cause confusion.
For each $i$, we build by induction a set of $n_i$ words $W_i = \{w_{i,j} \;|\; j \in \{0, \ldots, n_i-1\}\} \subset \Sigma^{\ell_i}$ with the following properties:
- $H(w_{i,j}, w_{i,j+1}) = 1$ for all $j \in \{0,\ldots,n_i-2\}$.
- $H(w_{i,0} 0, 0 w_{i,n_i-1}) = 1$.
- Every word in $W_i$ has every word of $L_{i-1,2,0}$ as a subword.
- Every word $w_{i,j}$ with $0 \leq j \leq n_i-1$ is in $L_{i-1,k,1} \cdot \{\epsilon, 0\}$ for the same $k$, and $w_{i,0} \in L_{i-1,k,1}$.
The first two items mean, intuitively, that $W_i$ forms a cycle under Hamming distance, except that going around the cycle once has a cocyclic effect of moving the word to the left by one step. This is where the connectedness of the language will come from. The third item will be important in the proof of minimality. The importance of the fourth condition is that it prevents the accumulation of zeroes when we perform the inductive construction.
Suppose these properties hold for $i$. We build $W_{i+1}$ as follows: First, pick $$w_{i+1,0} = w_{i,0} \cdot 0 u \cdot w_{i,0}$$ where $u$ is any sufficiently generic word in $L_{i,k,0} = W_i^k$ for large enough $k$. More precisely, it is sufficient that $u = w_{i,h_0} w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$ satisfies that for all $j, j' \in \{0,\ldots,n_i-1\}$ there exist $|n' - n| \geq 2$ such that $h_n = j, h_{n+1} = j'$ and $h_{n'} = j, h_{n'+1} = j'$.
Consider the decomposition $w_{i+1,0} = w_{i,0} \cdot 0u \cdot w_{i,0}$, and rewrite the central $$0u = 0 w_{i,h_0} w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ (where $w_{i,h_j} \in W_i$ for all $j \in \{0, \ldots, k-1\}$) successively into $$0 w_{i,h_0+1} w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ $$0 w_{i,h_0+2} w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ $$\ldots$$ $$0 w_{i,n_i-1} w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ $$w_{i,0} 0 w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ $$w_{i,1} 0 w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ $$\ldots$$ $$w_{i,h_0} 0 w_{i,h_1} \cdots w_{i,h_{k-1}}$$ and continue by similarly rotating the word $w_{i,h_1}$ ‘around $W_i$’ to move it to the left in $n$ rewriting steps, then $w_{i,h_2}$ and so on until $0u$ has been changed to $u0$. This rewriting is done between the two occurrences of $w_{i,0}$ (the prefix and suffix of the initial word $w_{i+1,0}$). Collecting the words we see during this rewriting process into a list, we have defined $w_{i+1,j}$ for $j \in \{0, 1, \ldots, n_i k\}$.
Next, consider the decomposition $w_{i+1,n_i k} = w_{i,0} \cdot u \cdot 0 w_{i,0}$ and rewrite the prefix $w_{i,0}$ into $w_{i,n_i-1}$ in $n_i-1$ steps. Then rewrite the final word $0 w_{i,0}$ into $w_{i,0} 0$ in $n_i$ steps. Letting $n_{i+1} = n_i (k + 2)$, we have defined $w_{i+1,j}$ for all $j \in \{0,1,\ldots,n_{i+1}-1\}$, and the final word is $w_{i+1,n_{i+1}-1} = w_{i,n_i-1} u w_{i,0} 0$.
By construction (and induction) we have $H(w_{i+1,j}, w_{i+1,j+1}) = 1$ for all $j \in \{0,\ldots,n_{i+1}-2\}$. We have $H(w_{i+1,0} 0, 0 w_{i+1,n_{i+1}-1}) = 1$ because $$H(w_{i,0} 0 u w_{i,0} \cdot 0, 0 \cdot w_{i,n_i-1} u w_{i,0} 0) = H(w_{i,0} 0, 0 w_{i,n_i-1}) = 1$$ by induction.
Every word in $W_{i+1}$ has every word in $L_{i,2,0}$ as a subword because $u$ has at least two copies of each such word, and at any time during the construction of the words $w_{i+1,j}$ we are modifying only one $W_i$-subword of $u$ (and the rest have only been shifted, as they have been fully cycled through). We also have that every word $w_{i+1,j}$ with $0 \leq j < n_{i+1}-1$ is in $L_{i,k,1} \cdot \{\epsilon, 0\}$ directly by construction.
This concludes the construction of the sets $W_i$, and the proof of the inductive properties listed above.
Next, we prove by induction a property which we call property A: for any $i$ and $m \geq i + 1$, we have $W_m \subset L_{i,k,2} \cdot \{\epsilon, 0\}$ for some $k$, and further $w_{m,0} \in L_{i,k,2}$. For $m = i + 1$ this is direct from the last condition in the list of properties already proved, because $L_{i,k,1} \subset L_{i,k,2}$. Now suppose the assumptions hold for $m$. Then when building the words in the next stage, note that we always have a decomposition into a concatenation of words in $W_m$ with either $\epsilon$ or $0$ between them. The words in $W_m$ have a decomposition into $W_i$-words and $\epsilon$, $0$ or $00$ between them by induction. Thus, we immediately see that every word $w \in W_{m+1}$ has a decomposition into $W_i$-words and (a priori) gaps $\epsilon$, $0$, $00$ or $000$ between them. To show property A, we need to consider this decomposition in more detail and show that $000$ does not appear, the gap at the end is of length at most one, and there is no gap at the end of the decomposition if $w = w_{m+1,0}$.
First, any gap in the decomposition of $w$ which occurs inside the decomposition of a $W_m$-word is, by induction, of length at most $2$. Any gap properly inside $w$ and between two $W_m$-words has length at most $2$ since the $W_i$-decomposition of a word in $W_m$ begins with a word of $W_i$ and ends in a gap of length at most $1$.
The gap at the end of $w$ in its $W_i$-decomposition is precisely as long as the gap in the last $W_m$-word, if $w \neq w_{m,n_m-1}$, since a $0$ appears at the end of the $W_m$-decomposition of $w$ only in this case. Thus in these cases the gap at the end is of length at most one by induction. In $w_{m+1,n_{m+1}-1}$ the gap is one more than the gap after the last $W_i$-word in the decomposition of $w_{m,0}$. By induction, the gap is of length $1$ in this case. We have shown that $w \in L_{i,k,2} \cdot \{\epsilon, 0\}$ for all $w \in W_{m+1}$. Finally, in the decomposition of $w_{m+1,0}$, the last word is $w_{m,0}$, and thus by induction the last word is in $W_i$, so $w_{m+1,0} \in L_{i,k,2}$.
We define our subshift to be $X = {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}(\bigcup_i W_i)$, where we note that by construction the language $\bigcup_i W_i$ is extendable. Note that for any $i$, the subshift $X$ is contained in the SFT $X_i = {\mathcal{L}}^{-1}((W_i \{\epsilon, 0, 00\})^*)$ by property A. Note also that it is nonempty since $W_0 \neq \emptyset$ and since $L \subset {\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{L}}^{-1}(L))$ for an extendable language $L$.
We claim that $X$ is minimal. To see this, let $w$ occur in some point in $X$. Then $w$ is a subword of some $w_{i,j}$ by definition. Observe that $w_{i,j}$ is a subword of every word in $W_{i+1}$. Since $X \subset X_{i+1}$, actually every point in $X$ contains $w_{i,j}$ with bounded gaps, thus $w$ also.
To see that $X$ is language-connected, it is enough to show that for arbitrarily large $n$, the language ${\mathcal{L}}_n(X)$ is connected, as paths between shorter words are obtained as projections of paths between arbitrary extensions into longer words. Let $n = n_i$ for any $i$ and consider any word $w \in {\mathcal{L}}_n(X)$.
We first show that there is a path from $w$ to some word in $W_i$. To see this, observe that by the definition of $X$, $w$ appears as a subword of some $W_m$. Thus, it appears as a subword of the $u$-part of $w_{m+1,0} \in W_{m+1}$, at distance at least $\ell_m$ from the boundaries of $u$ (since $u$ contains at least two copies of each word in $L_{m,2,0}$; see the definition of $W_{m+1}$). The path from $w_{m+1,0}$ to $w_{m+1,n_{m+1}-1}$ gives a path from $0u$ to $u0$ by projection.
Consider now the splitting of $w_{m+1,0}$ into a word of $L_{i,k,2} \cdot (\epsilon, 0)$ given by property A. In this splitting, $w$ appears between some two $W_i$-words in the $u$-part of $w_{m+1,0}$. Thus is it a subword of $u$ which is contained in some $v 0^a v'$ for some $v, v' \in W_i$ and $a \in \{0,1,2\}$. Suppose this subword begins in coordinate $c$, that is, $w = (v 0^a v')_{[c,c+n-1]}$. If $w$ is not the suffix of $v 0^a v'$, then the path from $0u$ to $u0$ restricts to a path from $w$ to $(v 0^a v')_{[c+1,c+n]}$, then from $(v 0^a v')_{[c+1,c+n]}$ to $(v 0^a v')_{[c+2,c+n+1]}$, and so on, and finally we connect $w$ to $v' \in W_i$.
The set $W_i$ is connected by construction, so we have shown that the language is connected.
In the construction, we have more or less complete freedom in the choice of $u$, and it is easy to add some additional nice properties, in particular the subshift can be made uniquely ergodic, to have positive entropy or to have zero entropy. However, we do not know when it is topologically mixing.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Nishant Chandgotia for discussions and comments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Teresa Montaruli$^1$ for the ANTARES Collaboration$^2$\
[*(1) Universitá di Bari and INFN, Via Amendola, 173, I-70126, Bari*]{}\
[*(2) http://antares.in2p3.fr*]{}
---
ANTARES Status Report
=====================
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
--------
The ANTARES Collaboration is building a neutrino telescope 2400 m below the Mediterranean sea close to the Southern French coast. The site is already linked to the shore station by a 40 km-long electro-optical cable (EOC) which transmits power and data. A prototype line and an instrumentation line for monitoring environmental parameters have been successfully deployed and connected to the EOC via the junction box, using the IFREMER manned submarine. The Collaboration, after years of dedicated R&D and deployments of prototype lines, is now ready to deploy the detector starting in spring 2004.
The ANTARES neutrino telescope
------------------------------
The ANTARES (Astronomy with a Neutrino Telescope and Abyss environmental RESearch) project started in 1996 and involves physicists and engineers from France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. ANTARES aims to detect neutrinos with $E_{\nu}\gtrsim 10$ GeV in order to investigate $\nu$ astrophysics, dark matter in the form of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), monopoles and $\nu$ oscillations. Cherenkov light produced by relativistic charged particles is detected by a 3D-array of optical modules (OMs), pressure resistant glass spheres containing phototubes (PMTs). Photon arrival times and PMT charge amplitudes allow track and energy reconstruction.
Current predictions and upper limits from previous generation and currently running telescopes indicate that the expected signal from cosmic neutrino sources require very large detectors to be observed. About 200 $\nu$-induced upward-going muons/km$^{2}$/yr are expected for a diffuse flux from an isotropic distribution of optically-thin extra-galactic sources equal to the Waxman & Bahcall limit of $4.5 \cdot 10^{-8} E^{-2}$ GeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ \[9\]. Galactic source luminosities $\gtrsim 10^{35}$ erg/s, achievable in the presence of compact accelerators and intense magnetic fields, are required to produce a rate larger than 10 events/yr from 100 TeV neutrinos in a km$^2$ array. In 1 year of data-taking the ANTARES expected sensitivity will surpass that of current arrays and that expected for 600 live-days of AMANDA II \[2\]. The success of this experiment, with an effective area $>0.02$ km$^2$ for $E_{\nu} > 10$ TeV and well reconstructed events, will be a milestone demonstrating the feasibility of an underwater $km^3$ detector in the Mediterranean, complementing a similar array in the South Polar ice. Two $km^3$-size detectors, one in each hemisphere, are needed to cover the whole sky (including the Galactic Centre which is not accessible from the South Pole using upward-going neutrinos), and guarantee a cross-check of systematic errors arising from different Cherenkov media properties.
The ANTARES site (42$^{\circ}$ 50’N, 6$^{\circ}$ 10’E) is well-shielded from the atmospheric muon background by 2400 m of sea water and has been selected after an intense program of sea campaigns dedicated to measurements of water transmission properties. The absorption length is about 60 m at 470 nm and mainly determines the size of the instrumented region and the PMT spacing. The effective scattering length [^1] is more than 200 m, this is considerably larger and less depth dependent than that of ice. The optical background, which is absent in ice, is due to $\beta$ decays of $^{40}K$ and to a continuous bioluminescence rate which combine to give a rate of about 60 kHz on a 10” PMT. Occasional, short bioluminescence bursts momentarily increase the rate up to MHz. These bursts induce a dead-time of 5% per PMT, however the detector dead-time from this source is far less due to the requirement for coincidences. The average light transmission loss of an OM due to bio-fouling and sedimentation is $<2\%$ at its equator after 1 year from deployment, this saturates with time \[1\].
Twelve lines will be deployed each with 75 OMs mounted in 25 triplets (storeys). Each OM has a 10” Hamamatsu PMT \[10\] oriented at $45^{\circ}$ from the vertical. Storey separation is 14.5 m giving a total implemented height of about 350 m which starts 100 m above the sea bed. Lines are kept taut by buoys and are at an average distance of $\sim 65$ m from one another in an octagonal configuration. The production of the 900 OMs started in spring 2002. The readout of each PMT signal is shared by 2 Analog Ring Sampler ASICs which provide the analog signal time and charge digitization. The ARS implements a waveform (WF) shape-sensitive discrimination to distinguish single photoelectron-like pulse shapes (more than 98% of events) from larger pulses. Tests have shown that an overall time resolution of $\sim 1$ ns can be achieved mainly limited by the transit time spread (TTS) of the PMTs \[4\]. The ARS’s together with a compass and tilt meters or hydrophones for the line positioning are located inside a titanium container which is common to each storey. Considering a singles rate of 70 kHz from $^{40}K$ and bioluminescence rate of 2% of WF events, the typical data rate to shore will be $\sim 7$ MB/s/PMT; a $\sim 100$ PC farm on shore will process data. The DAQ system design is given in \[3\]. Time calibrations are critical for the ANTARES experiment: a system of LED and laser beacons and a clock calibration system \[6\] will allow a relative time precision between OMs of $\sim 0.5$ ns and the absolute time will be determined with an accuracy of $\sim 1$ ms. The present planning indicates that the full detector will be installed by 2005.
From Nov. 1999 to June 2000 the Collaboration achieved a significant milestone in the deployment and operation of a “demonstrator line”, instrumented with 7 PMTs at a depth of 1100 m and connected to shore with a 37 km-long EOC. The shape of the atmospheric muon zenith angular distribution was reproduced, despite the small number of PMTs and their 1D-layout. The ANTARES relative and absolute positioning acoustic system of rangemeters, compasses and tilt miters was tested. Relative distances and absolute positioning were measured with an accuracy of $\sim 5$ cm and of $\sim 1$ m, respectively.
In Oct. 2001, the 40 km-long EOC for power and data transmission between the detector and the shore station in La Seyne sur Mer was deployed. Since Dec. 9, 2002, the heart of the forthcoming array, the junction box (JB), has been in communication with the shore station. It was deployed during a sea operation requiring the dredging and lifting of 2.5 km of the undersea EOC. On March 17, 2003 the first data were received from a prototype detection line equipped with 15 OMs (5 storeys corresponding to 1/5 of an ANTARES line). The line was deployed in Dec. 2002 and connected in Mar. 2003 to the underwater JB using the Nautile manned submarine of the French IFREMER oceanographic research agency. During the same mission, the Nautile connected a prototype instrumentation line (deployed on Feb. 12, 2003) incorporating instrumentation to monitor underwater environmental parameters (a pulsed laser calibration system, a deep-sea Doppler current meter, detectors to measure sound velocity, salinity and water transparency). The success of the submarine connections has proved the viability of the final detector configuration with 12 line inter-connections radiating from the JB. Data are currently being acquired from PMTs, tilt meters and compasses of the prototype line and from the instrumentation line. They are consistent with the expected single counting rate of around 60 kHz due to $^{40}K$ $\beta$ decays and peaks in excess of 250 kHz from bioluminescence bursts. The status and results of the prototype lines are described in \[4\]. Fig.1 shows the layout of the future 12 line detector and underwater photographs of the prototype lines.
Expected physics performances
-----------------------------
The ANTARES angular resolution is about 0.2$^{\circ}$ for $E_{\nu}> 10$ TeV, where pointing accuracy is not limited by the $\nu-\mu$ kinematics, but by the PMT TTS and by light scattering in water. The ANTARES sensitivity (90% c.l.) for point-like source searches to the upgoing $\mu$ flux induced by a typical $E^{-2}$ differential $\nu$ flux is in the range between $4 \div 50 \cdot 10^{-16}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ after 1 yr. Search strategies and discovery potential are discussed in \[5\]. The energy resolution and methods to reconstruct muon energy and parent neutrino spectra are discussed in \[7\]. The sensitivity (90% c.l.) to $E^{-2}$ diffuse differential neutrino fluxes achieved by rejecting the background with an energy cut of $E_{\mu} \ge 50$ GeV is $8 \cdot 10^{-8}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$. The sensitivity of ANTARES in the search of WIMPs is given in \[8\]. The upper limit on $\nu$-induced muon fluxes (90% c.l.) from neutralino annihilation in the Sun is at the level of 400 km$^{-2}$ yr$^{-1}$ for $m_{\chi} \gtrsim 200$ GeV.
References
----------
1. Amram P. et al. 2003, Astrop. Phys. [**19**]{}, 253 2. Barwick S.W. et al., astro-ph/0211269 3. Bouwhuis M. et al., [*A data acquisition system for the ANTARES neutrino telescope*]{}, this conference 4. Circella M. et al., [*Toward the ANTARES neutrino telescope: results from a prototype line*]{}, this conference 5. Heijboer A. et al., [*Point source searches with the ANTARES neutrino telescope*]{}, this conference 6. Hernández-Rey J. et al., [*Time Calibration of the ANTARES Neutrino Telescope*]{}, this conference 7. Romeyer et al., [*Muon energy reconstruction in ANTARES and its application to the diffuse neutrino flux*]{}, this conference 8. Thompson L. et al., [*Dark matter searches with the ANTARES neutrino telescope*]{}, this conference 9. Waxman E., Bahcall J.N. 1999, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 023002 10. Zornoza J. et al., [*Study of photomultiplier tubes for the ANTARES neutrino telescope*]{}, this conference
{height="6.5cm" width="11.5cm"}
[^1]: Effective means that the scattered photon distribution, forward peaked in sea water, is accounted for.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To an integral homology 3-sphere $Y$, we assign a well-defined $\Z$-graded (monopole) homology $MH_*(Y, I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ whose construction in principle follows from the instanton Floer theory with the dependence of the spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$, where $\T$ is the unique $U(1)$-reducible monopole of the Seiberg-Witten equation on $Y$ and $\e_0$ is a reference perturbation datum. The definition uses the moduli space of monopoles on $Y \x \R$ introduced by Seiberg-Witten in studying smooth 4-manifolds. We show that the monopole homology $MH_*(Y, I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ is invariant among Riemannian metrics with same $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$. This provides a chamber-like structure for the monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres. The assigned function $MH_{SWF}: \{I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)\} \to \{MH_*(Y, I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))\}$ is a topological invariant (as Seiberg-Witten-Floer Theory).'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-0613'
author:
- Weiping Li
date: 'February 8, 2000'
title: 'A monopole homology for integral homology 3-spheres'
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][ ]{}
\[thm\][Example]{} \[thm\][Definition]{}
.25in .25in .05in
¶[P]{} c ł ø Ø
.525cm
Introduction
============
Since Donaldson [@dk] initiated the study of smooth 4-manifolds via the Yang-Mills theory, the gauge theory (Donaldson invariants, relative Donaldson-Floer invariants and Taubes’ Casson-invariant interpretation, etc) has proved remarkably fruitful and rich to unfold some of the mysteries in studying smooth 4-manifolds. The topological quantum field theory proposed by Witten [@wit] stimulates the most exciting developments in low-dimensional topology. In 1994, Seiberg and Witten introduces a new (simpler) kind of differential-geometric equation (see [@don; @wi]). In a very short time after the equation was introduced, some long-standing problems were solved, new and unexpected results were discovered. For instance, Kronheimer and Mrowka [@km] proved the Thom conjecture affirmatively, several authors proved variants (generalizations) of the Thom conjecture independently in [@fs; @mst; @ru], as well as the three-dimensional version of the Thom conjecture [@au]. Taubes showed that there are more constraints on symplectic structures in [@tau; @tau1] and the beautiful equality $SW = Gr$ in [@tau2; @tau3]. See [@don] for a survey in the Seiberg-Witten theory.
Using the dimension-reduction principle, one expects the Floer-type homology of 3-manifolds via the Seiberg-Witten equation. Indeed Kronheimer and Mrowka [@km] analyzed the Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory for $\Si \x S^1$, where $\Si$ is a closed oriented surface. Later on Marcolli studied the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology for 3-manifolds with first Betti number positive in [@m]. For a connected compact oriented 3-manifold with positive first Betti number and zero Euler characteristic, Meng and Taubes [@mt] showed that a (average) version of Seiberg-Witten invariant is the same as the Milnor torsion. The interesting class of 3-manifolds as integral (rational) homology 3-spheres is lack of well-posed theory. Although various authors attempted to resolve the problem on defining a “Seiberg-Witten-Floer” theory, the new phenomenon of harmonic-spinor jumps and the dependence of Riemannian metrics is not addressed clearly. The metric-dependence (also related to the harmonic-spinors) issue is quickly realized by many experts in this field (see [@don; @moy]). In [@moy], the irreducible Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology of Seifert space is shown to be dependent on the metric and the choice of connection on the tangent bundle (as our reference $\e_0$ in this paper).
In this paper, we construct a monopole homology from the Seiberg-Witten equation in the same way as an instanton Floer homology from the Self-Duality equation in Donaldson-Floer theory [@fl]. Our key point is that by using the unique $U(1)$-reducible solution $\T$ of the Seiberg-Witten equation on an integral homology 3-sphere $Y$ we make use of the spectral flow of $\T$ to capture the dependence in certain perturbation classes of Riemannian metrics and 1-forms. The same idea was used before by the present author to establish a symplectic Floer homology of knots in [@li], and the original one was in the study of the instanton Floer homology of rational homology 3-spheres by Lee and the present author in [@ll]. Many technique issues such as transversality, transitivity and gluing property are treated in many authors books and papers, those techniques follow the same line in [@fl] or simpler. So we omit the details on these, but only emphasize the Riemann-metric dependence and understand the role of such a fixing spectral flow of $(\T; \e_0)$.
Our approach is similar to approaches in [@clm; @ll; @li] to understand the perturbation data (including Riemannian metrics). The unique $U(1)$-reducible $\T$ gives a spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ as a Maslov index in [@clm] Part III. The spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0) = \mu_{\e}(\T) - \mu_{\e_0}(\T)$ with respect to a reference $\e_0$ fixes a class of admissible perturbations consisting of Riemannian metrics and 1-forms. As long as Riemannian metrics and 1-forms give the same spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$, we prove that the constructed monopole homology is invariant inside the fixed class of Riemann-metrics and 1-forms $(\e = (g_Y, \a))$ with same $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$. The spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ is not a topological invariant, and is dependent upon the Riemannian metrics. Without fixing a class of Riemannian metrics with same $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$, one cannot obtain well-defined notions such as spectral flow of irreducible Seiberg-Witten solutions on $Y$, and the gluing formula as well as the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant. Hence our results follow from fixing $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
[**Theorem A.** ]{}
*(1) For an integral homology 3-sphere $Y$ and any admissible perturbation $\e$, there is a well-defined $\Z$-graded monopole homology $MH_*(Y, I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ constructed by the Seiberg-Witten equation over $Y\x {\R}$.*
\(2) For any two admissible perturbations $\e_1$ and $\e_2$, there is a group homomorphism $\Psi_*$ between two monopole homologies $MH_*(Y, I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0))$ and $MH_*(Y, I_{\e_2}(\T; \e_0))$.
\(3) If $I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0) = I_{\e_2}(\T; \e_0)$, then the homomorphism $\Psi_*$ is an isomorphism.
Our fixed-class $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ of Riemannian metrics gains control of the birth and death of irreducible solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$. Changing the reference $\e_0$ into $\e_0^{'}$ corresponds to the overall degree-shifting by $\mu_{\e_0^{'}}(\T) -
\mu_{\e_0}(\T)$ for monopole homologies. The control in the instanton homology of rational homology 3-spheres is gained by fixing the spectral flows of all $U(1)$-reducibles from the Wilson-loop perturbations (not metrics). The control in the monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres is gained by fixing the spectral flow of the unique $U(1)$-reducible $\T$ from the Riemannian metrics (not only 1-forms). Fixing $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ enters crucially in proving Theorem A and Theorem B.
[**Theorem B.** ]{}[*For a smooth 4-manifold $X =X_0 \#_Y X_1$ with $b_2^+(X_i) > 0 (i = 0, 1)$ and $Y$ an integral homology 3-sphere, the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $X$ is given by the Kronecker pairing of $MH_*(Y; I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ with $MH_{-1-*}(-Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ for the relative Seiberg-Witten invariants $q_{X_0,Y, \e}$ and $q_{X_1,- Y, \e}$ (see Definition \[relative\]); $$\langle , \rangle :
MH_*(Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)) \x MH_{-1-*}(-Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)) \to {\bf Z};
\ \ \ q_{SW}(X) =
\langle q_{X_0,Y, \e}, q_{X_1,-Y, \e}\rangle.$$*]{}
The paper is organized as follows. §2 provides an introduction of the Seiberg-Witten equation on 3-manifolds. §3 studies the configuration space over $Y$ through Seiberg-Witten equation and a natural monopole complex. We show that there are admissible perturbations from Riemannian metrics and 1-forms in §4 via the method similar to [@pt]. The spectral-flow properties and dependence on Riemannian metrics are discussed in §5. The proof of Theorem A (Proposition \[5.2\] for (1), Proposition \[corb\] for (2) and Proposition \[6.5\] for (3)) is occupied in §6 and §7. In §8, we study the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant and complete the proof of Theorem B as Theorem \[invariant\].
Seiberg-Witten equation on 3-manifolds
======================================
It is well-known that every closed oriented 3-manifold is spin. The group $Spin(3) \cong SU(2) \cong Sp_1$ is the universal covering of $SO(3) = Spin(3)/\{\pm I \}$. Pick a Riemannian metric $g$ on $Y$. The metric $g$ defines the principal $SO(3)$-bundle $P_{SO}(Y)$ of oriented orthonormal frames on $Y$. A spin structure is a lift of $P_{SO}(Y)$ to a principal $Spin(3)$-bundle $P_{Spin}(Y)$ over $Y$. The set of equivalence classes of such lifts has, in a natural way, the structure of a principal $H^1(Y, Z_2)$-bundle over a point. So there is a unique spin-structure on the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$.
There is a natural adjoint representation $$Ad: Spin(3) \x Sp_1 \to Sp_1; \ \ \ (q, \a ) \mapsto q \a q^{-1},$$ and associated rank-2 complex vector bundle (spinor bundle) $$W = P_{Spin(3)}(Y) \x_{Ad} C^2 .$$ Let $L = det W$ be the determinant line bundle. For the ordinary Spin-structure, one has a Clifford multiplication $$c: T^*Y \ox W \to W$$ $$c([p,\a]) \ox [p,v] \to [p, \overline{\a}v].$$ So $c$ induces a map $T^*Y \to Hom(W, W)$. The spinor pairing $\t : W \ox \overline{W} \to T^*Y$ is given by $$[p, v_1 \ox v_2] \to \t(\frac{1}{4} Im(v_1 i v_2)),$$ where $\t$ is an orientation preserving isomorphism $P_{Spin(3)}(Y) \x
Sp_1 \to T^*Y$. A connection $a$ on $L$ together with the Levi-Civita connection on the tangent bundle of $Y$ form a covariant derivative on $W$. This maps sections of $W$ into sections of $W \ox T^*Y$. Followed by the Clifford multiplication, one has a Dirac operator $${\bd }^g_a : \G (W) \stackrel{\nabla^g_a}{\to }
\G (W \ox T^*Y) \stackrel{c}{\to } \G (W).$$ The determinant line bundle $L$ is trivial for the spin structure, so we may choose $\theta$ to be the trivial connection and ${\bd }^g_{\theta }:
\G (W) \to \G (W)$ is the usual Dirac operator. Note that all bundles over the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$ are [**trivial**]{}.
There is a unique spin-structure on $Y \x \R$ associated to the unique spin-structure on $Y$ with the product metric on $Y \x \R$. The two spinor bundles $W^{\pm }$ on $Y \x \R$ can be identified by using a Clifford multiplication by $dt$, where $t$ is denoted for the variable on $\R$. Both $W^+$ and $W^-$ are obtained by the pull-back of the $U(2)$-bundle $W \to Y$ from the projection map $Y \x {\R} \to Y$. Thus we have the identification of the map $\s :
{\Lam }^2T^*(Y \x {\R}) \to Hom(W^+, W^-)$ and the map $\t^{-1} : T^*Y \to Hom(W, W)$ through the above identifications. $\s (\e ) = \t^{-1}(*_g \e)$. In other words from the identification ${\Lam }^2T^*(Y \x {\R}) = {\Lam }^2T^*Y \oplus
{\Lam }^1T^*Y$ and using the Hermitian pairing on $W^{\pm }$, there is an induced pairing $$\t : \overline{W} \x W \to {\Lam }^1T^*Y .$$ In fact for every $\g: T^*Y \to Hom(W, W)$ (a spin structure), that is a way to determine a spin structure on $Y \x \R$ by $$\s :T^*(Y \x {\R}) \to Hom(W \oplus W, W \oplus W); \ \ \
\s (v, r) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \g (v) + r 1 \\ \g (v) - r 1 & 0 \end{array} \right) .$$ The determinant line bundle $L_{(4)} = det W^{\pm }|_{Y \x \R}$ (a trivial line bundle) carries $U(1)$-connections $A = a + \p dt$. So the Dirac operator $D^g_A$ for the product metric $g + dt^2$ over $Y \x \R$ is given by $$D^g_A = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0& - \nabla_t + {\bd }^g_a \\
\nabla_t + {\bd }^g_a & 0 \end{array} \right) ,$$ where ${\bd }^g_a$ is a twisted self-adjoint Dirac operator on $\G (W) \to \G (W)$, and $\nabla_t = \frac{\bd }{\bd t} + \p$ is a twisted skew adjoint Dirac operator over $\R$.
The curvature 2-form of $A = a + \p dt$ can be calculated as $F_A = F_a + (\frac{\bd a}{\bd t} - d_a \p) dt$. Using the identification of ${\O }^2(Y \x {\R}) \cong {\O }^2(Y) \oplus
{\O }^1(Y)$, we can write $F^+_A$ as $*_g F_a + (\frac{\bd a}{\bd t} - d_a \p) \in {\O }^1(Y)$ as the self-dual component of the curvature $F_A$. Now the Seiberg-Witten monopole equation on 4-manifolds reduces to a Seiberg-Witten monopole equation on 3-manifolds as $$\label{SW}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(\nabla_t + {\bd }^g_a) \psi & = 0 \\
*_g F_a + (\frac{\bd a}{\bd t} - d_a \p)& = i \t(\psi, \psi)
\end{array} \right.$$ for $\psi \in \G (W)$. It is equivalent to the flow equation of $(a, \p,
\psi )$: $$\label{SW0}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\bd \psi }{\bd t} & = - {\bd }^g_a \psi - \p . \psi \\
\frac{\bd a}{\bd t} & = - *_g F_a + d_a \p + i \t(\psi, \psi) .
\end{array} \right.$$ The equation (\[SW\]) is invariant under the gauge transformation $u \in Map (Y, U(1))$, where the gauge group action on $(a + \p dt, \psi )$ is given by $$\label{star}
u \cdot (a + \p dt, \psi ) = (u^*a +
(\p - u^{-1}\frac{du }{dt})dt, \psi u^{-1}).$$ There is a temporal gauge to obtain a simpler equation. The temporal gauge $u$ is the element which $u \cdot (a + \p dt) = u^*a$, i.e., $\p - u^{-1}\frac{du }{dt} = 0$. Then the equation (\[SW0\]) can be reduced to the following form. $$\label{rSW}
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\bd \psi }{\bd t} & = - {\bd }^g_a \psi \\
\frac{\bd a}{\bd t} & = - *_g F_a +i \t(\psi, \psi) .
\end{array} \right.$$
Configuration spaces on $Y$
===========================
Fix a trivialization $L = Y \x U(1)$, one can identify the space of $U(1)$-connections of Sobolev $L_k^p$-norm with the space ${\CA}_k^p = L_k^p({\O }^1(Y, i \R))$ of 1-forms on $Y$ such that the zero element in ${\O }^1(Y, i \R)$ corresponds to the trivial connection $\theta $ on $L$. The gauge group of $L$ can be identified with ${\CG }^p_k(Y) = L^p_{k+1}(Map(Y, U(1)))$ acting on ${\CA}_k^p \x L^p_k(\G (W))$ by (\[star\]). We need to assume that $k+1 > 3/p$ so that ${\CG}_Y = {\CG }^p_k(Y)$ is a Lie group. We may take $k=1, p=2$.
Let ${\CC}_Y$ be the configuration space $${\CC}_Y = L^2_k(\{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O }^0\}(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W)) .$$ The quotient space is ${\CB}_Y = {\CC}_Y/{\CG }_Y.$ Denote ${\CC}_Y^* = \{(a, \p, \psi ) \in {\CC}_Y| \psi \neq 0 \}$. For $(a, \p, \psi ) \in {\CC}_Y^*$, the isotropy group ${\G }_{(a, \p, \psi )}
= \{id \}$. For $(a, \p, \psi ) \in {\CC}_Y \setminus {\CC}_Y^*$, the isotropy group ${\G }_{(a, \p,0)} = U(1)$, these elements are called reducibles. For example, $\T = (\theta , 0, 0)$ is reducible by all constant maps from $Y$ to $U(1)$. Note that ${\CG }_Y$ acts freely on ${\CC}_Y^*$, so ${\CB}_Y^* = {\CC}_Y^*/{\CG }_Y$ forms an open and dense set in ${\CC}_Y/{\CG }_Y$.
\[hil\] ${\CB}_Y^*$ is a Hilbert manifold. For $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) \in {\CC}_Y^*$, the tangent space of ${\CB}_Y^*$ can be identified with $$T_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)]}{\CB}_Y^* = \{
(a, \p, \psi ) \in
L^2_k(\{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O }^0\}(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W))|$$ $$\|(a, \p, \psi )\|_{L^2_{k-1}} < \ve, \ \ \
d^*_{a_0}\psi + Im (\psi_0 , \psi ) = 0 \}.$$
[**Proof:**]{} This follows from the construction of slice in [@dk; @fu]. It will be clear from context to identify $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)$ with its gauge equivalence class in our notation. The gauge orbit of $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) \in {\CC}_Y^*$ is given by ${\CG }_Y \to {\CC}_Y^*$: $$g=e^{iu} \to (a_0 - g^{-1} dg , \p_0 , \psi_0 g^{-1}) .$$ The linearization of this map at $Id = e^0$ is $$\d_0 : T_{id} {\CG }_Y = {\O }^0(Y, i{\R}) \to
\{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O }^0\}(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W)$$ $$u \mapsto (-du, 0, - \psi_0 u) .$$ So the adjoint operator $\d_0^*$ of $\d_0$ is given by $$\d_0^* \psi = d^*_{a_0} \psi + Im (\psi_0 . \psi ) .$$ A neighborhood of $[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)] \in
{\CB}_Y^*$ can be described as a quotient of $T_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)], \ve}{\CB}_Y^* /{\G }_{(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)}$ for sufficiently small $\ve $. Every nearby orbit meets the slice $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) + T_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)], \ve}{\CB}_Y^*$. This is amount to solving the gauge fixing condition relative to $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)$, i.e., there exists a unique $u \in {\O }^0(Y, i {\R})$ such that $e^{iu} \cdot (a_0 + a, \p_0 + \p, \psi_0 + \psi ) \in
T_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)], \ve}{\CB}_Y^*$ for $\psi_0 \neq 0$. Hence it follows from applying the implicit function theorem.
There is an associated bundle ${\CC}_Y^* \x_{{\CG }_Y}({\O }^1(Y, i {\R})
\oplus \G (W))$ over ${\CC}_Y^*$ because of the free action of ${\CG }_Y$ on ${\CC}_Y^*$. We define a section $f :
{\CC}_Y^* \to {\CC}_Y^* \x_{{\CG }_Y}({\O }^1(Y, i {\R})
\oplus \G (W))$ by $$f(a, \p , \psi ) = [(a, \p , \psi ),
*_gF_a -d_a \p - i \t (\psi, \psi ), {\bd }^g_a \psi + \p . \psi ].$$ Note that $f$ is ${\CG }_Y$-equivariant, $f(g \cdot (a, \p , \psi )) = g \cdot
f(a, \p , \psi )$. Hence it descends to ${\CB}_Y^*$, $$f : {\CB}_Y^* \to {\CC}_Y^* \x_{{\CG }_Y}({\O }^1(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W)).$$ Now $f(a, \p , \psi ) \in T_{[(a, \p , \psi )], \ve}L^2_{k-1}
{\CB}_Y^* = {\CL }_{[(a, \p , \psi )]}$. So $f$ can be thought of as a vector field on the Hilbert manifold ${\CB}_Y^*$. Over ${\CB}_Y^*$, $f$ is a section of the bundle ${\CL }$ with fiber ${\CL }_{[(a, \p , \psi )]}$.
\[flat\] The zero set of $f$ in ${\CB}_Y^*$ is the moduli space of solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation $$f^{-1}(0) = {\CR}_{SW}^*(Y, g) = \{
[(a, \p , \psi )] \in {\CC}_Y^* \ \mbox{satisfies (\ref{SWF})}\}/{\CG }_Y.$$ $$\label{SWF}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
{\bd }^g_a \psi + \p . \psi = 0 \\
*_g F_a - d_a \p - i \t (\psi, \psi ) = 0
\end{array} . \right.$$
We will show that ${\CR}_{SW}^*(Y, g)$ is a zero-dimensional smooth manifold and its algebraic number is the Euler characteristic of a monopole homology defined in §6 (see also [@au] for instance).
The linearization of $f$ can be computed as the following. $$\begin{aligned}
f(a_0 + sa, \p_0 + s \p , \psi_0 + s \psi ) & = &
(*_g F_{a_0 + sa} - d_{a_0 + sa}(\p_0 + s \p) - i \t (\psi_0 + s \psi ,\\
& &
\psi_0 + s \psi ), {\bd }^g_{a_0 + sa}(\psi_0 + s \psi ) +
(\p_0 + s \p ). (\psi_0 + s \psi ) \\
& = & f(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) +s \d_1(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)((a, \p , \psi )) +
o(s^2) .\end{aligned}$$ So the linearized operator $Df(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) =
\d_1(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) : T_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)]} {\CB }^*_Y
\to {\CL }_{[(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0)]}$ is given by $$\d_1(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) : \{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O}^0\}(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W)
\to {\O }^1(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W) ,$$ $$((a, \p , \psi ) \longmapsto \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
*_g d_{a_0} & - d_{a_0} & - i Im(\psi_0,, \cdot) \\
c(\cdot \psi_0) & c \cdot \psi_0 & {\bd }^g_{a_0} + \p_0 \cdot
\end{array} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
a \\ \p \\ \psi
\end{array} \right) .$$ It forms a natural 3-dimensional monopole complex, since $\ker \d_0^*$ is the gauge fixing slice. So $$\label{mc}
MC_{\bullet}: 0 \to {\O}^0(Y, i{\R }) \stackrel{\d_0}{\to }
\{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O}^0\}(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W)
\stackrel{\d_1}{\to } {\O }^1(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W) \to 0,$$ is a short exact sequence. The operator $$\d_0^* \oplus \d_1 (a_0, \p_0, \psi_0):
\{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O}^0\}(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W)
\to \{{\O }^1 \oplus {\O}^0\}(Y, i{\R })\oplus \G (W)$$ $$\label{32*}
(a, \p , \psi ) \longmapsto \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
*_g d_{a_0} & - d_{a_0} & - i Im(\psi_0, \cdot) \\
-d_{a_0}^* & 0 & Im (\psi_0, \cdot ) \\
c(\cdot \psi_0) & c \cdot \psi_0 & {\bd }^g_{a_0} + \p_0 \cdot
\end{array} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
a \\ \p \\ \psi
\end{array} \right) ,$$ is a first-order operator with symbol $\s (\d_0^* \oplus \d_1) = \s (\d)$, where $$\d = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
*_g d_{a_0} & - d_{a_0} & 0 \\
- d_{a_0}^* & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & {\bd }^g_{a_0}
\end{array} \right)$$ is a first-order self-adjoint Dirac operator. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
Ind (\d_0^* \oplus \d_1) & = & Ind (\d) \nonumber \\
& = & Ind \left( \begin{array}{cc}
*_g d_{a_0} & - d_{a_0} \nonumber \\
- d_{a_0}^* & 0 \end{array} \right) + Ind {\bd }^g_{a_0} \nonumber \\
& = & 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Since the operator $\left( \begin{array}{cc}
*_g d_{a_0} & - d_{a_0} \\ - d_{a_0}^* & 0 \end{array} \right)$ is self-adjoint and every Dirac operator has index zero over odd (3-)dimensional manifolds, thus we have the zero index for the operator $\d_0^* \oplus \d_1$. Generically, the moduli space ${\CR }_{SW}(Y, g)$ is zero-dimensional.
Define $H^0(MC_{\bullet}) = \ker \d_0$, $H^1(MC_{\bullet}) = \ker \d_1/im \d_0$, $H^2(MC_{\bullet}) = coker \d_1$. The first cohomology $H^1(MC_{\bullet})$ is isomorphic for every $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) \in {\CB }^*_Y$, so that $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) \in {\CB }^*_Y$ is a nondegenerate zero of $f$ if and only if $\ker (\d_0^* \oplus \d_1) = H^1(MC_{\bullet}) = 0$. For $\T = (\theta, 0, 0)$ and a generic metric $g$ without harmonic spinors of $\bd_{\theta}^g$, we have that $\T$ is always isolated and nondegenerate (in the Bott sense) zero of $f$ on the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$.
Admissible Perturbation and Transversality
==========================================
In this section, we prove that there are enough perturbations to make the zero set of $f$ transverse. There is a 1-form perturbation reduced from 4-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation as in [@don; @km; @tau]. In our 3-dimensional case, [*the harmonic spinor may vary or jump as metrics on $Y$ vary*]{}. In order to obtain any topological information, one needs to extend the perturbation-data and understand the harmonic spinors accordingly. The method we used here is essentially the one used in [@fu; @ll; @li; @pt].
Let ${\CP}_Y = \Si_Y \x {\O}^1 (Y, i {\R})$ be the space of perturbation data, where $\Si_Y$ is the space of Riemannian metrics on $Y$. Consider the union $\cup_{(g,, \a) \in {\CP}_Y}{\CR}^*_{SW}(Y;g, \a)$ of the moduli spaces of 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten solutions over all metrics and 1-forms. If the union is a (Banach) Hilbert manifold, then its projection to the space ${\CP}_Y$ is a Fredholm map. So there exists a Baire first category in ${\CP}_Y$ such that ${\CR}^*_{SW}(Y;g, \a)$ is a manifold by the Sard-Smale theorem.
Let $f_{\e}$ be the parametrized smooth section of the bundle ${\CL} \to {\CB}^*_Y \x {\CP}_Y$ with $\e = (g, \a ) \in {\CP}_Y$. The map $f_{\e}$ is given by $$f_{\e} : {\CB}^*_Y \to {\O}^1(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W)$$ $$(a, \p, \psi ) \mapsto (*_gF_a - d_a \p - i \t (\psi , \psi) + \a ,
{\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a}_{a} \psi + \p . \psi ) ,$$ where $\nabla_0$ is the Levi-Civita connection for the metric $g$. Let $f_{1 \e}(a, \p, \psi ) = {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a}_a \psi + \p . \psi$ be the second component of the map $f_{\e }$ on $\G (W)$, and $f_{0 \e}(a, \p, \psi )$ be the first component of $f_{\e}$.
\[sub\] $f_{1 \e}$ is a submersion ($Df_{1 \e}$ is surjective).
[**Proof:**]{} The differential $Df_{1 \e}$ is given by the formula $$Df_{1 \e}(a, \p, \psi ; o , \a)(\ve a , \ve \p , \ve \psi , 0, \ve \a)
= {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a (\ve \psi ) +
(\ve \a + \ve a + \ve \p ). \psi + \p . \ve \psi ,$$ where we vary along the subspace $\{{\O}^1 \oplus {\O}^0(Y, i {\R}) \oplus \G (W)\} \x
\{\{0\} \x {\O}^1(Y, i {\R})\}$ of $T^*_{[a, \p, \psi]}{\CB }^*_Y \x
{\CP}_Y$. We want to show that $Df_{1 \e}$ is surjective. Suppose the contrary. Then there exists a spinor $\c \in \G (W)$ such that it is perpendicular to $Im Df_{1 \e}$. $$\label{*a}
\la {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a (\ve \psi ) , \c \ra =0,$$ for all $\ve \psi$. I.e., $\c \in \ker ({\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a)^*$. By the elliptic regularity of (\[\*a\]), a solution $\c$ is smooth. Choose a point $y \in Y$ such that $\c (y) \neq 0$. By the uniqueness of continuation of the solution of the elliptic equation [@an], ${\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a \cdot ({\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a)^* \c = 0$, there is a neighborhood $U_y$ of $y$ such that $\c (y) \neq 0$ for $y \in U_y$. Thus we can find a 1-form $\ve \a + \ve a \in {\O }^1(Y, i{\R})$ such that $(\ve \a + \ve a). \psi = \lam \c$ with $\lam \neq 0$ in $U_y$, and $\ve \a + \ve a$ has compact support. So we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \la {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a + \ve \a}_{a+ \ve a} (\ve \psi ) , \c \ra \\
& = & \la {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a }_a (\ve \psi ) , \c \ra +
\la (\ve \a + \ve a). \ve \psi , \c \ra \\
& = & \la \lam \c , \c \ra
= \lam \la \c , \c \ra .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\c = 0$ in $U_y$, so $\c \equiv 0$ by a result in [@an].
By the Hodge decomposition of ${\O }^1(Y, i{\R}) = Im d \oplus Im d^*$ for $Y$, we have that $\d_1$ is surjective. Thus $f_{0\e }(\a , \p, \psi ) = *_g F_a - d_a \p - i \t (\psi, \psi ) + \a $ is also a submersion onto ${\O }^1(Y, i{\R})$.
The spaces $f_{0\e }^{-1}(0)$ and $f_{1 \e }^{-1}(0)$ are Banach manifolds.
Now at point $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0; g_0, \a) \in {\CC}_Y \x {\CP}_Y$, the parametrized smooth section $$f(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0; g_0, \a) = f_{(g_0, \a)}(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0) =
f_{\e }(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0 )$$ is submersion.
The differential $Df$ is onto at all points of the moduli space $f^{-1}(0) \subset {\CC}_Y^* \x {\CP}_Y$.
[**Proof:** ]{} The differential $Df$ at $(a_0, \p_0, \psi_0; g_0, \a) \in {\CC}_Y \x {\CP}_Y$ is of the form $(Df_0, Df_1)$ $$\begin{aligned}
Df_0 & = & *_{g_0}d_{a_0}a + (g)_* F_{a_0} - d_{a_0} \p - i Im (\psi_0, \psi )
- a . \p_0 + \a \\
Df_1 & = & {\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a_0}_{a_0} \psi + (\a + a). \psi_0
+ (\p . \psi_0 + \p_0 . \psi ) + r(g) )\end{aligned}$$ where $(g)_*$ is the variation of the Hodge star operator $(g)_* = \frac{d}{ds}|_{s =0} *_{g_0 + sg}$, $r(g)$ is a zero order operator applied to the variation $g_0 + sg + o(s^2)$ of metric, $a. \p_0$ is the Clifford multiplication of 1-form $a$ on the section $\p_0 \in \G(W)$. The surjective of $Df_0$ follows from Theorem 3.1 of [@fu], and the surjective of $Df_1$ follows from Proposition I.3.5 of [@pt] (see also [@au; @m; @mt; @moy]).
We consider the map $f_*: {\CC}_Y^* \x {\CP}_Y \to
{\O}^1(Y, i{\R}) \oplus \G (W)$.
The space $f_*^{-1}(0)$ is a Banach manifold.
[**Proof:**]{} Take $f_*$ as a section of ${\CB}^*_Y \x {\CP}_Y$ to $({\CC}_Y^* \x_{{\CG}_Y} ({\O}^1(Y, i{\R }) \oplus \G (W)) \x {\CP }_Y$. So $f_*^{-1}(0)|_{{\CB}^*_Y} = f_*^{-1}(0)/{\CG}_Y$ is a Banach manifold. $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\CC}_Y^* \x {\CP }_Y & \stackrel{f}{\to } & {\O}^1(Y, i{\R }) \oplus \G (W) \\
\downarrow \pi_2 & & \\
{\CP }_Y & &
\end{array}$$ The projection map $\pi_2$ is a smooth Fredholm map of index zero. It follows exactly from the same argument in [@dk; @fu].
\[admi\] The inverse image $\pi_2^{-1}((g, \a))$ of a generic parameter $(g, \a) \in {\CP }_Y$, the moduli space ${\CR }_{SW}(Y, (g, \a ))$ of the 3-dimensional monopole solutions is a zero dimensional manifold.
A perturbation $\e = (g, \a)$ satisfying Corollary \[admi\] is called [**admissible.**]{} In general, the class of reducible elements in ${\CC}_Y \setminus {\CC}_Y^*$ forms a singular strata in the quotient space ${\CB}_Y$. If it is a solution of 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation, it is also singular to the space of ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, g)$. The reducible solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reds}
{\bd }^{\nabla_0 + \a}_{a} \psi + \p_0 . \psi & = & 0 \nonumber \\
- *F_a + d_a \p & = & 0, \end{aligned}$$ for $\psi = 0$. Applying the temporal gauge $g \cdot (a, \p ) = (g^*a, 0)$, we get that $g^*a$ is a flat connection on $Y \x U(1)$ over $Y$. For integral homology 3-sphere, there is a unique $U(1)$ reducible connection, namely the trivial one. So the reducible solution is $(\theta , 0)$. There is a unique $U(1)$-reducible solution of (\[reds\]), denoted by $\Theta = (\theta, 0)$.
Note that $\ker \d_1 = \ker {\bd }^{g}_a$ for an integral homology 3-sphere. For a generic metric $g$, $\ker {\bd }^{g}_a = 0$. But $\ker {\bd }^{g_t}_a$ may have a nontrivial kernel as the Riemannian metrics vary in an one-parameter family (see [@hi]). The harmonic spinor, even the dimension of the harmonic spinor, depends on the metric used in defining the Dirac operator. Hence the harmonic-spinor jump creates and/or destroys irreducible solutions of the 3-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equation. This is the main problem to understand the new phenomenon that the “Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory” is not entirely metric-independent (see [@don]). In the next section, we study such a dependence of Riemannian metrics.
\[path\] ${\CR }_{SW}^*(Y, (g, \a)) = {\CR }_{SW}(Y, (g, \a)) \setminus \{ \Theta\}$ is a zero-dimensional smooth manifold for a first category near $(g, \a)$ in ${\CP}_Y$.
[**Proof:**]{} The results follows from the construction above, Proposition 2c.1 of [@fl] and the Sard-Smale theorem.
Define the weighted Sobolev space $L_{k,\d}^p$ on sections $\xi $ of a bundle over $Y\x {\R}$ to be the space of $\xi$ for which $e_{\d}\cdot \xi $ is in $L_k^p$, where $e_{\d}(y,t) = e^{\d |t|}$ for $|t| \geq 1$. For any $\d \geq 0$ and any Seiberg-Witten monopole solution $(A, \Phi)$ on $Y \x {\R}$, the linearized operator $$D_{A, \Phi}: L_{k+1,\delta }^p(\G (W_{(4)}^+) \oplus
\O^1(Y \x {\R})) \to L_{k,\delta }^p(\G (W_{(4)}^-) \oplus
({\Omega }^0 \oplus {\Omega }^2_+)(Y \x {\R}))$$ is Fredholm (see [@don; @fl; @km; @tau; @wi]). We call $(A, \Phi)$ [*regular*]{} if $\mbox{Coker} D_{A, \Phi} = 0$ and we call ${\CM}_{Y \x {\R}}$ (the moduli space of perturbed Seiberg-Witten solutions with finite energy) [*regular*]{} if it contains orbits of regular $(A, \Phi)$’s.
\[bfc\] The finite energy condition forces elements of ${\CM}_{Y \x {\R}}$ to converge to zeros of $f^{-1}_{\e}(0)$ on the ends of $Y\x {\R}$. The set of all perturbations $\e \in {\CP}_Y$ of which ${\CM}_{Y \x {\R}}$ is regular is of Baire’s first category.
[**Proof:**]{} The proof follows exactly from the same method in [@fl] Proposition 2c.2 with Chern-Simons Seiberg-Witten functional as defined in [@km] §4 and [@au; @m; @mt].
Spectral flow and Dependence on Riemannian metrics
==================================================
In this section, we use the unique $U(1)$-reducible solution $\Theta$ to capture the metric-dependent relation via the spectral flow. In [@ll] joined with Lee, the author used the Walker correction-term around $U(1)$-reducibles to obtain homotopy classes of admissible perturbations (realized by a family of Lagrangians), and to show the invariance among the same homotopy class of the Lagrangian perturbations. Those Walker correction-term can be interpreted as the spectral flow in [@clm; @ll].
\[sfi\] For an admissible perturbation $\e = (g, \a) \in {\CP}_Y$ and a nondegenerate zero $(a, \phi, \psi) \in {\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e) = f_{\e}^{-1}(0)$, we can associate an integer $\mu_{\e}(a, \phi, \psi) \in {\Z}$ such that for $(A, \Phi) \in {\CB}_{Y \x {\R}}((a, \phi, \psi),
(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'}))$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{\e}(e^{iu} \cdot (a, \phi, \psi)) &= &\mu_{\e}(a, \phi, \psi), \\
\mbox{Index}D_{A, \Phi} & = & \mu_{\e}(a, \phi, \psi) -
\mu_{\e}(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'}) - \mbox{dim}
\G_{(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\G_{(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'})}$ is the isotropy subgroup of $(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'})$.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $\pi_1: Y \x [0, 1] \to Y$ be the projection on the first factor. Let $L_{(4)} \x W_{(4)}$ be the pullback $\pi_1^*(det W^{\pm}) \x \pi_1^*W^{\pm}$ such that $(A, \Phi) \in {\CA}_{L_{(4)}} \x W_{(4)}$ satisfies $(A, \Phi)|_{t \leq 0} = (a, \phi, \psi)$ and $(A, \Phi)|_{t \geq 1} = (a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'})$. We have $D_{A, \Phi} = \frac{\bd}{\bd t} + \d_t$ with $\d_t = \d_{A(t), \Phi(t)}$ in (\[32\*\]). Then the Fredholm index of $D_{A, \Phi}$ is given by the spectral flow of $\d_t$ (see [@aps; @clm; @fl]). The second equality follows from the same proof of Proposition 2b. 2 in [@fl]. The first equality follows from $$\begin{aligned}
SF(e^{iu}\cdot (a, \phi, \psi), (a, \phi, \psi))& = &
\mbox{Ind}D_{A, \Phi}((a, \phi, \psi), (a, \phi, \psi))_{Y\x S^1} \\
& = & \frac{1}{4}(c_1(L_{(4)})^2 - (2 \c + 3 \s))(Y\x S^1) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\c$ and $\s$ are the Euler number and signature of $Y \x S^1$, and $c_1(L_{(4)})^2(Y\x S^1) = 0$ for the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$.
Note that the relative index is gauge-invariant, but depending on the perturbation $\e \in {\CP}_Y$ by Proposition \[sfi\]. The absolute index may not be well-defined since $\mu_{\e}(\Theta)$ depends upon $\e \in {\CP}_Y$. In the instanton case, we fix the trivialization of a principal bundle and a fixed tangent vector to the trivial connection to determine $\mu (\theta) =0$ for the trivial connection $\theta$. It turns out that such a fixation is independent of metrics and other perturbation data in the instanton Floer theory. But this is no longer true for the monopole case.
\[1pf\] [**(Definition)**]{} Two admissible perturbations $\e_0$ and $\e_1$ in ${\CP}_Y$ are (called) homotopic to each other through a 1-parameter family $\e_t (0 \leq t \leq 1)$ in ${\CP}_Y$ if and only if $\mu_{\e_0}(\T) = \mu_{\e_1}(\T)$.
[**Proof:**]{} For two admissible perturbations $\e_0$ and $\e_1$ in §4, we can connect them into a 1-parameter family $\e_t$ such that there are at most finitely many $t\in (0, 1)$ with $\e_t$ corresponding harmonic-spinor jumps. Denote those $0< t_0 < t_1 \cdots < t_n < 1$ and $\lam_1, \lam_2, \cdots, \lam_n,
\lam_{n+1} = 0$ so that $\lam_i$ is not the eigenvalues of $\d_t =
\d_t (\theta, 0)$ for $t_{i-1} \leq t \leq t_i$, where $t_{-1 } =0$ and $t_{n+1} =1$. Define $n_i = \mbox{dim}(\d_{t_i} - \lam Id)$ with $\lam \in
[\lam_{i+1}, \lam_i]$ and $n_i = - \mbox{dim}(\d_{t_i} - \lam Id)$ with $\lam \in [\lam_i, \lam_{i+1}]$. From the operator $D_{\e_t}(\Theta) = \frac{\bd}{\bd t} + \d_t(\Theta)$ and the well-known facts in [@aps; @clm; @fl], we have $$\mbox{Ind} D_{\e_t}(\Theta) = \sum_{i=0}^n n_i.$$ This shows that $\mbox{Ind} D_{\e_t}(\Theta)$ is independent of the construction $\e_t$ and that is continuous in $\e_t$. On the other hand, $$\mbox{Ind} D_{\e_t}(\Theta) =
\mu_{\e_0}(\Theta) - \mu_{\e_1}(\Theta).$$ Thus the obstruction to connect two generic perturbations is the spectral flow along the metric path in $\Si_Y$. The Riemannian-metric space $\Si_Y$ is path-connected. So $\mbox{Ind} D_{\e_t}(\Theta) =0$ provides that $\e_0$ and $\e_1$ are in the same (homotopy) class of with respect to the spectral flow.
Thus the dependence of metrics also enters into the definition of relative indices for $(a, \phi, \psi) \in {\CR}_{SW}^*(Y, \e)$. Now we follow the instanton case to fix the relative index $$\mu_{\e}(a, \phi, \psi) =
\mbox{Ind}D_{\e}(\T, (a, \phi, \psi)) \in {\Z},$$ which depends on the value $\mu_{\e}( \Theta)$. Any changes of $\mu_{\e}( \Theta)$ shift $\mu_{\e}(a, \phi, \psi)$ by an integer, and $\mu_{\e}(\T)$ is understood with respect to some reference perturbation $\e_0 \in {\CP}_Y$.
\[cod\] For an admissible perturbation $\e \in {\CP}_Y$, the Seiberg-Witten moduli space ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e) = f_{\e}^{-1}(0)$ is a compact 0-dimensional oriented manifold.
[**Proof:**]{} The compactness can be proved by the 3-dimensional Weitzenböck formula and Mosers’ weak maximal principle as in the 4-dimensional case [@km; @wi]. By the construction in the proof of Proposition \[sfi\], we can show that ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e) = f_{\e}^{-1}(0)$ is a closed subset of the compact moduli space ${\CM}_{Y\x S^1}(g + d\theta, \pi_1^* \e)$, where $Y \x S^1$ carries the product metric $g + d\theta$. That ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e)$ is compact follows by Lemma 2 of [@km]. By Proposition \[path\], ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e)$ is a 0-dimensional manifold. The orientation at each point of ${\CR}_{SW}(Y, \e)$ is defined by its spectral flow which depends on the perturbation homotopy class of $\e$. (This is different phenomenon from the (instanton) Casson invariant of integral homology 3-spheres.)
Note that the monopole number $\# {\CR}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)$ (counted with sign) is not a topological invariant. The number $\# {\CR}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)$ depends on the metric with harmonic-spinor jumps.
Monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres
================================================
For an admissible perturbation $\e \in {\CP}_Y$, we obtain a new gradient vector field $f_{\e}$ for which the irreducibles are all nondegenerate in §4. Since zeros of $f_{\e}$ are now isolated finite-many points, we use them to generate the monopole chain groups.
\[53\] Let $(a, \p, \psi)$ and $(a^{'}, \p^{'}, \psi^{'})$ be zeros of $f_{\e}$. A [*chain solution*]{} $((A_1, \Phi_1), ... , (A_n, \Phi_n))$ from $(a, \p, \psi)$ to $(a^{'}, \p^{'}, \psi^{'})$ is a finite set of Seiberg-Witten solutions over $Y\x {\R}$ which converge to $c_{i-1},
c_i \in f^{-1}_{\e}(0)$ as $t \to \mp\infty$ such that $(a, \p, \psi) = c_0$, $c_{n} = (a^{'}, \p^{'}, \psi^{'})$, and $(A_i, \Phi_i) \in {\CM}_{Y \x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i)$ for $0 \leq i \leq n$.
We say that the sequence $\{(A_{\a}, \Phi_{\a})\} \in {\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}
((a, \p, \psi), (a^{'}, \p^{'}, \psi^{'}))$ is [*(weakly) convergent*]{} to the chain solution $((A_1, \Phi_1), ... , (A_n, \Phi_n))$ if there is a sequence of n-tuples of real numbers $\{t_{\a, 1} \leq \dots \leq
t_{\a,n}\}_\a$, such that $t_{\a,i}-t_{\a,i-1}\to\infty$ as $\a \to\infty$, and if, for each $i$, the translates $t_{\a,i}^*(A_{\a}, \Phi_{\a}) = (A_{\a}(\circ-t_{\a,i}),
\Phi_{\a}(\circ-t_{\a,i}))$ converge weakly to $(A_i, \Phi_i)$.
\[ufcom\] Let $\{(A_{\a}, \Phi_{\a})\} \in
{\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}((a, \p, \psi), (a^{'}, \p^{'}, \psi^{'}))$ be a sequence of Seiberg-Witten solutions with uniformly bounded action over $Y\x {\R}$. Then there exists a subsequence converging to a chain solution $((A_1, \Phi_1), ... , (A_n, \Phi_n))$ such that $$\mbox{Ind} D_{A_{\a}, \Phi_{\a}} = \sum_{i=1}^n
\mbox{Ind} D_{A_i, \Phi_i} = \sum_{i=1}^n (\mu_{\e}(c_i) - \mu_{\e}(c_{i-1})).$$
[**Proof:**]{} It follows from the same proof as in [@fl] §3 and [@km], and the compactness of Seiberg-Witten moduli space on 4-dimensional manifolds.
\[1c1\] The compactification of ${\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_0, c_{n+1})$ with only chain solutions can be described as $$\ov{{\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_0, c_{n+1})} =
\cup (\x_{i=1}^{n+1} {\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i)),$$ the union over all sequence $c_0, c_1, \cdots,
c_{n+1} \in {\CR}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)$ such that ${\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i)$ is nonempty for all $1 \leq i \leq n+1$.
For any sequence $c_0, c_1, \cdots, c_{n+1} \in {\CR}_{SW}^*(Y, \e)$, there is a gluing map $$G: \x_{i=1}^{n+1} {\hM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i) \x
\D^{n+1} \to \ov{{\CM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_0, c_{n+1})},$$ where $\D^{n+1}=\{(\lam_0, \cdots, \lam_n) \in [-\infty, \infty]^{n+1}:
1+\lam_{i-1} < \lam_i, 1 \leq i \leq n\}$.
1. The image of $G$ is a neighborhood of $\x_{i=1}^{n+1} {\hM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i)$ in the compactification with chain solutions.
2. The restriction of $G$ to $\x_{i=1}^{n+1} {\hM}_{Y\x {\R}}(c_{i-1}, c_i) \x \mbox{Int}\,
(\D^{n+1})$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism onto its image.
[Proof:]{} Since there is no bubbling in the Seiberg-Witten moduli space, the map $G$ is the well-known transitivity in finite-dimensional Morse-Smale theory.
Let ${\CR}^n_{SW}(Y, \e)$ be the set of irreducible zeros $(a, \p, \psi)$ of $f_{\e}$ whose relative index $\mu_{\e} (a, \p, \psi) -
\mu_{\e} (\T) = n$. The [**monopole chain group**]{} $MC_n(Y, \e)$ is defined to be the free Abelian group generated by ${\CR}^n_{SW}(Y, \e)$, where the admissible perturbation $\e$ specifies the spectral flow $\mu_{\e}(\T)$. We write $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ to be the integer $\mu_{\e}(\T) - \mu_{\e_0}(\T)$ with respect to a reference $\e_0 \in {\CP}_Y$. Hence $\mu_{\e}(\T)$ is fixed with the fixation of $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$. Define the boundary operator $\partial : MC_n(Y, \e) \to
MC_{n-1}(Y, \e)$: $$\partial(a, \phi, \psi) = \sum_{(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'}) \in
MC_{n-1}(Y, \e)}
\# \hat{{\cal
M}}^1_{SW, Y \x {\R}}((a, \phi, \psi), (a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'})) \cdot
(a^{'}, \phi^{'}, \psi^{'}).$$
Let $\partial : MC_n(Y, \e) \to MC_{n-1}(Y, \e)$ be defined as above. Then $\partial \circ \partial = 0$. \[5.2\]
[**Proof:**]{} The proof follows the same argument as in ([@fl], Theorem 2) except that we have to rule out the possibility of reducible connections entering into the picture. Note that $$\partial^2(c_0) = \sum_{c_1 \in
{\CR}_{SW}^{n-1}(Y, \e)} \sum_{c_2
\in {\CR}_{SW}^{n-2}(Y, \e)}\# \hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}(c_0, c_1)
\cdot \# \hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}(c_1, c_2) c_2,$$ where $c_i = (a_i, \p_i, \psi_i) \in {\CR}^*_{SW}(Y, \e) (i=0, 1, 2)$. Consider in this sum all the terms associated to a fixed $c_2 \in {\CR}_{SW}^{n-2}(Y, \e)$. For the pair $(c_0, c_2)$, there is the 2-dimensional moduli space ${\CM}^2_{Y \x {\R}}
(c_0, c_2)$. By Proposition \[1c1\], the ends of $\hat{{\CM}}^2_{Y \x {\R}}(c_0, c_2)$ consists of all the components $\hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}(c_0, c_1)
\x \hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}(c_1, c_2)$ with $c_1 \in {\CR}_{SW}^{n-1}(Y, \e)$. It is impossible for $c_1$ to be the $U(1)$-reducible zero of $f_{\e}$ because the isotropy subgroup $\Gamma_{c_1}$ would add to the gluing parameter and as a result would contradict the dimension count by Proposition \[sfi\] and Proposition \[1pf\]. Thus $$\sum_{c_1 \in {\CR}_{SW}^{n-1}(Y, \e)}\# \hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}
(c_0, c_1) \cdot \# \hat{{\CM}}^1_{Y \x {\R}}(c_1, c_2) =
\partial \hat{{\CM}}^2_{Y \x {\R}}(c_0, c_2) = 0.$$
As a consequence of Proposition \[5.2\], for a given integral homology 3-sphere $Y$ and an admissible data $\e \in {\CP}_Y$, we have a well-defined definition of a [**Monopole Homology**]{} $$MH_*(Y; \e) = \ker \partial_* / \mbox{Im} \partial_{*+1}, \ \ \ \
* \in {\Z}.$$
Now the monopole homology $MH_*(Y; \e)$ is sensitive to the number $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$, and $MH_*(Y; \e)$ is not a topological invariant since its Euler characteristic $\# {\CR}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)$ is metric-dependent.
Homomorphisms induced by cobordisms
===================================
From the troublesome path of metrics in $\Si_Y$ of creating/destroying harmonic spinors (see [@hi]), the invariance of the monopole homology of integral homology 3-spheres is in question. The cobordism argument used in [@fl] does not apply here. We have to construct a different cobordism between metrics and admissible perturbations with the fixed spectral flow $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)
= \mu_{\e} (\T) - \mu_{\e_0}(\T)$. In this section, we show that our monopole homology is independent of metrics and of admissible perturbations within the class $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
Let $X$ be an oriented 4-manifold with two cylindrical ends $Y_1 \times {\bf
R}_+$ and $Y_2 \times {\bf R}_-$, where $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are integral homology 3-spheres. Let $\tau : X \to [0, \infty )$ be a smooth cutoff function such that $\tau(x) = 0$ for $x$ lying outside of $Y_1 \times {\bf
R}_+ \cup Y_2 \times {\bf R}_-$ and $\tau (y,t) = | t|$ for $(y,t) \in Y_1
\times {\bf R}_+ \cup Y_2 \times {\bf R}_-$ and $|t| > t_0 > 0$ and $e_{\delta } = e^{\delta \tau (x)}$. Then using the cutoff function $\tau $ and a background connection we can extend $\frac{d}{dt} + \alpha , \frac{d}{dt} +
\beta $ to a connection $\nabla_0$ on $X$ such that $$\nabla_0|_{Y_1 \times [t_0 , \infty)} = \frac{d}{dt} +\alpha , \ \ \
\nabla_0|_{Y_2\times (- \infty, - t_0]} =\frac{d}{dt} +
\beta .$$ Similarly, we can extend sections on $W_X^{\pm}$. The Fréchet space $\Omega^1_{\mbox{comp}}(X, AdP)\op
\G_{\mbox{comp}}(W_X^{\pm})$ of compact supported $C^{\infty }$-sections on $(T^*X \otimes AdP)\op \G (W_X^{\pm})$ can be completed to a Banach space $${\cal A}^p_{k, \delta} (X) = (\nabla_0, 0) + L^p_{k, \delta }
(\Omega^1(X, AdP)\op \G (W_X^{\pm})),$$ where $\|c\|_{L^p_{k, \delta }} = \|e_{\delta } \cdot c \|_{
L^p_k}$ for $c \in \Omega^1_{\mbox{comp}}(X, AdP)\op \G_{\mbox{comp}}(W_X^{\pm})$. The gauge group ${\cal G}^p_{k+1, \delta}$ is given by $L^p_{k+1, \delta}$-norm of $\mbox{Aut}(\det W_X^{\pm})$. So the quotient space is ${\cal B}^p_{k, \delta }(X) = {\cal A}^p_{k, \delta} (X)/
{\cal G}^p_{k+1, \delta}$. The perturbation data $\e_1 = (g_{Y_1}, \a_1)$ and $\e_2 = (g_{Y_2}, \a_2)$ at the ends provide the gradient vector fields $f_{\e_1}$ and $f_{\e_2}$ so that the zeros of $f_{\e_1}$ on $Y_1$ and of $f_{\e_2}$ on $Y_2$ are generic. Clearly these perturbation data $\e_1$ and $\e_2$ can be pulled back to the cylindrical ends $Y_1 \times {\bf R}_+$ and $Y_2 \times {\bf R}_-$, and produce perturbations on the time-invariant monopole equation on ${\cal B}^p_{k, \delta}(Y_1
\times {\bf R}_+ )$ and ${\cal B}^p_{k, \delta}(Y_2 \times {\bf R}_-)$ (same $\delta $ as before). According to ([@fl] (1c.2) and [@km; @tau; @wi]), there exists a Baire’s first category subset in the space ${\cal M}et(X) \times \Pi_X$ of Riemannian metrics $g_X$ and perturbation data $\a_X$ such that ${\cal M}_{\e_X}(c, c^{'})$ ($\e_X = (g_X, \a_X)$) is a smooth manifold with $$\label{1dim}
\mbox{dim} {\cal M}_{\e_X}(c, c^{'}) =\mu_{\e_1} (c) - \mu_{\e_2} (c^{'})
+ \frac{1}{2}(2 \c + 3\s)(X).$$ In addition, ${\cal M}_{\e_X}(c, c^{'})$ is oriented with an orientation specified by the orientations on $H^1(X, \bf R)$ and $H^0(X, {\bf R}) \oplus H^2_+(X, \bf R)$ (see [@don; @km; @tau; @wi]).
Define a homomorphism $\Psi_* = \Psi_*(X; \e_X): MC_*(Y_1;
\e_1) \to MC_*(Y_2; \e_2)$ of the monopole chain complexes by the formula $$\Psi_*(c) = \sum_{c^{'} \in {\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y_2, \e_2)}
\# {\cal M}^0_{\e_X} (c, c^{'}) \cdot c^{'}, \ \ \ \
c \in {\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y_1, \e_1),$$ where ${\cal M}^0_{\e_X} (c, c^{'})$ is the $0$-dimensional oriented moduli space connecting $c$ to $c^{'}$ on $X$ and $\mu_{\e_1}(c) -
\mu_{\e_2}(c^{'}) = - \frac{1}{2}(2 \c + 3\s)(X)$.
\[corb\] Given a cobordism $X$ and perturbation data $\e_X
\in {\cal M}et(X) \times \Pi_X$ as before, the homomorphism $\Psi_*$ is a chain map shifting the degree by $\frac{1}{2}(2 \c + 3\s)(X)$. Furthermore the induced homomorphism $$\Psi_* = \Psi_* (X; \e_X): MH_*(Y_1;
\e_1) \to MH_*(Y_2; \e_2)$$ on the monopole homologies depends only on the cobordism $X$.
[**Proof:**]{} It follows the same argument as in [@fl] Theorem 3 and [@ll] §5.
We show below that $\Psi_*(X; \e_X)$ is functorial with respect to the composite cobordism. Given two cobordisms $(U; \e_U)$ connecting $Y_1$ to $Y_2$ and $(V; \e_V)$ connecting $Y_2$ to $Y_3$ so that $\e_U$ and $\e_V$ agree on $Y_2$, we can form the composite cobordism $(W; \e_W)$ connecting $Y_1$ to $Y_3$. Then $$\label{compo}
\Psi_*(W; \e_W) = \Psi_*(V; \e_V) \circ
\Psi_*(U; \e_U).$$ A different strategy from Floer’s has to be taken to prove that $MH_*(Y,
\e)$ is independent of admissible perturbations $\e = (g_Y, \a)$ within the class of $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$. We consider the time-dependent perturbations of the Seiberg-Witten equation and its associated moduli space. Given two admissible perturbation data of generic metrics $g^{-1}_Y$ and $g_Y^1$ and 1-forms $\a_{-1}$ and $\a_1$ with $I_{\e_{-1}}(\T; \e_0) = I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0)$ (here $\e_t = (g_Y^t, \a_t)$), there is an one-parameter family of admissible perturbations $\Lambda =
\{\e_t = (g_Y^t, \a_t)| - \infty \leq t \leq \infty\}$ joining them. Assume that the pair $\e_t = (g_Y^{-1}, \a_{-1})$ for $t \leq -1$ and $\e_t = (g_Y^1, \a_1)$ for $t \geq 1$. On the cylinder $Y \times \bf R$, we consider the perturbed Seiberg-Witten equation $$\label{ASDp}
\frac{\bd \psi}{\bd t} + \bd_{a_t}^{\nabla_{g_Y^t}+\a_t} \psi = 0, \ \ \
\frac{\partial a_t}{\partial t} + *_{g_Y^t} F(a_t) + \a_t =
i\tau_{g_Y^t}(\psi, \psi).$$ Given $c \in {\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y, \e_{-1})$ and $c^{'} \in {\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y, \e_1)$, we denote by ${\cal M}_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'})$ the subspace in ${\cal
B}^p_{k,\delta }(c, c^{'})$ consisting of solutions of (\[ASDp\]). Then there exists a homomorphism $$\Psi_{\Lambda }: MC_n (Y; \e_{-1}) \to MC_n (Y; \e_1)$$ of the monopole chain complexes defined by $$\Psi_{\Lambda }(c) = \sum_{c^{'} \in {\cal R}^n_{SW}(Y, \e_1)} \# {\cal
M}_{\Lambda }^0(c, c^{'}) \cdot c^{'}, \ \ \ \ c \in {\cal
R}^n_{SW}(Y, \e_{-1}).$$
\[6.5\] Let $\Lambda =
\{\e_t = (g_Y^t, \a_t)| t \in {\bf R}\}$ be an family of admissible perturbations as defined above such that $Ind D_{\e_t}(\T) = 0$. Then
1. If $\Lambda $ is a constant family of admissible perturbations ($g_Y^t = g_Y, \a_t = \a$), then $\Psi_{\Lambda } = id$.
2. $\Psi_{\Lambda }$ is a chain map: $\partial \Psi_{\Lambda } =
\Psi_{\Lambda }\partial $.
3. Given two families $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda^{'}$ of admissible perturbations joining $(g_Y^{-1}, \a_{-1})$ to $(g_Y^0, \a_0)$ and from $(g_Y^0, \a_0)$ to $(g_Y^1, \a_1)$, we have $\Psi_{\Lambda \circ \Lambda^{'}} =
\Psi_{\Lambda } \circ \Psi_{\Lambda^{'}}.$
4. If a family $\Lambda_0$ of admissible perturbations connecting $(g_Y^{-1}, \a_{-1})$ and $(g_Y^1, \a_1)$ can be deformed into another $\Lambda_1$ by admissible families $\Lambda_{\lambda} (0\leq \lambda \leq
1)$, then the two monopole chain maps $\Psi_{\Lambda_0}$ and $\Psi_{\Lambda_1}$ are chain homotopic to each other.
[**Proof:**]{} (1) If the perturbation is time independent $\e_t = (g_Y, \a)$, then ${\cal
M}_{\Lambda }^0(c, c^{'})$ is just the space ${\cal M}_{Y \x {\bf R}}^0
(c, c^{'})$. For the 0-dimensional component ${\cal
M}^0_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'})$, this means time-invariant solutions $c_t$ on $Y \x \bf R$, and we have $[c_t] = c = c^{'}$. Therefore $\#{\cal M}^0_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'}) =
\delta_{c c^{'}}$ and $\Psi_{\Lambda} = id$.
\(2) We consider the compactification of ${\cal
M}_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'})$ as developed in [@fu; @ll]. By Proposition \[1c1\] and [@km; @tau; @wi], ${\cal
M}_{\Lambda }(\alpha , \beta)$ can be compactified such that the codimension-one boundary consists of $$\cup_{c_{-1}} \hat{{\cal M}}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c, c_{-1}) \times_{c_{-1}}
{\cal M}_{\Lambda
}(c_{-1}, c^{'}) \coprod \cup_{c_1}{\cal M}_{\Lambda }(c, c_1)
\times_{c_1} \hat{{\cal M}}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c_1, c^{'}) .
\label{6.6}$$ Here $c_{\pm 1} \in {\cal R}_{SW}(Y, \e_{\pm 1})$ and ${\cal M}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c, c_{-1})$ is the moduli space of monopoles on $Y \times (- \infty , -1)$ with respect to the perturbation $\e_{-1}$ and $\hat{{\cal
M}}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c, c_{-1}) = {\cal M}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c, c_{-1})/{\bf R}$. Similarly $\hat{{\cal
M}}_{Y \x {\bf R}}(c_1, c^{'})$ is obtained from the perturbation data $\e_1$. Consider the 1-dimensional components ${\cal M}^1_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'})$ of ${\cal
M}_{\Lambda }(c, c^{'})$, whose boundary by (\[6.6\]) gives two types of oriented points counted as $\bd \Psi_{\Lambda } = \Psi_{\Lambda }\bd$. We can rule out the possibilities of the reducible $\T$ for $c_{\pm 1}$. If they occurred, then they would have an additional $U(1)$-symmetry on these moduli spaces. This is impossible by the dimension reasoning from Proposition \[sfi\], Proposition \[1pf\] and our hypothesis $I_{\e_{-1}}(\T; \e_0) = I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0)$ (see below also).
\(3) For a composite cobordism and its induced homomorphism, we study the moduli space ${\cal
M}_{\Lambda * \Lambda^{'}}(T; \alpha , \beta)$ of solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on $Y \x {\bf R}$ with respect to the following time-dependent admissible perturbation data $\Lambda *_T \Lambda^{'}$, where $$\Lambda *_T \Lambda^{'} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lc}
\e_{-1} = (g_Y^{-1}, \a_{-1}) & - \infty < t \leq -T -1\\
\Lambda = (g_Y^{t+T}, \a_{t+T}) & -T -1 \leq t \leq -T\\
\e_0 & -T \leq t \leq T\\
\Lambda^{'} = (g_Y^{t-T}, \a_{t-T})& T \leq t \leq T+1\\
\e_1 & T+1 \leq t < + \infty.
\end{array} \right.$$ Let $T$ be sufficiently large. Thus ${\cal M}_{\Lambda * \Lambda^{'}}(T; c, c^{'})
(T \geq T_0)$ is approximated by the union $$\cup_{c_0} \overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda }(c, c_0)
\times_{c_0}\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda^{'}}(c_0, c^{'}).
\label{6.7}$$ where $\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda }(c, c_0)={\cal M}_{\Lambda
}(c, c_0)/(\Gamma_c \x \Gamma_{c_0})$. Note that the 0-dimensional components in $\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda }(c, c_0)
\times_{c_0}\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda^{'}}(c_0, c^{'})$ correspond to the $c^{'}$-coefficients in $$\Psi_{\Lambda^{'}} \circ \Psi_{\Lambda }(c) = \sum_{c_0} \#
\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda }^0(c, c_0)
\cdot \#\overline{{\cal M}}^0_{\Lambda^{'}}(c_0, c^{'}) \cdot c^{'}.$$ On the other hand, as $T \to 0$, the 0-dimensional component of the moduli space ${\cal M}_{\Lambda *
\Lambda^{'}}(T; c, c^{'})$ gives the $c^{'}$-coefficients in $\Psi_{\Lambda * \Lambda^{'}} (c) = \sum
{\cal M}^0_{\Lambda * \Lambda^{'}}(c, c^{'})\cdot c^{'} $. Because $\cup_{0\leq T \leq T_0} {\cal M}^0_{\Lambda *
\Lambda^{'}}(T; c, c^{'})$ is the cobordism between ${\cal M}^0_{\Lambda *\Lambda^{'}}(0; c, c^{'})$ and ${\cal
M}^0_{\Lambda *\Lambda^{'}}(T_0; c, c^{'})$, so the assertion (3) follows by ruling out the reducible $\T$. Note that $$\mbox{dim}\overline{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda} (c, c_0) =
\mu_{\e_{-1}}(c) -
\lim_{\e_t \in {\Lambda }, \e_t \to \e_0} \mu_{\e_t}(c_0)
- \mbox{dim}\Gamma_{c_0};$$ $$\label{dim}
\mbox{dim}\overline{{\cal
M}}_{\Lambda^{'}} (c_0, c^{'}) =
\lim_{\e_t \in {\Lambda^{'}}, \e_t \to \e_0}
\mu_{\e_t }(c_0) - \mu_{\e_1}(c^{'}).$$ By Proposition \[sfi\] and Proposition \[1pf\], we obtain $$\lim_{\e_t \in {\Lambda }, \e_t \to \e_0} \mu_{\e_t}(c_0) =
\lim_{\e_t \in {\Lambda^{'}}, \e_t \to \e_0}
\mu_{\e_t}(c_0) = \mu (c_0).$$ So it satisfies the equations $\mu_{\e_{-1}}(c) -
\mu (c_0) = 1$ ($c_0 = \T$) and $\mu (c_0) -
\mu_{\e_1}(c^{'}) = 0$. This is impossible because of $\mu_{\e_{-1}}
(c) = \mu_{\e_1}(c^{'})$. [*If these spectral flows $I_{\e_{\pm 1}}(\T; \e_0)$ are not fixed to be same, then the above argument becomes invalid.* ]{}
\(4) Let $\Lambda_i (i=0, 1)$ be a family of time-independent admissible perturbations which connect up $\e_{-1}$ and $\e_1$. Suppose that $\Lambda_0$ and $\Lambda_1$ can be smoothly deformed from one to another by a 1-parameter family $\Lambda_s= \{\e_t^s = (g_Y^{s,t}, \a^s_t) , 0\leq s\leq 1, \ -1\leq t \leq 1\}$ of the same type of admissible perturbations. Set $\Lambda_s =
\Lambda_0$ for $0 \leq s \leq \frac{1}{4}$ and $\Lambda_s = \Lambda_1$ for $\frac{3}{4} \leq s \leq 1$. Associated to this situation, there is a 1-parameter family of moduli spaces denoted by ${\cal H}\tilde{{\cal M}}(c, c^{'})
= \cup_{0\leq s \leq 1}\tilde{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c, c^{'})$, $${\cal H}\tilde{{\cal M}}(c, c^{'}) = \{(\Phi, s) | \Phi \in
\tilde{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c, c^{'}), 0\leq s \leq 1 \} \subset
{\cal B}_{k, \d}^p(c, c^{'}) \times [0,1],$$ where ${\cal H}\tilde{{\cal M}}$ is the set of regular solutions of Seiberg-Witten equation with respect to $\e_t^s$, and is a smooth manifold with dimension $\mu_{\e_{-1}}(c) -
\mu_{\e_{1}}(c^{'}) +1$. The codimension-one boundary consists of $${\cal M}_{\Lambda_1}(c, c^{'}) \times \{0\} \coprod
{\cal M}_{\Lambda_0}(c, c^{'}) \times \{1\},$$ $$\cup_{(s, c_0)}\tilde{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c, c_0)
\times {\cal M}_{\e_1}(c_0, c^{'}) \coprod
\cup_{(s, \gamma )}{{\cal
M}}_{\e_{-1}}(c, c_0)
\times \tilde{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c_0, c^{'}) .$$ Since $\tilde{{\cal M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c, c_0)$ and $\tilde{{\cal
M}}_{\Lambda_s}(c_0, c^{'})$ are solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation with virtual dimension $-1$, they can only occur for $0<s<1$. The homomorphism $H: MC_*(Y; \e_{-1})
\to MC_*(Y; \e_1)$ of degree $+1$ is defined by $$H(c) = \sum_{c_0} \sum_s \# \tilde{{\cal
M}}^0_{\Lambda_s}(c, c_0)\cdot c_0, \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ \
c \in {\cal R}^n_{SW}(Y, \e_{-1}), c_0 \in {\cal R}^{n+1}_{SW}(Y, \e_1).$$ That $c_0$ is reducible is eliminated by the extra $U(1)$-symmetries in ${\cal M}_{\e_1}(c_0, c^{'})$ and ${\cal M}_{\e_{-1}}(c, c_0)$ and $I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0) = I_{\e_{-1}}(\T; \e_0)$. Summing up $c^{'} \in {\cal R}^n_{SW}(Y, \e_1)$, we have $$\Psi_{\Lambda_0} (c) - \Psi_{\Lambda_1}(c) = H\circ
\partial_{\e_{-1}}(c) + \partial_{\e_1} \circ H(c).$$ Therefore $\Psi_{\Lambda_0}$ and $\Psi_{\Lambda_1}$ are monopole chain homotopic to each other.
Thus the monopole homology groups $MH_*(Y; \e^{\pm 1})$ associated to two admissible perturbation data are canonically isomorphic to each other whenever $I_{\e^1}(\T; \e_0) =
I_{\e^{-1}}(\T; \e_0)$ for the unique $U(1)$-reducible $\Theta$ on $Y$. Thus it is more appropriate to denote $MH_*(Y; \e)$ by $MH_*(Y; I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$. For an integral homology 3-sphere $Y$, the monopole homology can be extended to a function $$MH_{SWF}: \{I_{\e}(\T; \e_0): \e \in
{\CP}_Y\} \to \{MH_*(Y, I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)): \e \in {\CP}_Y\}.$$ (Changing a reference $\e_0$ corresponds to the same homology groups with grading $I_{\e_0^{'}}(\T; \e_0)$-shift) This function $MH_{SWF}$ is a topological invariant of the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$, up to the degree-shifting of monopole homologies. Hence such a function $MH_{SWF}$ may be called a Seiberg-Witten-Floer theory, which is completely different from the instanton Floer homology, but more related to the treatment in [@ll].
Relative Seiberg-Witten invariants
==================================
The Seiberg-Witten invariant (see [@don; @tau; @wi]) has proved so useful and at least powerful as the Donaldson invariant in many cases, and is much easier to compute. In this section we are going to extend the Seiberg-Witten invariant to the relative one on smooth 4-manifolds with boundary integral homology 3-spheres. The “relative Seiberg-Witten invariants” is no longer a topological invariant since it lies in a monopole homology depending upon Riemannian metrics of integral homology 3-spheres. But the natural pairing between “relative Seiberg-Witten invariants” does recover the Seiberg-Witten invariant of closed smooth 4-manifolds.
Let $X$ be a smooth 4-manifold with $b_1(X) > 0$ and boundary $Y$ (an integral homology 3-sphere). The collar of $X$ can be identified with $Y \times [-1,1]$, and the admissible perturbation data on $Y$ can be extended inside $X$ as we did in §7. Fixing $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ should be understood though this section.
For a smooth 4-manifold $X$ with boundary $Y$ (an integral homology 3-sphere), the 0-degree relative Seiberg-Witten invariant is defined by $$q_{X,Y, \e} = \sum_{c \in {\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)} \# {\cal M}^0_X(c)\cdot
c,$$ where ${\cal R}^*_{SW}(Y, \e)$ is the set of all nondegenerate zeros of $f_{\e}$ with prescribed $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
\[relative\]
By the index calculation and our convention $\mu_{\e}(c) =
SF(c, \T)$, we have $$\mbox{dim}{\cal M}_X^0(c) + \mu_{\e}(c) = \mbox{dim} {\cal M}_X(\T) =
\frac{1}{4}(c_1(\pi^*(L))^2 - (2 \c+ 3\s))(X) =
- \frac{1}{4}(2 \c+ 3\s)(X),$$ since $c_1(L) =0$ for the integral homology 3-sphere $Y$. Thus $q_{X,Y, \e}$ is in the monopole chain group with grading $- \frac{1}{4}(2 \c+ 3\s)(X)$.
\[cycle\] For $q_{X,Y, \e} \in MC_{\mu_X}(Y, \e)$ with $\mu_X = - \frac{1}{4}(2 \c+ 3\s)(X)$ and a fixed class $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$, we have $\bd_Y \circ q_{X,Y, \e} = 0$.
[**Proof:**]{} $$\partial_Y \circ q_{X,Y, \e}(c) = \sum_{c \in
{\cal R}^{\mu}_{SW}(Y, \e)}
\sum_{c^{'} \in {\cal R}^{\mu -1}_{SW}(Y, \e)} \# {\cal
M}_X^0(c) \cdot \# \hat{{\cal M}}^1_{Y \times {\bf R}}(c, c^{'})
\cdot c^{'}.$$ For both $c$ and $c^{'}$ irreducible (nondegenerate) zeros of $f_{\e}$, we take one-dimensional moduli space ${\cal M}^1_X(c^{'})$ for fixed $c^{'}$. Then we count the ends of the moduli space to conclude the result. Again it is a technical point to avoid the reducible $\T$ entering the boundary ${\cal M}_X(\T) \times
{\cal M}_{Y \times {\bf R}}(\T, c^{'})$. For the reducible $\T$, we have the dimension counting $$\mbox{dim} \{{\cal M}_X(\T) \x {\cal M}_{Y \times {\bf
R}}(\T, c^{'})\} = \mbox{dim} {\cal M}_X(\T) + \mbox{dim}\G_{\T} +
\mbox{dim}{\cal M}_{Y \times {\bf R}}(\T, c^{'}) \geq 0+1+1 = 2.$$ So $c$ cannot be the reducible $\T$, and $\partial_Y \circ q_{X,Y, \e} = 0$. Hence $q_{X,Y, \e}$ is indeed a monopole cycle.
Let $q_{X,Y, \e}(g_X)$ be the relative Seiberg-Witten invariant with respect to the metric $g_X$. Now we show that the monopole homology class $[q_{X,Y, \e}(g_X)]$ defined by Proposition \[cycle\] is independent of metrics $g_X$ with $g_X|_Y$ in the fixed class of $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
\[metri\] Let $g_X^i (i = 1, 2)$ be two generic metrics on $X$ with induced metric $g_Y^i$ generic such that $I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0) = I_{\e_2}(\T; \e_0)$ and $\e_i = (g_Y^i, \a_i)$. Then there exist $c^{'} \in MC_{\mu_X + 1}$ with $\mu_X = - \frac{1}{4}(2 \c+ 3\s)(X)$ such that we have $$q_{X,Y, \e_2}(g_X^2) - q_{X,Y, \e_1}(g_X^1) = \partial (c^{'}).$$ In particular, $[q_{X,Y,\e_2}(g_X^2)] = [q_{X,Y, \e_1}(g_X^1)]$ as the monopole homology class in $MH_{\mu_X}(Y, I_{\e_i}(\T; \e_0))$.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $\{g_X^{t+1}\}_{0 \leq t \leq 1}$ be a family of metrics on $X$ such that $I_{\e_{t+1}}(\T; \e_0)$ is independent of $t$ with $\e_{t+1} = (g_X^{t+1}|_Y, \a_{t+1})$ and ${\cal M}_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)$ has virtual dimension 0 with respect to $c$ irreducible. Therefore $\{{\cal M}_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)\}_{0 \leq t \leq 1}$ is an one-dimensional moduli space of Seiberg-Witten solutions on $X$. The corresponding codimension-one boundary in $[0,1]
\times {\cal B}_X(g_X^{t+1})(c)$ is given by $$\partial (\{{\cal M}_X^0(g_X^{t+1})(c)\}_{0 \leq t \leq 1})=$$ $$\{0\} \times {\cal M}_X^0(g_X^1)(c) \coprod - \{1\} \times {\cal
M}_X^0(g_X^2)(c) \coprod \partial( \sum_{\mu_{\e_{t+1}}(c) -
\mu_{\e_{t+1}}(c^{'}) = - 1}
\# ([0,1] \x {\cal M}^{-1}_X(g_X^{t+1})(c^{'}))).$$ The number $\langle \partial_Y c^{'}, c \rangle$ is the algebraic number of $([0,1] \times {\cal M}^{-1}_X(g_X^{t+1})(c^{'}))$. The $c^{'}$ cannot be the reducible $\T$ by the fixed $I_{\e_1}(\T; \e_0)$ with the same argument as before. So $$q_{X,Y,\e_2}(g_X^2)(c) - q_{X,Y,\e_1}(g_X^1)(c) = \langle \partial_Y c^{'},
c \rangle.$$ Hence $q_{X,Y,\e_i}(g_X^i) (i= 1, 2)$ (as a monopole cycle) gives the same monopole homology class.
Note that orientation reversing from $Y$ to $-Y$ changes the grading from $\mu_{\e}(c)$ to $-1 - \mu_{\e}(c)$ (certainly does not change the solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equation on the 3-manifold), so there is a nature identification between $MC_{\mu_{\e}}(Y, \e)$ and $CF_{-1- \mu_{\e}}(-Y, \e)$.
\[invariant\] For a smooth 4-manifold $X =X_0 \#_Y X_1$ with $b_2^+(X_i) > 0 (i = 0, 1)$ and $Y$ an integral homology 3-sphere, the Seiberg-Witten invariant of the 4-manifold $X$ is given by the Kronecker pairing of $MH_*(Y; I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ with $MH_{-1-*}(-Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0))$ for $q_{X_0,Y, \e}$ and $q_{X_1,- Y, \e}$; $$\langle , \rangle :
MH_*(Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)) \x MH_{-1-*}(-Y;I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)) \to {\bf Z};
\ \ \ q_{SW}(X) =
\langle q_{X_0,Y, \e}, q_{X_1,-Y, \e}\rangle.$$ More precisely, $q_{SW}(X_0 \#_Y X_1) = \sum_{c}\# {\cal M}_{X_0,Y, \e}^0(c) \cdot \# {\cal
M}_{X_1, -Y}^0(- c)$, where $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$ is fixed. The invariant $q_{SW}(X)$ is independent of the choice of $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
[**Proof:**]{} If $Y$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature, then the proof is given in [@wi] with $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0) = 0$ the special case. The assumption implies that $b^+_2(X) > 1$. So we can rule out the existence of reducible solutions on $X$ by the standard method (see [@don; @km; @tau; @wi]). Note that $$\mbox{dim} {\cal M}_{X_0}(c) + \mbox{dim} {\cal M}_{X_1}(c) + \mbox{dim}
\G_{\T}
= \mbox{dim} {\cal M}_{X}.$$ By the dimension equation, we can eliminate the term $\# {\cal M}_{X_0,Y, \e}^0(c) \cdot
\# {\cal M}_{X_1, -Y, \e}^0(- c)$ with $c= \T$. Then the 0-dimensional moduli space on $X$ is obtained by gluing the solutions on $(X_0, Y)$ with ones on $(X_1, -Y)$. Using the standard technique on stretching the neck [@dk], one gets the equality $q_{SW}(X) = \langle q_{X_0,Y, \e}, q_{X_1,-Y, \e}\rangle$. Since $q_{SW}(X)$ is a topological invariant, so the pairing is independent of the choice of $I_{\e}(\T; \e_0)$.
For higher degree relative Seiberg-Witten invariants, one can obtain the similar results as in [@ll].
Computing the monopole homology is extremely complicated due to the Riemannian metric, harmonic spinor, spectral flow and solution of the first-order Dirac-type nonlinear differential equation. Even for the 3-sphere, a complete calculation of the function $MH_{SWF}$ is very difficult at this moment. Understand the harmonic spinors on $S^3$ with a subfamily of Riemannian metrics (metrics are $SU(2)$-left invariant and $U(1)$-right invariant) is already quite involved by the work of Hitchin [@hi]. On the other hand, Theorem \[invariant\] gives us a flexibility to understand the Seiberg-Witten invariant of closed smooth 4-manifolds through the relative ones with some preferred Riemannian metric(s) on the integral homology 3-sphere.
[**Remark:**]{} The method we developed in this paper also can be extended to rational homology 3-spheres with fixed spectral flows along all $U(1)$-reducible solutions of Seiberg-Witten equation on the rational homology 3-sphere (see [@ll] for more detail).
[**Acknowledgement**]{}: The author would like to thank R. Lee for many discussions in our joint paper [@ll] which is a root for this paper. Realizing the correction term by the spectral flow is initiated from [@clm; @ll]. It is a pleasure to thank Cappell, Lee and Miller whose work in [@clm] inspired the circle of ideas in this paper.
[99999]{}
S. Akbulut and J. McCarthy, [*Casson’s invariant for oriented homology 3-spheres, an exposition,*]{} Math. Notes, Vol [**36**]{}, Princeton University Press, 1990. N. Aronszajin, [*A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of the second order*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl., [**36**]{}(9), (1957), 235-249. M. Atiyah, V. Patodi, and I. Singer, [*Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry*]{} I, II, III, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. [**77**]{}(1975), 43-69, [**78**]{}(1975), 405-432, [**79**]{}(1976), 71-99. D. Auckly, [*The Thurston Norm and three-dimensional Seiberg-Witten Theory*]{}, Osaka J. Math., [**33**]{} (1996), 737-750. S. Cappell, R. Lee and E. Miller, [*Self adjoint elliptic operators and manifold decompositions, Part I, II, III*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., [**49**]{}, No. 8, 825-866(1996); No. 9, 869-909(1996); [**52**]{}, No. 5, 543-611(1999). S. Donaldson, [*The Seiberg-Witten Equations and 4-Manifolds Topology*]{}, Bull, AMS, Vol [**33**]{} (1996), No. 1, 45-70. S. Donaldson and P. Kronheimer, The Geometry of Four-Manifolds, Oxford Math. Mono, Oxford Science Publication (1990). R. Fintushel and R. Stern, [*Immersed spheres in 4-manifolds and the immersed Thom conjecture*]{}, Turkish J. Math., [**19**]{} (1995), No. 2, 145-157. A. Floer, [*An instanton invariant for 3-manifolds*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**118**]{} (1988), 215-240. D. Freed and K. Uhlenbeck, Instantons and four-manifolds., MSRI Publications, Vol. [**1**]{}., Springer, New York (1984). N. Hitchin, [*Harmonic Spinors*]{}, Advances in Math., [**14**]{} (1974, 1-55. P. Kronheimer and T. Mrowka, [*The genus of embedded surfaces in the projective plane*]{}, Math. Res. Letters [**1**]{} (1994), 797-808. R. Lee and W. Li, [*Floer homologies of rational homology 3-spheres*]{}, submitted. W. Li, [*Casson-Lin’s invariant and Floer homology*]{}, J. Knot Theory and its Ramification, Vol [**6**]{}, No. 6 (1997) 851-877. M. Marcolli, [*Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology and Heegaard splitting*]{}, Intern. Jour. of Maths., Vol [**7**]{}, No. 5 (1996) 671-696. G. Meng and C. Taubes, [*SW = Milnor torsion*]{}, Math. Res. Lett [**3**]{} (1996), 661-674. J. Morgan, Z. Szabo and C. Taubes, [*A product formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants and the generalized Thom conjecture*]{}, J. Diff. Geom., [**44**]{} (1996), No. 4, 706-788. T. Mrowka, P. Ozsvath and B. Yu, [*Seiberg-Witten monopoles on Seifert fibered spaces*]{}, Comm. Annl. Geom., [**5**]{} (4) (1997), 685-791. V. Pidstrigach and A. Tyurin, [*Invariants of the smooth structure on an algebraic surface arising from the Dirac operator*]{}, Russian Acad. Sci. Izv. Math. Vol [**40**]{} (1993), No. 2, 267-351. D. Ruberman, [*The minimal genus of an embedded surface of non-negative square in a rational surface*]{}, Turkish J. Math, [**20**]{} (1996), No. 1, 129-133. C. Taubes, [*The Seiberg-Witten invariants and symplectic forms*]{}, Math. Res. Letters [**1**]{} (1994), 809-822. C. Taubes, [*More constraints on symplectic forms from Seiberg-Witten equations*]{}, Math. Res. Letters [**2**]{} (1995), 9-14. C. Taubes, [*SW $\Longrightarrow$ Gr: From Seiberg-Witten equations to pseudo-holomorphic curves*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**9**]{} (1996) 845-918. C. Taubes, [*Gr $\Longrightarrow$ SW: From pseudo-holomorphic curves to Seiberg-Witten solutions*]{}, [**51**]{} (1999), 203-334. E. Witten, [*Topological Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**117**]{} (1988), 353-398. E. Witten, [*Monopoles and 4-manifolds*]{}, Math. Res. Letters [**1**]{} (1994), 769-796.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[[ The asymptotic phase $\theta$ of an initial [[ point]{}]{} $x$ in the stable manifold of a limit cycle identifies the phase of the point on the limit cycle to which the flow $\phi_t(x)$ converges as $t\to\infty$. The infinitesimal phase response curve (iPRC) quantifies the change in timing due to a small perturbation of a limit cycle trajectory. For a stable limit cycle in a smooth dynamical system the iPRC is the gradient $\nabla_x(\theta)$ of the phase function, which can be obtained *via* the adjoint of the variational equation. For systems with discontinuous dynamics, the standard approach to obtaining the iPRC fails.]{}]{} We derive a formula for the infinitesimal phase response curves (iPRCs) of limit cycles occurring in piecewise smooth [[ (Filipov)]{}]{} dynamical systems [[ of arbitrary dimension]{}]{}, subject to a transverse flow condition. Discontinuous jumps in the iPRC can occur at the boundaries separating subdomains[[ , and are captured by a linear matching condition. The matching matrix, $M$, [[ can be derived from the saltation matrix arising in the associated variational problem]{}]{}. For the special case of linear dynamics away from switching boundaries,]{}]{} we obtain an explicit expression for the iPRC. We present examples from cell biology (Glass networks) and neuroscience (central pattern generator models). We apply the iPRCs obtained to study synchronization and phase-locking in piecewise smooth limit cycle systems [[ in which synchronization arises solely due to the crossing of switching manifolds.]{}]{}'
author:
- 'Y.PARK$\,^{1,3}$, K.M.SHAW$\,^{2,4}$ H.J.CHIEL$\,^2$'
- 'P.J.THOMAS$\,^{1}$'
bibliography:
- 'Aplysia.bib'
- 'neuroscience.bib'
- 'math.bib'
- 'PJT.bib'
- 'physics.bib'
- 'reliability.bib'
title: The Infinitesimal Phase Response Curves of Oscillators in Piecewise Smooth Dynamical Systems
---
Mathematical biology, nonsmooth analysis, phase plane analysis, nonlinear oscillators
2010 *Mathematics Subject Classification* 92B99, 49J52, 70K05, 34C15
Introduction
============
Overview
--------
A stable limit cycle is a closed, isolated periodic orbit in a nonlinear dynamical system that attracts nearby trajectories [@Guckenheimer+Holmes1990]. Limit cycles arise in models of biological motor control systems [@Ijspeert:2008:NeuralNet; @KelsoHoltRubinKugler1981JMotorBehav], excitable membranes [@Ermentrout1996NeuralComput; @Izhikevich2007], sensory systems [@FruthJuelicherLindner2014BPJ], neuropathologies such as Parkinsonian tremor [@ModoloHenryBeuter2008JBiolPhys] and epilepsy [@SoFrancisNetoffGluckmanSchiff1998BPJ]. Chemical oscillations arise when the differential equations describing mass action kinetics admit a limit cycle [@FieldNoyes1974JChemPhys]. Limit cycle dynamics arise not only in biological but also in engineered systems. For instance, phase locked loops play a role in radio and electronic communications devices [@Stensby1997PLL_book], and control of oscillations is an important problem in mechanical and electrical engineering [@RohdenSorgeTimmeWitthaut2012PRL].
Formally, a nonlinear autonomous $n$-dimensional ordinary differential equation, $$\label{eq:ode}
\frac{d}{dt}{{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t) = {{\color{black}{\bm{F}}}}({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t)),$$ has a [[ stable]{}]{} $T$-periodic limit cycle if it admits a periodic solution ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ with minimal period $$\label{eq:limit-cycle}
{{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t) = {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t+T),\quad \forall t\in \mathbb{R},$$ and an open neighborhood of ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ (the basin of attraction, B.A.) within which all initial conditions give solutions converging, as $t \rightarrow \infty$, to the set $$\label{eq:big-gamma}
\Gamma = \{ {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(s) : s \in [0,T) \}.$$
In many situations the multidimensional dynamics of a stable limit cycle oscillator can be accurately captured in a one dimensional phase model, representing the fraction of progress around the limit cycle. The effect of weak inputs on the oscillator can be represented in terms of their effect on the timing of the limit cycle alone, the linear approximation to which is the *infinitesimal phase response curve* (iPRC). The iPRC has become a fundamental tool for understanding entrainment and synchronization phenomena in weakly driven and weakly coupled oscillator systems, respectively [@ErmentroutTerman2010book; @SchwemmerLewis2012PRCchapter]. The iPRC gives the relative shift in timing per unit stimulus, as a function of the phase at which the stimulus occurs, in the limit of small stimulus size (Figure \[fig:glass\_pert\]; [[ Appendix \[iprc\_derivation-appendix\]]{}]{}). [[ The iPRC $\bm{z}(t)$ is a vector quantity; it is equivalent to the gradient of the asymptotic phase function $\theta:\text{B.A.}\to[0,1)$ that maps each point in the basin of attraction to a point on the circle labeling the limit cycle trajectory to which it converges as $t\to\infty$. A displacement from the limit cycle by amount $\Delta\bm{y}$ at time $t\in[0,T)$ causes a shift in timing equal to $T\Delta\bm{y}\cdot \bm{z}(t) + o(|\Delta\bm{y}|)$, in the limit as $|\Delta\bm{y}|\to 0$.]{}]{}
The iPRC is known in closed form in a handful of special cases: near a supercritical Andronov-Hopf bifurcation [@Izhikevich2007], near a saddle-node-on-invariant-circle (SNIC) bifurcation [@BrownMoehlisHolmes2004NeComp], and for certain piecewise linear oscillator models [@Coombes:2008:SIADS; @CoombesThulWedgwood2012PhysD; @ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS]. The form of the iPRC near a homoclinic bifurcation is not known in general, cf. [@BrownMoehlisHolmes2004NeComp; @LinWedgwoodCoombesYoung2012JMathBiol; @ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS].
![Direct perturbation (red arrow) and phase response ($\Delta\theta$) for a limit cycle solution of a 2-D Glass network model. For a perturbation of size $\varepsilon$, we recover the iPRC value as $\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \Delta\theta/\varepsilon$. See Appendix \[iprc\_derivation-appendix\].[]{data-label="fig:glass_pert"}](glass_pert_displacement_fig.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
For general smooth nonlinear systems with limit cycle dynamics, one may obtain the iPRC numerically using an adjoint method [@IzhikevichErmentrout2008Scholarpedia] [[ or via continuation of a two-point boundary value problem [@OsingaMoehlis2010SIADS]]{}]{}. If oscillations arise from a dynamical system where ${{\color{black}{\bm{F}}}}:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a $C^1$ differentiable map, then the iPRC is a $T$-periodic vector function of time that obeys an adjoint equation $$d{{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}/dt=A(t){{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t),\quad A(t)=-\left(DF({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))\right)^\intercal$$ together with the boundary condition ${{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t)={{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t+T)$. The “adjoint operator" $A(t)$ is the transpose of the [[ minus the]{}]{} Jacobian matrix $DF$ evaluated at the limit cycle ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)$ [@ErmentroutTerman2010book; @Izhikevich2007].
[[ Both the adjoint equation method and the continuation-based method break down]{}]{} for nonsmooth systems, i.e. for systems such that the Jacobian $DF$ is not defined at all points around the limit cycle. [[ Such cases arise in piecewise smooth systems, where the vector field changes abruptly across some boundary $\Sigma$. The monograph [@BernardoBuddChampneysKowalczyk2008PiecewiseSmoothDynSysBook] classifies piecewise smooth systems according to the degree of smoothness at the boundaries. If across a boundary $\Sigma$, the vector fields $F_1,F_2$ are discontinuous ($F_1({\mathbf{x}}) \neq F_2({\mathbf{x}})$) at a point ${\mathbf{x}}\in \Sigma$, then the system is said to have degree of smoothness one, and are said to be of *Filipov* type (also called differential inclusions [@filipov1988]; the derivative of a solution passing through such a point may take a value in some well-defined set, rather than equalling a unique value). If the vector fields across the boundary satisfy $F_1({\mathbf{x}}) = F_2({\mathbf{x}})$, but differ in their Jacobians ($DF_1 \neq DF_2$) at ${\mathbf{x}}$, then the degree of smoothness is said to be 2. This definition generalizes to higher order derivatives in a natural way. Systems with smoothness degree two or higher are called *piecewise-smooth continuous systems* ([@BernardoBuddChampneysKowalczyk2008PiecewiseSmoothDynSysBook], p. 74). Finally, a system with a discontinuous solution at the boundary $\Sigma$ is said to have degree of smoothness zero. In this paper we consider systems with smoothness one or higher, i.e. we assume the solutions are continuous functions of time.]{}]{}
[[ If $F$ is either a Filipov system or piecewise smooth continuous system]{}]{}, the Jacobian linearization may break down at the boundaries separating the regions within which the vector field is smooth. The theory of isochrons, and the subsequent iPRC, is well developed for smooth systems [@Guckenheimer1975JMathBiol], with considerably less literature for iPRCs in nonsmooth differential equations. Infinitesimal PRCs have been computed explicitly in some planar systems [@Coombes:2008:SIADS; @ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS]. [[ Recent literature shows a significant interest in the analysis of iPRCs for piecewise smooth systems in both biological and control engineering contexts [@coombes2001phase; @CoombesThulWedgwood2012PhysD; @izhikevich2000phase; @shirasaka2017phase]. We compare these studies in detail in §\[ssec:related\_literature\].]{}]{}
Nonsmooth oscillator models arise in both biological and engineered systems. Examples include planar nonlinear integrate-and-fire neural models [@CoombesThulWedgwood2012PhysD], piecewise linear approximations to the Hindmarsch-Rose neural model [@poggi_etal_2009], and models of anti-lock braking systems [@morse_1997; @pettit_wellstead_1995]. Section §\[ssec:further\_applications\] mentions additional examples. Existence of oscillatory solutions in piecewise smooth systems is a question of interest in its own right [@filipov1988; @huan_etal_2012; @LlibrePonce2012DCDISSBAA; @morse_1997; @gaiko_van_horssen_2009].
In this paper we [[ derive]{}]{} a formula for the infinitesimal phase response curve of stable limit cycles that allows for discontinuities at the domain boundaries of piecewise smooth dynamical systems. In the case of piecewise *linear* systems, we obtain an explicit expression in terms of the system coefficients for each subdomain through which the limit cycle travels, and the tangent vectors of the surfaces separating the regions where the vector field definition changes (equation in §\[sec:theorem\]). To obtain these results we derive a jump condition satisfied by the iPRC at the boundaries between subdomains.
[[ **Overview of the paper:** In the next section §1.2 we develop a motivating one-dimensional example in detail. In §2 we calculate the form of the discontinuity in the infinitesimal phase response curve for a limit cycle in a piecewise smooth dynamical system in arbitrary dimensions. In the case of limit cycles arising in $n$-dimensional piecewise *linear* dynamical systems, we provide an explicit closed form for the iPRC. §2.1 lays out the assumptions needed to establish our results, and §2.2 presents the main Theorem (2.1) giving the correction to the iPRC upon crossing a switching boundary. §3 provides examples of iPRCs in nonsmooth systems: a piecewise linear genetic regulatory circuit model (Glass network) in §3.1, a planar piecewise linear oscillator introduced in a motor control context, but generalized here to a non-symmetric geometry in §3.2, a three-dimensional motor control model in §3.3, a six-dimensional threshold linear network model comprising two weakly coupled three-dimensional oscillators in §3.4.1, and in §3.4.2 a four-dimensional system comprising two diffusion-coupled planar limit cycle oscillators with piecewise constant velocities. In §4.1 we discuss the relation between our boundary-crossing correction matrix and the classical saltation matrix, in §4.2 we discuss the limitations of the method, and in §4.3 we discuss a range of possible further applications. Following our conclusion §5, the appendices detail the proofs and derivations of the results.]{}]{}
The main results reported here appeared previously in the Master’s thesis of the first author [@Park2013MSThesis].
A 1D example
------------
To illustrate the necessity of including a jump condition in the phase response for piecewise smooth systems, consider the following one-dimensional example [[ (see also [@coombes2001phase; @izhikevich2000phase])]{}]{}.
Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be smooth, strictly positive functions defined on the unit interval. Identify the interval with the circle and let $x\in[0,1)$ evolve according to $$\frac{dx}{dt}=\left\{\begin{array}{rr}f_1(x),&0\le x <a\\f_2(x),&a\le x <1,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $0<a<1$ marks the location at which the rate law for $x$ changes from $f_1$ to $f_2$. The rate law changes back to $f_1$ when $x$ wraps around from one to zero again. The period of this oscillator is $$T=\int_0^a\frac{dx}{f_1(x)}+\int_a^1\frac{dx}{f_2(x)}$$ We can define a phase variable $\phi(x)$ by the condition $d\phi/dt=1/T$, which gives the form $$\phi(x)-\phi(0)=\left\{\begin{array}{rr}
\frac1T\int_0^x\frac{{{\color{black} dx'}}}{f_1({{\color{black} x'}})},&0\le x \le a\\
\phi(a)+\frac1T\int_a^x\frac{{{\color{black} dx'}}}{f_2({{\color{black} x'}})},&a<x\le 1
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $\phi(0)$ is an arbitrary constant which we may set to zero, without loss of generality. The infinitesimal phase response curve $Z_x$ for this system describes the shift in timing of the oscillation upon making a small displacement in the $x$ coordinate, as a function of position. The iPRC is $$Z_x=\frac{d\phi}{dx}=\left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
Z_1\equiv(Tf_1(x))^{-1},&0\le x < a\\
Z_2\equiv(Tf_2(x))^{-1},&a<x\le 1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The iPRC has a finite jump discontinuity at the location $a$ where the rate law for $x$ changes, namely $$Z_2(a)-Z_1(a)=\frac1T\left( \frac1{f_2(a)}-\frac1{f_1(a)} \right).$$ [[ As a specific example, consider the rate laws $f_1(x)=1-2\alpha x$, $f_2(x)=1-2\alpha(x-1/2)$, parameterized by $\alpha<1$, with switching point $a=1/2$. For this example $T=\frac{1}{\alpha}\ln\left(\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right)$, $\phi(x)=\frac{-1}{2\ln (1-\alpha)}\ln\left(\frac1{1-2\alpha x}\right)$ for $0\le x \le 1/2$, and $\phi(x)=\frac12 -\frac{1}{2\ln (1-\alpha)}\ln\left(\frac1{1-2\alpha (x-1/2)}\right)$ for $1/2\le x < 1$. The phase response curves in the first and second intervals are $Z_1(t)=\frac\alpha{1-2\alpha x(t)}\left[\ln\frac1{1-\alpha}\right]^{-1}$ and $Z_2(t)=\frac\alpha{1-2\alpha (x(t)-1/2)}\left[\ln\frac1{1-\alpha}\right]^{-1}$, respectively. The phase $\phi(x)$ is continuous across the switch points $x=1/2$ and $x=0$. The jump in the infinitesimal phase response curve is $Z_2(T_a)-Z_1(T_a)=-\frac{\alpha^2}{1-\alpha}\left[ \ln\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right]^{-1}$; here $T_a=T/2$ is the time at which the trajectory reaches the switching point $a=1/2$. Figure \[fig:1d\_example\] illustrates this scenario for $\alpha=0.95$. ]{}]{}
Methods
=======
Definitions and Hypotheses Required to Solve the Adjoint Equation Over Differential Inclusions {#section:definitions-and-hypotheses}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We introduce notation needed to discuss infinitesimal phase response curves for differential inclusion systems. For a general treatment of Filipov systems see [@filipov1988].
*Limit cycles and asymptotic phase.* In a smooth system of the form , possessing a stable limit cycle ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$, we associate a phase $\theta \in [0,1)$ with points along the cycle such that $$\label{eq:phase}
d\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))/dt = 1/T,$$ where $T$ is the period of the limit cycle and $\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t_0)) = 0$ is chosen arbitrarily. To each point ${{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}_0$ in the basin of attraction (B.A.) we assign a phase $\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}_0)\in[0,1)$ such that the trajectory ${{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t)$ with initial condition ${{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(0)={{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}_0$ satisfies $$\label{eq:thetax0}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \| {{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t) - {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t + T\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}_0)) \| \rightarrow 0.$$ The isochrons are level curves of the phase function $\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}_0)$, and foliate the basin of attraction. For a stable limit cycle in a smooth dynamical system, the existence of the phase function is a well known consequence of results from invariant manifold theory [@Guckenheimer1975JMathBiol]. Intuitively, isochrons indicate which points in the basin of attraction eventually converge to the limit cycle solution having a particular phase.
*Filipov systems.* Let $D$ be a path connected subset of $ \mathbb{R}^n$. We say that an autonomous vector field $\bm{F}:D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is piecewise smooth on $D$ if there exist a finite number, $R$, of open sets $D_r$ such that the following hypotheses hold:
1. \[h1\]$D_r$ is nonempty, simply connected, and open for each $r$.
2. \[h2\]$D_i \cap D_j = \varnothing, \forall i \neq j$.
3. \[h3\]$D \subset \bigcup_{r=1}^R \bar{D}_r$.
4. \[h4\]There exist [[ $C^1$]{}]{}, bounded vector fields $\bm{F}_r: \bar{D}_r \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ such that for all $x$ in $D_r$, $\bm{F}_r(x)=\bm{F}(x)$.
Note that we require $\bm{F}_r=\bm{F}$ only on the interior of each open domain $D_r$, while we require that each $\bm{F}_r$ be smooth on the closure $\bar{D}_r$.
The corresponding dynamical system $$\label{eq:Filipovsystem}
\frac{d{{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}}{dt}=\bm{F}({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}})$$ is called a piecewise smooth dynamical system or a Filipov system [@filipov1988].
{width="6in"}
We further restrict our attention to Filipov systems satisfying the following assumptions:
1. \[a:limit\_cycle\] *The system has a stable $T$-periodic limit cycle that crosses each boundary transversely with nonzero speed.* Because the limit cycle could cross the same boundary multiple times, we introduce a separate label for each segment of the limit cycle lying between two boundary crossings (Figure \[fig:sections\]). Thus, we label each piecewise smooth portion of the limit cycle by a number $k=1,\ldots,K$ (see Eq. ). [[ The boundary between the $k^\text{th}$ and $(k+1)^\text{st}$ portions of the limit cycle is a surface (with boundary), denoted $\Sigma_{k+1}$]{}]{}. We denote the point at which the limit cycle crosses this boundary by ${\bm{p}}_{k+1} \in \Sigma_{k+1}$.
2. \[a:sigma\] *Each boundary is at least $C^1$ in an [[ open ball $B({\bm{p}}_{k+1},c)$, centered at ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ with radius $c$.]{}]{}* From this assumption it follows that at each crossing point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ there exists a tangent hyperplane spanned by $n-1$ orthonormal basis vectors, denoted ${\hat{\bm{w}}_{i}}^{k+1}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, and a unique normal vector ${\hat{\bm{n}}}_{k+1}$ [[ directed from region $k$ towards region $k+1$]{}]{}. Moreover, the vector fields $\bm{F}_{k}$ and $\bm{F}_{k+1}$ are assumed to satisfy a transverse crossing condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{F}_k({\bm{p}}_{k+1})\cdot{\hat{\bm{n}}}_{k+1}&>0\\
\bm{F}_{k+1}({\bm{p}}_{k+1})\cdot{\hat{\bm{n}}}_{k+1}&>0.
\end{aligned}$$
3. \[a:phase\]*[[ The limit cycle of system admits]{}]{} a phase function that can be extended to a continuous function $\theta:$B.A.$\to S^1$ from the basin of attraction to the circle $S^1\equiv [0,1],$ satisfying $$\frac{d}{dt}\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t))=\frac1T$$ along trajectories within the basin of attraction.*
4. \[a:isochron\] *The level sets of the phase function $\theta$ (the isochronal surfaces) form a continuous foliation of [[ an open neighborhood of the limit cycle.]{}]{}*
5. \[a:phase\_deriv\]*The phase function, $\theta$, is differentiable within the interior of each region for which it is defined.*
6. \[a:direct\_deriv\]*At each boundary crossing point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}\in\Sigma_{k+1}$, the directional derivative of the phase function is defined in the directions of each of the $n-1$ tangent vectors ${\hat{\bm{w}}_{i}}^{k+1}$.*
For smooth systems the iPRC ${{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t)=\nabla\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))$ may be found using an adjoint equation, $$\label{eq:adjoint}
\frac{d{{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t)}{dt} = A(t) {{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t),$$ where $A(t) = -DF^T({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))$, the negative transpose of the linearization of the vector field ${{\color{black}{\bm{F}}}}$ evaluated along the limit cycle ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$. To derive one considers an infinitesimal perturbation ${{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}}(t)={{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)+{{\color{black}{\bm{y}}}}(t)$ where $||{{\color{black}{\bm{y}}}}(t)||\ll 1$ and ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)$ is the limit cycle. As observed in [@BrownMoehlisHolmes2004NeComp], ${{\color{black}{\bm{y}}}}(t)\cdot {{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t)$ is independent of time; setting $$\label{eq:deriveadjoint}
\frac{d}{dt}\left({{\color{black}{\bm{y}}}}(t)\cdot {{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t)\right)=0$$ gives an operator equation leading to the adjoint. We note that holds for piecewise smooth systems *within the interior of each subdomain*. We will develop a parallel method for piecewise smooth vector fields and solve for each limit cycle section ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_k$, that is, $$\label{eq:adjoint-piecewise}
\frac{d\bm{z}_k(t)}{dt} = A_k(t) \bm{z}_k(t),$$ where $A_k(t) = -DF_k({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_k(t))^T$, the negative transpose of the linearization of the vector field $\bm{F}_k$ evaluated along the limit cycle portion ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_k$. The remaining challenge, and the contribution of the paper, is to establish the conditions relating the iPRC on either side of each boundary crossing.
Solving the Boundary Problem of the Adjoint Equation {#sec:theorem}
----------------------------------------------------
We fix notation and define additional terms. Let $\bm{F}_k$ denote the vector field in which the $k$th portion of the limit cycle resides, where each $\bm{F}_k$ is numbered sequentially. The limit cycle, ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$, is piecewise smooth, consisting of several curves ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_1, {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_2, \ldots, {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_K$. As illustrated in Figure \[fig:sections\], each ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_k$ spends a time $t_k$ in some domain $D_r$. We write the limit cycle ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ as a collection of curves, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_pieces}
{{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t) = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_1(t), \quad 0=T_0 \leq t < T_1,\\
&{{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_2(t-T_1), \quad T_1 \leq t < T_2,\\
&\vdots\\
&{{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_K \left ( t - T_{K-1} \right ), \quad T_{K-1} \leq t < T_K,
\end{aligned}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $T_i = \sum_{j=1}^i t_j$ is the global time at which the trajectory crosses boundary surface $\Sigma_{i+1}$, and ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_k(t_k) = {{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{k+1}(0)$ enforces continuity of the limit cycle. At a limit cycle boundary crossing [[ $\Sigma_{k+1}$]{}]{} between the $k$th and $(k+1)$st portions of the limit cycle, there exist two adjacent vector fields $\bm{F}_{k}$ and $\bm{F}_{k+1}$. These vector fields evaluated at the limit cycle boundary crossing are denoted $$\label{eq:vector-field-gamma}
\begin{split}
\bm{F}_{k,t_k}&= \lim_{t \rightarrow t_k^-} \bm{F}_k({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{k}(t)),\\
\bm{F}_{k+1,0}&= \lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} \bm{F}_{k+1}({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{k+1}(t)).
\end{split}$$ In Eq. and for the rest of this section, the value $t$ will refer to the time elapsed within a particular region between boundary crossings, *i.e.* for the $k$th limit cycle segment, $t \in [0,t_k)$. The one-sided limits exist because each vector field is required to be smooth on the closure of its domain. The global iPRC, $\bm{z}$, will be defined in terms of the phase variable $\theta \in [0,1)$, but we will view the local iPRC $\bm{z}_k(t)$ in terms of local time. The independent variable of these iPRCs are related by $$\label{eq:global-to-local-phase}
\bm{z}(\theta) = \bm{z}_k(\theta T - T_{k-1}) = \bm{z}_k(t).$$ We will use the local time $t$ in the proofs to follow, so that we only need to consider local dynamics at an arbitrary boundary crossing, without having to refer to the global dynamics.
We define additional terms $\bm{z}_{k,t_k}$ and $\bm{z}_{k+1,0}$ by $$\label{eq:iprc-limits}
\begin{split}
\bm{z}_{k,t_k}&=\lim_{t\to t_k^-}\bm{z}_k(t),\\
\bm{z}_{k+1,0}&=\lim_{t\to 0^+}\bm{z}_{k+1}(t)
\end{split}$$ where $\bm{z}_{k}$ and $\bm{z}_{k+1}$ are the solutions to the adjoint equation (Eq. ) over vector fields $\bm{F}_{k}$ and $\bm{F}_{k+1}$, respectively. As a rule, the first entry of the subscript for either $\bm{z}_{k,t}$ or $\bm{F}_{k,t}$ denotes the limit cycle section, and the second entry of the subscript (when explicit) denotes the local time.
\[theorem\] Let ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ be a piecewise smooth limit cycle of differential inclusions satisfying hypotheses H1–H4 and assumptions \[a:limit\_cycle\]–\[a:direct\_deriv\] The iPRC of ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ satisfies the following boundary condition at the boundary ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$, $$\bm{z}_{k+1,0}=M_{k+1} \bm{z}_{k,t_k},$$ where $M_{k+1}$ is an $n\times n$ matrix, given as follows. Let $b_j$ denote the $j$th coordinate of the vector field $\bm{F}_{k,t_k}$, let $a_j$ be the $j$th coordinate of the vector field $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$, and let $v_{i,j}$ denote the $j$th entry of the $i$th tangent vector $\hat{\bm{w}}^{k+1}_i$ at the limit cycle boundary crossing, ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$. The matrix $M_{k+1}$ is a product of two matrices, $M_{k+1} = \mathcal{A}_{k+1}^{-1} \mathcal{B}_{k}$. Matrices $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{k}$ take the form, $$\label{eq:matrix-a-b}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}_{k+1}^{-1}=&\left ( \begin{matrix}
a_1 & a_2 & \ldots & a_n\\
v_{1,1} & v_{1,2} &\ldots & v_{1,n}\\
v_{2,1} & v_{2,2} &\ldots & v_{2,n}\\
& &\vdots & \\
v_{n-1,1}& v_{n-1,2} &\ldots & v_{n-1,n}\\
\end{matrix} \right )^{-1},\\
\mathcal{B}_{k}=&\left ( \begin{matrix}
b_1 & b_2 & \ldots & b_n\\
v_{1,1} & v_{1,2} & \ldots & v_{1,n}\\
v_{2,1} & v_{2,2} & \ldots & v_{2,n}\\
& & \vdots & \\
v_{n-1,1}& v_{n-1,2} & \ldots & v_{n-1,n}\\
\end{matrix} \right ).\\
\end{split}$$
Existence of the required matrix inverse is guaranteed by the transverse flow condition. See §\[section:proof-of-theorem\] for the proof of Theorem \[theorem\].
The following two corollaries specialize to the case of piecewise linear vector fields. In this case the vector field is not only piecewise smooth, but the iPRC may be obtained in terms of matrix exponentials.
\[corl:circuit\] With the assumptions of Theorem \[theorem\] and affine linear vector fields $\bm{F}_k$, the initial condition of the iPRC, ${{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(\theta)$, must satisfy $$\label{eq:eigenvalue}
\bm{z}_{1,0}=B \bm{z}_{1,0},$$ where $$B=M_{1}e^{A_{K}t_{K}}M_K\cdots M_{k+1}e^{A_{k}t_{k}}M_k \cdots M_{3}e^{A_{2} t_{2}}M_{2}e^{A_{1} t_{1}},$$ $t_k$ is the time of flight of the $k$th portion of the limit cycle, $e^{A_{k}t_k}$ is the matrix exponential solution of the adjoint equation with $A_k = -\left(DF_k\right)^\intercal$ at time $t_k$, and $DF_k$ denotes the Jacobian matrix of the vector field $\bm{F}_k$. Eq. and the normalization condition, [[ $$\label{eq:normalization}
\bm{F}_{1,0}\cdot \bm{z}_{1,0}=\frac{1}{T},$$]{}]{} yield a unique solution for the initial condition, $\bm{z}_{1,0} \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
See §\[section:proof-of-corollaryIII2\].
The Jacobian matrices $A_{k}$ in Corollary \[corl:circuit\] are distinct from the matrices $\mathcal{A}_{k}$ appearing in the jump condition in Theorem \[theorem\].
\[corl:eqn\] Under the assumptions of Corollary \[corl:circuit\], the iPRC is given by $$\bm{z}(t) = \begin{cases}
e^{A_1t}\bm{z}_{1,0} \equiv e^{A_1 t} B\bm{z}_{1,0} & 0 \leq t < T_1 \\
e^{A_2{{\color{black}{(t-T_{1})}}}}B_1\bm{z}_{1,0} & T_1 \leq t < T_2 \\
\vdots\\
e^{A_K{{\color{black}{(t-T_{K-1})}}}}B_{K-1}\bm{z}_{1,0} & T_{K-1} \leq t < T_K
\end{cases}$$ where $$\label{eq:iprc_exact}
\begin{split}
B_1 &= M_{2} e^{A_1 t_1}\\
B_2 &= M_{3} e^{A_2 t_2} M_{2} e^{A_1 t_1}\\
\vdots\\
B_{K-1} &= M_{K} e^{A_{K-1} t_{K-1}} \cdots M_{3} e^{A_2 t_2} M_{2} e^{A_1 t_1},
\end{split}$$ and
See §\[section:proof-of-corollaryIII3\].
For examples of the matrices $M_{k+1}$ see Eqs. (Glass network), , , (Iris system), and , , (3D piecewise linear central pattern generator).
Shaw *et al.* 2012 considered a piecewise linear system satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \[theorem\] and Corollary \[corl:circuit\], where the vector field is piecewise differentiable but discontinuous at subdomain boundaries. Our theory correctly captures all discontinuities of the iPRC at the boundaries (Figure \[modified-iris-iprc\]). Coombes (2008) considered systems with continuous vector fields not necessarily differentiable at domain boundaries, and analytically computed continuous iPRCs for each system. In the following corollary, we show that a continuous iPRC is a general property of limit cycles over continuous, piecewise smooth vector fields.
\[corl:c0-vector-fields\] Under the assumptions of Corollary \[corl:circuit\], if adjacent vector fields evaluated along the limit cycle, $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$ and $\bm{F}_{k,t_k}$, are continuous at the boundary ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$, then the matrix $M_{k+1}$ is the identity matrix.
See §\[section:proof-of-corollaryIII4\].
Our analysis therefore includes the iPRC calculations of [@Coombes:2008:SIADS] and [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS] as special cases.
Results {#sec:examples}
=======
We apply our analysis to three examples. The first is a 2D Glass network, a piecewise linear system obtained as the singular limit of a class of models for feedback inhibition and gene regulatory networks [@GlassPasternack1978JMB]. The second example is a planar system introduced in [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS], motivated by investigations of heteroclinic channels as a dynamical architecture for motor control. The third example is a 3D piecewise linear system arising as a simplification of a nominal central pattern generator model for regulation of feeding motor activity in the marine mollusk *Aplysia californica* [@LyttleGillShawThomasChiel2017BiolCyb; @ShawLyttleGillCullinsMcManusLuThomasChiel2014JCNS] and related to a Lotka-Volterra system with three populations [@NowotnyRabinovitch2007PRL].
Two Dimensional Glass Network
-----------------------------
Glass, Perez, and Pasternack introduced a planar piecewise linear system as a model of feedback inhibition in a genetic regulatory circuit [@GlassPasternack1978JMB; @GlassPerez1974JChemPhys]. Figure \[fig:glass\_pasternack\] illustrates several trajectories converging to a stable limit cycle in such a network. The concentration $x_1$ stimulates the production of $x_2$, while $x_2$ inhibits the production of $x_1$. One may also consider a macroscopic analogue in a predator-prey system, where $x_1$ is the prey and $x_2$ is the predator.
The model equations are: $$\label{eq:2d-glass-example}
\begin{split}
\frac{dx_1}{dt} &= \Lambda_1[\xi(x_1),\xi(x_2)]-x_1,\\
\frac{dx_2}{dt} &= \Lambda_2[\xi(x_1),\xi(x_2)]-x_2,
\end{split}$$ where $\xi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ is a Boolean function, $$\label{eq:boolean-variable}
\xi(x) = \left \{ \begin{matrix} 1,\quad \rm{if} \,\, x \geq 0 \\ 0,\quad \rm{if} \,\, x < 0 \end{matrix} \right . ,$$ and $\Lambda_i:\{0,1\}\times\{0,1\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a real-valued function defined by the table,
$\xi(x_1)$ $\xi(x_2)$ $\Lambda_1$ $\Lambda_2$
------------ ------------ ------------- -------------
1 1 $a_1$ $b_1$
[0]{} [1]{} [$a_2$]{} [$b_2$]{}
[0]{} [0]{} [$a_3$]{} [$b_3$]{}
[1]{} [0]{} [$a_4$]{} [$b_4$]{}
Within each quadrant of the plane, the trajectories converge towards a target point located in the subsequent quadrant (Figure \[fig:glass\_pasternack\]).
![A model of feedback inhibition as discussed in Example 1 of Glass and Pasternack 1978. The limit cycle attractor (purple) traverses four quadrants, which serve as the four domains of the model. We call the first quadrant region 1, and because the solutions travel counter-clockwise, the second quadrant is named region 2, the third quadrant region 3, and the fourth quadrant region 4. Within each quadrant, trajectories are attracted to a target point outside the domain, as shown by the black and gray dashed lines. For example, in region 1, the limit cycle trajectory (purple) is attracted to the target point $(a_1,b_1)$ until it hits the positive $y$-axis, at which point the limit cycle trajectory changes direction towards the next target point, $(a_2,b_2)$. Two sample trajectories in the same region, one inside (blue) and one outside (red) the limit cycle, demonstrate that the purple loop is indeed a limit cycle attractor. The target points are $(a_1,b_1) = (-5,11)$, $(a_2,b_2) =
(-10,-4)$, $(a_3,b_3) = (6,-10)$, and $(a_4,b_4) = (10,5).$[]{data-label="fig:glass_pasternack"}](glass_2d_fig.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In local time, the solution to Eq. takes the form, $$\label{eq:2d-glass-solution}
x_i(t) = \lambda_i + (x_i(0) -\lambda_i) e^{-t}, \quad i=1,2,$$ where $$\lambda_i = \Lambda_i[\xi(x_1(0)), \xi(x_2(0))].$$
The limit cycle attractor and its points of intersection with each axis is found by choosing an initial condition on the positive $x_1$-axis and propagating Eq. forward in time until it returns to the positive $x_1$-axis. This method generates a Poincaré map, and the stable limit cycle intersection is a solution to a quadratic equation. We call this point of intersection ${\bm{p}}_{1}$ because the limit cycle intersects the boundary between regions 1 and 4. $$\begin{split}
{\bm{p}}_{1} = \left(\frac{ a_2 a_4 b_1 b_3 - a_1 a_3 b_2 b_4}{a_2 b_1 b_3 - a_2 b_1 b_4 + a_3 b_1 b_4 - a_3 b_2 b_4},0\right).
\end{split}$$ Once the point ${\bm{p}}_{1}$ is known, the other intersection points follow immediately. and $\left[{\bm{p}}_{k+1}\right]_i$ denotes the $i$th coordinate of the vector ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$.
Using the limit cycle boundary crossing points, we calculate the jump matrices $M_{k+1}$. Starting with the jump matrix between regions 4 and 1, $M_{1}$, the normal unit vector of this boundary is $(0,1)$ and we pick the tangent vector to be $(-1,0)$. [[ With these choices, we may write the transition of the iPRC from region 4 into region 1 explicitly:]{}]{} $$\begin{split}
&\bm{z}_{1,0} = M_{1} \bm{z}_{4,t_4}\\
&=\left(\begin{matrix} a_1- \left[{\bm{p}}_{1}\right]_1 & b_1 \\ -1 & 0\end{matrix}\right )^{-1}
\left(\begin{matrix}a_4- \left [{\bm{p}}_{1} \right]_1 & b_4 \\ -1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right )\bm{z}_{4,t_4}\\
&=\left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \frac{ a_4-a_1}{b_1}& \frac{b_4}{b_1} \end{matrix} \right ) \bm{z}_{4,t_4}.
\end{split}$$
We now express $\bm{z}_{4,t_4}$ in terms of its initial condition, $\bm{z}_{4,0}$, to construct the matrix $B$ of Corollary \[corl:circuit\]. Note that the Jacobian matrix of each vector field is identical and takes the form, $$DF_k = \left (\begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{matrix} \right ),$$ so it is straightforward to solve the adjoint equation (Eq. ): $$\label{eq:adjoint_glass}
\bm{z}_k(t) = \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{t_k} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{t_k} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_k(0) = e^{A_k t_k} \bm{z}_k(0)=e^{t_k} \bm{z}_k(0),$$ where $t_k$ is the time of flight of the $k$th portion of the limit cycle. (In this example $A_k = -DF_k^T$ is just the identity matrix.) The remaining jump matrices $M_{k+1}$ for $k=1,2,3$ are $$\label{eq:jump_glass}
\begin{split}
M_{2} &= \left ( \begin{matrix} \frac{ a_1}{a_2}& \frac{b_1-b_2}{a_2} \\ 1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ),\\
M_{3} &= \left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ \frac{ a_2-a_3}{b_3}& \frac{b_2}{b_3} \end{matrix} \right ),\\
M_{4} &= \left ( \begin{matrix} \frac{ a_3}{a_4}& \frac{b_3-b_4}{a_4} \\ 1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right ).
\end{split}$$ With all jump matrices computed, the matrix $B$ of Corollary \[corl:circuit\] is a product of four matrices and the scalar $e^T$, where $T=t_1+t_2+t_3+t_4$ is the period of the limit cycle: $$B = e^{T} M_{1} M_{4} M_{3} M_{2}.$$ [[ The matrix $B$ has eigenvalues $\lambda_1=1$ and $\lambda_2=(a_2a_4b_1b_3)/(a_1a_3b_2b_4)$. For the values of $a_i$ and $b_i$ in Figure \[fig:glass\_pasternack\], $\lambda_2>1$.]{}]{} The eigenvector associated with the unit eigenvalue is $$\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} = \left (-\frac{b_1}{a_1},1 \right ).$$ The unique initial condition vector, $\bm{z}_{1,0}$, by Eq. of Corollary \[corl:circuit\] is $$\bm{z}_{1,0} = \frac{\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}}{T \left[ b_1-\frac{a_1}{b_1}(a_1-\left[{\bm{p}}_{1} \right]_1) \right ]}.$$
The full iPRC is found by combining Eq. with Eqs. ,: $$\label{eq:iPRC_for_Glass_network}
\bm{z}(t) = \begin{cases}
e^t\bm{z}_{1,0} & 0 \leq t < T_1 \\
e^t\xi_1(t)\left(\begin{matrix}1 & \frac{b_1-b_2}{a_2} \\ 0 & \frac{a_2}{a_1}\end{matrix}\right)\bm{z}_{1,0} & T_1 \leq t < T_2 \\
e^t\xi_2(t)\left(\begin{matrix}1 & \frac{b_1-b_2}{a_2} \\ \frac{a_2-a_3}{b_3} & p_{22}\end{matrix}\right)\bm{z}_{1,0} & T_{2} \leq t < T_3\\
e^t\xi_3(t)\left(\begin{matrix}1 & q_{12} \\ q_{21} & q_{22}\end{matrix}\right)\bm{z}_{1,0} & T_{3} \leq t < T_4
\end{cases}$$ where $$\begin{split}
\xi_1(t) &= \frac{a_1 a_2}{\left(a_1 + \frac{ a_1 a_3 b_2 b_4-a_2 a_4 b_1 b_3}{
a_2 b_1 (b_3 - b_4) + a_3 (b_1 - b_2) b_4}\right)^2 },\\
\xi_2(t) &= \frac{a_1 b_2^2 (a_2 b_1 (b_4-b_3)+a_3 b_4 (b_2-b_1))^2 }{a_2 b_1^2 (a_1 b_2 (b_3-b_4)+a_4 b_3 (b_1-b_2))^2},\\
\xi_3(t) &= \frac{\kappa a_1 a_3^2 a_4 b_2^2 }{(a_2 b_1^2 (a_2 a_4 b_1 - a_3 (a_4 (b_1 - b_2) + a_1 b_2))^2 b_3 \hat{\gamma})},
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
p_{22} &= \frac{a_2 b_1 + a_3 (b_2-b_1)}{a_1 b_3},\\
q_{12} &= \frac{\kappa}{a_1 \hat\gamma (a_2 b_1 (b_3 - b_4) +
a_3 (b_1 - b_2) b_4)},\\
q_{21} &= \frac{(a_2 - a_3) a_4}{a_2 (b_3 - b_4) + a_3 b_4},\\
q_{22} &= \frac{a_4 (a_2 b_1 + a_3 ( b_2-b_1 ))}{a_1 (a_2 (b_3 - b_4) + a_3 b_4)},
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\kappa &= a_3 ( b_2-b_1) b_4 + a_2 b_1 ( b_4-b_3))^2,\\
\hat\gamma &= a_2 (b_3 - b_4) + a_3 b_4,
\end{split}$$ and the global time intervals $T_k$ are determined by summing local times of flight, $$T_k = \sum_{i=1}^k t_i, \quad k=1,\ldots,4.$$
[[ To numerically find the value of the iPRC at a given phase, we integrate the limit cycle up to the given phase, then reinitialize the solution at a new position in the direction of a standard basis vector of magnitude 0.01. This process effectively applies an infinitesimal delta function perturbation in phase space. After integrating for a sufficiently long time (typically 10 times the period), we record the timing difference between the unperturbed and perturbed limit cycles. We then divide this value by the magnitude of the perturbation. This magnitude is sufficiently small to give an accurate approximation to the true iPRC for the systems here. ]{}]{}
![The numerical (dots) and analytical (lines) infinitesimal phase response curves of the planar Glass network model. The analytical solution to the adjoint equation is given by Eq. ; the numerical iPRC is calculated via direct perturbation. Blue curve: iPRC for perturbations along the horizontal axis. Gray curve: iPRC for perturbations along the vertical axis.[]{data-label="fig:iPRC_compare_Glass"}](glass_2d_prc_fig.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[[ Figure \[fig:iPRC\_compare\_Glass\] shows the iPRC obtained analytically together with the iPRC obtained by direct numerical perturbations. The iPRC components show the sign and size of the effect that a small displacement away from the limit cycle (LC) trajectory has on the subsequent timing of the trajectory as it returns to the LC. For example, the descending blue curve (horizontal component) reaches a minimum at roughly one quarter period, with a discontinuity occurring where the LC trajectory crosses the ray $x=0,y>0$ (*cf.* Figure \[fig:glass\_pasternack\]). The timing of the limit cycle has its greatest sensitivity to small perturbations in the $(1,0)$ direction at this point in the cycle; a perturbation in this direction causes a delay in the trajectory upon return to the LC. Similarly, the greatest sensitivity to perturbations in the horizontal direction occur immediately before crossing the ray $y=0,x<0$; a perturbation in the direction $(0,1)$ at this point causes a significant delay. In contrast, the greatest phase advance in response to a horizontal (resp., vertical) perturbation occurs just before the border crossing at approximately 3/4 of the period (resp., 1 full period). ]{}]{}
Piecewise Linear Iris System With Non-Uniform Saddle Values
-----------------------------------------------------------
In [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS], we analyzed the infinitesimal phase response curve (iPRC) of a limit cycle arising from a heteroclinic bifurcation. The model, called the “sine system” in [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS], exhibits a stable heteroclinic cycle (SHC) consisting of four planar saddle points related by four-fold rotational symmetry. By introducing a twist in the vector field, the sine system produces a one-parameter family of limit cycles that approach the SHC as the parameter goes to zero. The model arose in an investigation of the role of saddle fixed points in the regulation of timing in central pattern generator circuits. Using numerical simulations, we showed that infinitesimal perturbations to limit cycle trajectories near the heteroclinic bifurcation could cause long delays in the traversal about the limit cycle of the trajectory, leading to large phase offsets. This property provides a mechanism by which animals could activate muscles for long times during control of repetitive underlying movements.
As part of this study, [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS] introduced a piecewise linear analogue (the “iris system”) that has a structurally similar bifurcation in which an SHC gives rise to a one-parameter family of limit cycles similar to those in the sine system. The piecewise linear analogue consists of four regions with velocity fields equivalent, under successive 90-degree rotations, to the velocity field in the unit square, $$\label{eq:iris}
\begin{split}
\frac{d\hat{s}}{dt} &= -\lambda \hat{s},\\
\frac{d\hat{u}}{dt} &= \hat{u},
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{s}$ represents the local coordinate along the stable manifold of the saddle at $(0,0)$, and $\hat{u}$ represents the local coordinate along the unstable manifold of the same saddle. As written, these dynamics represent the flow of region 1 in [[ Figure \[iris-modified\]]{}]{}. Existence of a limit cycle is guaranteed as long as the function, $$\hat{u}^\lambda -\hat{u} + a = 0,$$ has two roots [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS]. The stable root, which we call $u$, represents the nontrivial entry coordinate of each region, and must be derived numerically for most choices of $\lambda > 1$. [[ The bifurcation parameter $a$ represents the degree of shift between each local coordinate system. When $a=0$, the unstable manifold of a given local coordinate system leads into the stable manifold of the next local coordinate system, forming a heteroclinic cycle. For $a>0$ and below some critical value, the local systems shift relative to each other forming a stable limit cycle. See Figure \[iris-modified\].]{}]{}
The piecewise linear iris system allows for the exact derivation of the infinitesimal phase response curve arbitrarily close to the heteroclinic bifurcation. In [@ShawParkChielThomas2012SIADS] we derived the iPRC by summing an infinite series, a technique that does not readily generalize to systems with fewer symmetries. [[ Moreover, the method we present here greatly simplifies the calculation.]{}]{} To illustrate the utility of Theorem \[theorem\], we alter the iris system so that different squares have different saddle values, $\lambda_k$ for $k \in \{1,2,3,4\}$. The local coordinates must be defined separately for each region, $$\begin{split}
\frac{d\hat{s}_k}{dt} &= -\lambda_k \hat{s}_k,\\
\frac{d\hat{u}_k}{dt} &= \hat{u}_k,
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{s}_k$ and $\hat{u}_k$ are the local coordinates of the $k$th modified iris square (see Figure \[iris-modified\]). As in the iris system, the new system also satisfies hypotheses \[a:limit\_cycle\]-\[a:direct\_deriv\] The first hypothesis calls for the existence of a limit cycle, which is shown to exist numerically by constructing a Poincaré map. If the Poincaré map has a stable fixed point, then there exists a stable limit cycle. Without loss of generality, we consider the return map function between regions 4 and 1, $$\label{eq:iris-mod-return-map}
p(\hat{u}_1) = \left ( \left [ \left (\hat{u}_1^{\lambda_1} + a \right )^{\lambda_2} + a \right ]^{\lambda_3} + a \right )^{\lambda_4}+a.$$ The limit cycle entry coordinate of the southwest square is a value $u_1$ such that the equation, $$\label{eq:iris-mod-return-map-zero}
q(\hat{u}) = p(\hat{u}_1) - \hat{u}_1,$$ is zero at $u_1$, and such that $u_1$ is a stable fixed point of . The zero is readily found using Newton’s method. We are now ready to apply Theorem \[theorem\] and Corollary \[corl:circuit\] to derive the iPRC of the modified iris system analytically.
\
We begin our calculations with the southwest square of Figure \[iris-modified\]; the NW, NE, and SE squares are labeled region 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In region 1, the global coordinates with their local coordinate counterparts are, $$\bm{F}_1(x(t),y(t))= \left( \begin{matrix}-\lambda_1(x(t)+\alpha_1) \\ y(t)+\beta_1\end{matrix}\right)
= \left( \begin{matrix}-\lambda_1 \hat{s}_1 \\ \hat{u}_1\end{matrix} \right),$$ where $\alpha_1$ and $\beta_1$ are constants that offset the vector field $\bm{F}_1$. The Jacobian matrix $J_1$ of vector field $\bm{F}_1$ is $$J_1 = \left ( \begin{matrix} -\lambda_1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right ),$$ and in local time the solution to the adjoint equation (Eq. ) for region 1 is $$\label{eq:iris-z1}
\bm{z}_1(t) = \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{\lambda_1 t} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_1(0).$$ The vector field $\bm{F}_2$ of region 2 is $$\bm{F}_2(x(t),y(t))= \left( \begin{matrix}x(t)+\alpha_2 \\ -\lambda_2(y(t)+\beta_2)\end{matrix}\right)
= \left( \begin{matrix}\hat{u}_2 \\ -\lambda_2 \hat{s}_2\end{matrix} \right),$$ and the adjoint solution is $$\label{eq:iris-z2}
\bm{z}_2(t) = \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{-t} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\lambda_2 t} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_2(0).$$ For simplicity, we let $u_k$ and $s_k$ represent the nontrivial limit cycle entry and exit coordinates for each region, respectively. The final vector field value of $\bm{F}_1$ evaluated along the limit cycle is $$\bm{F}_{1,t_1} = (-\lambda_1 s_1, 1),$$ and the initial vector field value of $\bm{F}_2$ evaluated along the limit cycle is $$\bm{F}_{2,0} = (u_2,\lambda_2),$$ where $u_2$ and $s_1$ are related by $u_2 \equiv a + s_1$. By Figure \[iris-modified\], the unit normal vector at the boundary crossing between vector fields $\bm{F}_1$ and $\bm{F}_2$ is ${\hat{\bm{n}}}_{2} = (0,1)$, and it follows that the unit tangent vector at the same boundary is $\hat{\bm{w}}_{2} = (-1,0)$. Therefore, by Theorem \[theorem\], the jump matrix $M_{2}$ is $$\label{eq:iris-m1}
\begin{split}
M_{2} &= \left( \begin{matrix} u_2 & \lambda_2 \\ -1 & 0\end{matrix} \right)^{-1}
\left ( \begin{matrix} -\lambda_1 s_1 & 1\\ -1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right )\\
&= \frac{1}{\lambda_2} \left ( \begin{matrix} 0 & -\lambda_2 \\ 1 & u_2 \end{matrix} \right)
\left ( \begin{matrix} -\lambda_1 s_1 & 1\\ -1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right )\\
&= \left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ -\frac{\lambda_1 s_1 + u_2}{\lambda_2} & \frac{1}{\lambda_2} \end{matrix} \right ).
\end{split}$$ Combining Eqs. , , and gives $$\label{eq:iris-z2t}
\bm{z}_2(t) = \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{-t} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\lambda_2 t} \end{matrix} \right)
\left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ -\frac{\lambda_1 s_1 + u_2}{\lambda_2} & \frac{1}{\lambda_2} \end{matrix} \right )
\left ( \begin{matrix} e^{\lambda_1 t_1} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t_1} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_{1,0}.$$ At the next boundary, the jump condition involves $\bm{F}_{2,t_2}$ and $\bm{F}_{3,0}$ (Eq. ). The vector field $\bm{F}_2$ is given above; the vector field $\bm{F}_3$, written in local coordinates, takes the form, $$\bm{F}_3 = (-\lambda_3 \hat{s}_3, \hat{u}_3).$$ Therefore, the values $\bm{F}_{2,t_2}$ and $\bm{F}_{3,0}$ are $$\bm{F}_{2,t_f} = (1,\lambda_2 s_2),\hspace{.5in}
\bm{F}_{3,0} = (\lambda_3, -u_3),$$ where $s_2$ represents the exit position of the limit cycle in local coordinates along the right edge of region 2, and $u_3$ represents the entry position of the limit cycle in local coordinates along the left edge of region 3 (note $u_3 \equiv a + s_2$). Therefore $$\label{eq:iris_m2}
M_{3} = \left ( \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{\lambda_3} & \frac{\lambda_2 s_2 + u_3}{\lambda_3} \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right ).$$ The iPRC through region 3, given in terms of $\bm{z}_{1,0}$, is $$\label{eq:iris-z3}
\begin{split}
\bm{z}_3(t) &= \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{\lambda_3 t} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t} \end{matrix} \right)
\left ( \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{\lambda_3} & \frac{\lambda_2 s_2 + u_3}{\lambda_3} \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right )
\left ( \begin{matrix} e^{-t_2} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\lambda_2 t_2} \end{matrix} \right)\\
&\left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ -\frac{\lambda_1 s_1 + u_2}{\lambda_2} & \frac{1}{\lambda_2} \end{matrix} \right )
\left ( \begin{matrix} e^{\lambda_1 t_1} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-t_1} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_{1,0}.
\end{split}$$ For the remaining boundaries, ${\bm{p}}_{4}$ and ${\bm{p}}_{1}$, the jump matrices are $$\label{eq:iris-m3-m4}
\begin{split}
M_{4} &= \left ( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ -\frac{\lambda_3 s_3 + u_4}{\lambda_4} & \frac{1}{\lambda_4} \end{matrix} \right ),\\
M_{1} &= \left ( \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{\lambda_1} & \frac{\lambda_4 s_4 + u_1}{\lambda_1} \\ 0 & 1\end{matrix} \right ),
\end{split}$$ and the solution to the adjoint equation for region 4, $$\label{eq:iris-z4}
\bm{z}_4(t) = \left ( \begin{matrix} e^{-t} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\lambda_4 t} \end{matrix} \right) \bm{z}_{4,0}.$$ To obtain the matrix $B$ of Corollary \[corl:circuit\], we combine Eqs. -: $$\label{eq:mod-iris-matrix-b}
B = \frac{1}{\xi} \left ( \begin{matrix}
u_1 (\upsilon + \zeta) + \xi &
-\frac{ u_1 ( u_1 \zeta + \xi)}{\lambda_1}\\
\lambda_1 (\upsilon + \zeta) &
-u_1 \zeta
\end{matrix} \right ),$$ where $\upsilon = u_2 u_3 u_4$, $\xi = s_1 s_2 s_3 s_4 \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \lambda_3 \lambda_4$, and $\zeta = s_1\lambda_1 (u_3 u_4 + s_2 \lambda_2 (u_4 + s_3 \lambda_3))$. Note that for all $k$, we have made the substitutions $e^{-t_k} = u_k$ and $e^{\lambda_k t_k} = 1/s_k$. The matrix $B$ has unit eigenvalue with associated eigenvector, $$\label{eq:hatz10-iris}
\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} = \left (\frac{ u_1 \zeta + \xi}{\lambda_1 (\upsilon+ \zeta)},1 \right ),$$ where $\bm{z}_{1,0} \propto \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$. We scale Eq. using Corollary \[corl:circuit\], leading to the unique initial condition of the iPRC, $$\label{eq:z10-iris-mod}
\bm{z}_{1,0} = \frac{\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}}{T \left [u_1 -\frac{ u_1 \zeta + \xi}{ (\upsilon+ \zeta)} \right ]},$$ where the period $T$ is the sum of local traversal times, $$T = \sum_{k=1}^4t_k=\sum_{k=1}^4 \log(1/u_k),$$ and $u_1$ is the numerically derived limit cycle initial condition. Each $u_k$ for $k>1$ may be calculated iteratively from $u_1$. The exact iPRC is found by combining Eq. with the jump matrices Eqs. , , and the matrix exponentials Eqs. , , , .
[[ We follow the same numerical procedure to generate the numerical iPRC as in Figure \[fig:iPRC\_compare\_Glass\]. Sometimes, however, smaller magnitude perturbations are necessary to produce an accurate numerical iPRC. For this example, we perturb the limit cycle solution using a perturbation of magnitude $10^{-4}$. ]{}]{}
{width="\textwidth"}
[[ Figure \[modified-iris-iprc\] shows the analytically obtained iPRC plotted against the numerical iPRC derived *via* direct perturbations. The greatest phase advance in response to a small horizontal displacement occurs at roughly 1/4 period, corresponding to the point at which the limit cycle enters domain 2 from domain 1. The greatest phase delay in response to a small positive vertical displacement occurs at roughly 1/2 period, corresponding to the point of entry from domain 2 to domain 3; the greatest delay due to a positive horizontal perturbation occurs at roughly 3/4 period (passage from domain 3 to domain 4), and the greatest phase advance due to a positive vertical perturbation occurs at phase 0 (one full period), the point of passage from domain 4 back to domain 1. ]{}]{}
Nominal Biting Model of *Aplysia Californica*
----------------------------------------------
Shaw *et al.* developed a model for a feeding pattern generator comprising three pools of motor neurons interacting with a nominal biomechanical model of the feeding apparatus of the marine mollusk *Aplysia californica* [@shaw_etal_2012_frontiers; @ShawLyttleGillCullinsMcManusLuThomasChiel2014JCNS]. The motor pools interact through quadratic (Lotka-Volterra) asymmetric lateral inhibitory coupling [@AfraimovichTristanHuertaRabinovich:2008:Chaos; @MayLeonard1975SIAM_JAM], given by the equations $$\label{eq:smooth-heteroclinic}
\frac{d b_i}{dt} = f_i = b_i - b_i^2 + \mu - \rho b_i b_{i+1}, \quad i=1,2,3.$$ The state variable $b_i$ for $i = 1,2,3$, represents activation of the $i$th motor pool, the parameter $\mu\ge 0$ acts as a bifurcation parameter, and $\rho$ represents coupling strength between adjacent nodes $b_i$. The dynamics of the model depend on the parameters $\mu$ and $\rho$. When $\mu$ and $\rho$ are zero, each equation reduces to three independent logistic curve equations. For some nonzero values of $\rho$, and $\mu=0$, the system forms an attracting stable heteroclinic channel (SHC) consisting of three saddle points with the unstable manifold of each saddle intersecting the stable manifold of the next saddle. When both $\mu$ and $\rho$ are chosen appropriately, the heteroclinic connections break and the unstable manifolds spiral into a stable limit cycle [@shaw_etal_2012_frontiers]. For small positive values of $\mu$, trajectories slow significantly while passing near the succession of saddle equilibria. This behavior allows the model to reproduce the extended dwell times in localized areas of phase space observed in *in vivo* recordings of *Aplysia* motor activity.
Linearization of Eq. about the three saddle equilibria leads to a piecewise linear differential inclusion (Appendix \[sec:aplysia\_derivation\]). Written in the order of regions 1, 2, and 3, respectively, we consider the following system: $$\label{eq:piecewise-linear-heteroclinic-full}
\frac{d\bm{r}}{dt} = \left \{ \begin{array}{cl}
\begin{matrix}1-x -(y+a) \rho \\ y + a \\ (z-a)(1-\rho)\end{matrix},& \quad x \geq y+a, x \geq z-a,\\
\vspace{5pt}\\
\begin{matrix}(x-a)(1-\rho) \\ 1-y-(z+a) \rho \\ z + a\end{matrix},& \quad y > x-a, y \geq z+a,\\
\vspace{5pt}\\
\begin{matrix}x+a\\ (y-a)(1-\rho)\\1 -z - (x+a)\rho \end{matrix},& \quad z > x+a, z > y-a, \\
\end{array}\right .$$ where $\bm{r} = (x,y,z)$, $a\ge 0$ is the bifurcation parameter (analogous to $\mu$ in the smooth system ), and $\rho$ is the coupling strength. The domains of Eq. lie in equal thirds of the unit cube, which, when $a=0$, all share an edge along the vector $(1,1,1)$. For $a=0$, the domain of region 1 is the convex hull of the vertices $(1,0,0)$, $(1,0,1)$, $(1,1,0)$, and $(1,1,1)$. Similarly, the domain of region 2 is the convex hull of the vertices $(0,1,0)$, $(1,1,0)$, $(0,1,1)$, and $(1,1,1)$, and the domain of region 3 is defined by the vertices $(0,0,1)$, $(1,0,1)$, $(0,1,1)$, and $(1,1,1)$. The saddle points of the system lie on a vertex of each domain, namely at $(1,0,0)$, $(0,1,0)$, and $(0,0,1)$, for regions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. .
{width="\textwidth"}
Because the vector field is linear within each region, the stable manifold is a plane spanned by the two stable eigenvectors of the Jacobian for each region, and the unstable manifold is the (half) line in the direction of the unstable eigenvector.
When $a > 0$ the heteroclinic cycle is broken, and the unstable manifold of each vector field $\bm{F}_k$ flows into the boundary surface between vector fields $\bm{F}_k$ and $\bm{F}_{k+1}$ (as opposed to flowing along the boundary edge when $a=0$, where there is a nonempty intersection of the unstable manifold of $\bm{F}_k$ and the stable manifold of $\bm{F}_{k+1}$). The vector fields $\bm{F}_1$, $\bm{F}_2$, and $\bm{F}_3$, are shifted by vectors $s_1$, $s_2$, and $s_3$, respectively, where $$\begin{split}
s_1 &= (0,-a,a),\\
s_2 &= (a,0,-a), \\
s_3 &= (-a,a,0).
\end{split}$$
As in the example of the modified iris system, the limit cycle of this nominal piecewise linear SHC model is not analytically computable. The limit cycle coordinates are obtained numerically; we denote them ${\bm{p}}_{k+1} = (\eta_{k+1},\kappa_{k+1},\nu_{k+1})$, i.e., for the $k$th portion of the limit cycle, its initial value is the vector $\bm{\gamma}_{k,0} = (\eta_{k},\kappa_{k},\nu_{k})$. We now calculate the jump matrices $M_{k+1}$ for each boundary ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$, beginning with region 1.
The normal vector at ${\bm{p}}_{2}$ and its two tangent vectors, $\hat{\bm{u}}_{2}$ and $\hat{\bm{w}}_{2}$, are $$\begin{split}
{\hat{\bm{n}}}_{2} &=\left (-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0 \right ),\\
\hat{\bm{u}}_{2} &= \left( 0,0,1 \right ), \\
\hat{\bm{w}}_{2} &= \left (-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0 \right ).
\end{split}$$ Then the matrix $M_{2}$, written as a product of $\mathcal{A}_{2}^{-1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_1$ of Theorem \[theorem\] is $$\label{eq:shc-m1}
\begin{split}
M_{2} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13}\\
a_{21} & a_{22} & -a_{13}\\
0 & 0 & a_{33}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
a_{11} &= \eta_2 + (\rho-1)\kappa_2 - \rho \nu_2,\\
a_{12} &= 1 - a(1+\rho) -2\kappa_2 - \rho \nu_2,\\
a_{13} &= -a(\rho-2) + \rho \nu_2,\\
a_{21} &= 1 + a(1 - 2\rho) + (\rho-2)\eta_2 - \rho \kappa_2,\\
a_{22} &= \kappa_2 - a(\rho-2) + (\rho-1)\eta_2,\\
a_{33} &= 1 + a(1-2\rho) + (\rho-1)\eta_2 - \kappa_2 - \rho
\end{split}$$ The remaining jump matrices are $$\label{eq:shc-m2}
\begin{split}
M_{3} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_{11} & 0 & 0\\
b_{21} & b_{22} & b_{23}\\
-b_{21} & b_{32} & b_{33}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
b_{11} &= a(2\rho-1)+\rho \eta _3-(\rho -1) \kappa _3+\nu _3-1, \\
b_{21} &= a (\rho -2)-\rho \eta _3,\\
b_{22} &= \rho \eta _3-\kappa _3-(\rho -1) \nu _3,\\
b_{23} &= a(\rho+1)+\rho \eta _3+2 \nu _3-1,\\
b_{32} &= a(2 \rho-1)-(\rho -2) \kappa _3+\rho \nu _3-1,\\
b_{33} &= a (\rho -2)-(\rho -1) \kappa _3-\nu _3,
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq:shc-m3}
\begin{split}
M_{1} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{11} & c_{12} & c_{13}\\
0 & c_{22} & 0\\
c_{31} & -c_{12} & c_{33}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
c_{11} &= a (\rho -2)-\eta _1-(\rho -1) \nu _1,\\
c_{12} &= \rho \kappa _1-a (\rho -2),\\
c_{13} &= 2 \rho a-a+\rho \eta _1-(\rho -2) \nu _1-1,\\
c_{22} &= 2 \rho a-a+\eta _1+\rho \kappa _1-\rho \nu _1+\nu _1-1,\\
c_{31} &= \rho a+a+2 \eta _1+\rho \kappa _1-1,\\
c_{33} &= -(\rho -1) \eta_1+\rho \kappa _1-\nu _1.
\end{split}$$
The solution to the adjoint equation for each region is $$\label{eq:shc-zi}
\begin{split}
\bm{z}_1(t) &= \left ( \begin{matrix}
e^t & 0 & 0\\
\rho\sinh(t) & e^{-t} & 0\\
0 & 0 & e^{t(\rho-1)}
\end{matrix} \right ) \bm{z}_{1,0},\\
\bm{z}_2(t) &= \left ( \begin{matrix}
e^{t(1- \rho)} & 0 & 0\\
0 & e^t & 0\\
0 & \rho\sinh(t) & e^{-t}
\end{matrix} \right ) \bm{z}_{2,0},\\
\bm{z}_3(t) &= \left ( \begin{matrix}
e^{-t} & 0 & \rho\sinh(t) \\
0 & e^{t(\rho-1)} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^t
\end{matrix} \right ) \bm{z}_{3,0}.
\end{split}$$ The time of flight for each portion of the limit cycle, $t_k$, must be derived numerically for each $k$ and for fixed parameter values $a$ and $\rho$. We continue with $\rho=3$ and which are in the range giving a stable limit cycle (Figure \[fig:nominal-biting\]). The matrix $B$ of Corollary \[corl:circuit\] is obtained from Eqs. , , , and . When , $B$ takes the form $$B \approx 10 \times \left ( \begin{matrix}
1.25\times 10^3 & 2.71 & -4.23 \times 10^2\\
2.09 \times 10^4 & 3.18 \times 10 & -2.5 \times 10^3\\
1.52 \times 10^3 & 2.90 & -3.85 \times 10^2
\end{matrix} \right),$$ with a near-unit eigenvalue of approximately $0.998$. The associated eigenvector, $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$ is, $$\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} \approx \left ( 1.15 \times 10^{-3}, -1, -2.98\times10^{-3} \right ).$$
As in the previous two examples, the initial condition of the iPRC, $\bm{z}_{1,0}$, comes from scaling this eigenvector of matrix $B$, $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$, by Eq. of Corollary \[corl:circuit\]: $$\bm{z}_{1,0} = \frac{\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}}{T(\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}\cdot {\bm{p}}_{1} )}.$$ The values ${\bm{p}}_{1}$ and $T$ represent the initial condition of the limit cycle and the total period of the limit cycle, respectively, and are found numerically. The iPRC is found by combining with the jump matrices , , and matrix exponentials Eqs. .
![*Aplysia* motor control model iPRC, for parameters $\rho=3$ and $a=0.01$. The blue dots, gray squares, and light green diamonds represent the numerical iPRC, found by the direct method of perturbations, of the first, second, and third components of the iPRC, respectively. The solid black, solid gray, and dashed light gray lines represent the analytical iPRC derived using Theorem \[theorem\] and Corollary \[corl:circuit\] of the first, second, and third components of the iPRC, respectively. []{data-label="fig:nominal-biting-prc"}](nominal_biting_prc_fig){width="\linewidth"}
[[ As in Figure \[modified-iris-iprc\], we choose the perturbation magnitude to be $10^{-4}$, with width equal to the time step and follow the same procedure used to generate Figure \[fig:iPRC\_compare\_Glass\]. Figure \[fig:nominal-biting-prc\] plots the resulting analytic iPRC together with the iPRC obtained numerically by the direct perturbation method, showing good agreement.]{}]{} [[ The greatest phase advance in response to a positive perturbation in the $(1,0,0)$ direction (black), $(0,1,0)$ direction (solid gray), and $(0,0,1)$ direction (light dashed gray lines) occurs at phase 2/3 (entry to the region including the point $(0,0,1)$), phase 0 (entry to the solid region including the point $(1,0,0)$), and phase 1/3 (entry to the region including point $(0,1,0)$), respectively. ]{}]{}
{#ssec:sync}
\[rem:constant\_z\] If $z(t)$ were constant, then $H(\phi)$ would be constant, and $d\psi/dt$ would be identically zero.
We will refer back to this elementary observation in §\[sssec:piecewise\_constant\_LC\].
### {#sssec:MorrisonCurto}
[In [@MorrisonDegeratuItskovCurto2016arXiv] Morrison, Curto and colleagues demonstrate that a simple class of competitive threshold-linear networks can exhibit a rich array of nonlinear dynamical behaviors, including stable limit cycles, quasi-periodic trajectories, and chaotic dynamics, as well as coexistence of multiple attractor types within networks of modest dimension. In this section, we study synchronization properties of two weakly coupled limit cycle oscillators within the Morrison-Curto network: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dx_i}{dt} &=-x_i+\left [\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{ij} x_j + \alpha(-1-\delta)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j + \theta\right]_+,\\
\frac{dy_i}{dt} &=-y_i+\left [\alpha(-1-\delta)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j + \sum_{j=1}^3 W_{ij} x_j + \theta\right]_+,\end{aligned}$$ with threshold parameter $\theta=1$, $$W=\left(\begin{matrix}
0 & -1-\delta & -1+\varepsilon\\
-1+\varepsilon & 0 & -1-\delta\\
-1-\delta & -1+\varepsilon & 0
\end{matrix}\right),$$ and $0\le\alpha< 1$. The threshold nonlinearity $[\cdot]_+$ is given by $[y]_+ = \max\{y,0\}$. With this choice of weight matrix, and for $\alpha=0$, the system exhibits a limit cycle ${\mathbf{x}}_0(t)$ [@MorrisonDegeratuItskovCurto2016arXiv]. For sufficiently small $\alpha>0$ the limit cycle persists, with negligible changes in its shape and timing properties as $\alpha$ increases.]{}
![[]{data-label="fig:threshold"}](tlnet_fig.pdf){height=".9\linewidth"}
[When $\alpha\ll1$, the coupling term $\alpha(-1-\delta)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j$ has little effect on the boundary crossing points of the limit cycle, but it does contribute to the dynamics of $x_i$, provided the term $\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{ij} x_j$ is above threshold. Thus, to first order in $\alpha$, we may approximate the dynamics as $$\frac{dx_i}{dt} =-x_i+\left[\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{ij} x_j+\theta\right]_+ + \alpha(-1-\delta) \Theta\left(\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{ij} x_j+\theta\right)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j,$$ where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside function. In this form, we have a system of weakly coupled oscillators, $d{\mathbf{x}}/dt = F({\mathbf{x}}) + \alpha G({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}),d{\mathbf{y}}/dt = F({\mathbf{y}}) + \alpha G({\mathbf{y}},{\mathbf{x}})$, where $$F({\mathbf{x}}) = \left(\begin{matrix}
-x_1 + \left[\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{1j} x_j+\theta\right]_+\\
-x_2 + \left[\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{2j} x_j+\theta\right]_+\\
-x_3 + \left[\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{3j} x_j+\theta\right]_+
\end{matrix}\right),$$ and $$G({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}) = \left(\begin{matrix}
(-1-\delta) \Theta\left(\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{1j} x_j+\theta\right)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j\\
(-1-\delta) \Theta\left(\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{2j} x_j+\theta\right)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j\\
(-1-\delta) \Theta\left(\sum_{j=1}^3 W_{3j} x_j+\theta\right)\sum_{j=1}^3 y_j
\end{matrix}\right).$$ In this case, although the vector field is not continuously differentiable at the domain boundaries, it is nevertheless continuous, so by Corollary \[corl:c0-vector-fields\], we find that the jump matrices are equal to the identity. Thus we can establish that for this system the iPRC may be obtained by integrating the adjoint equation in the usual fashion (*cf*. §\[sssec:piecewise\_constant\_LC\] for an example with nontrivial jump matrices). With the iPRC established, we may numerically integrate Equations and to predict the synchronization dynamics of the coupled oscillators. Figure \[fig:threshold\] compares the time course of the phase difference $\psi$ predicted by integrating the 1D phase equation and the phase difference time course obtained by integrating the full 6D equations. The theory and simulations show excellent agreement.]{}
### {#sssec:piecewise_constant_LC}
![[]{data-label="fig:oct"}](oct_fig.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
$$\begin{aligned}
f({\mathbf{x}}) = 16\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\0
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in \{-y+\sqrt{2} \leq x < 1 \} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\-1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in \{1 \leq x < y + \sqrt{2}\} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\-1
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{-1 \leq y < x - \sqrt{2}\}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
-1/\sqrt{2}\\-1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{-x-\sqrt{2} \leq y < -1\} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
-1\\0
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{-1\leq x < -y-\sqrt{2}\}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
-1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{ y-\sqrt{2}\leq x < -1\} \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\1
\end{pmatrix}), &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{x+\sqrt{2}\leq y < 1\}\\
\begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix}, &{\mathbf{x}}\in\{1\leq y < -x+\sqrt{2}\} \\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
![[]{data-label="fig:oct_prc"}](oct_prc.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[[ The horizontal dashed line shows the “prediction" one would obtain if one neglected the effects due to crossing the switching manifolds, namely the absence of synchronization (i.e. $d\psi/dt=0$, see Remark \[rem:constant\_z\]). Hence synchronization arises solely from the effects of the switching boundaries.]{}]{}
![[]{data-label="fig:oct_phase"}](oct_coupled.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
### {#sssec:phase_estimation}
To estimate the phase of an oscillator in the piecewise constant system, we use the geometrical phase angle of the state variables to approximate the phase of the full model. This approximation is reasonable because the system has a high degree of symmetry, and numerical tests reveal little error between this method and the more involved but general method below.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
[[ Relation to the Saltation Matrix]{}]{}
-----------------------------------------
In this paper we have derived the form of the discontinuity in the infinitesimal phase response curve at domain boundaries for a generic limit cycle arising in a piecewise smooth dynamical system [[ in arbitrary finite dimensions]{}]{}. The solution of this problem is closely related to the solution of the variational problem for piecewise smooth systems, [[ as we now discuss]{}]{}. First, to recapitulate our result, consider a trajectory $\gamma(t)$ transversely crossing domain boundary $\Sigma$ at point $\mathbf{p}$ at time $t=0$, exiting the old domain with velocity $\bm{F}^-$ and entering the new domain with velocity $\bm{F}^+$. For brevity, write $\mathbf{z}^-$ for the iPRC vector $\lim_{t\to 0^-}\mathbf{z}(t)$ just before the crossing, and $\mathbf{z}^+$ for the iPRC vector $\lim_{t\to 0^+}\mathbf{z}(t)$ immediately after the crossing. In the interior of domain $k$, the iPRC vector evolves according to $\dot{\mathbf{z}}=-(D\mathbf{F}_k(\gamma(t)))^\intercal\mathbf{z}.$ The boundary crossing induces a linear jump condition $A\mathbf{z}^+=B\mathbf{z}^-$. If $\bm{w}_1,\ldots,\bm{w}_{n-1}$ is any orthonormal basis for the tangent space of $\Sigma$ at $\bm{p}$, the matrices $A$ and $B$ are given $$\label{eq:saltation}
A=\left(\begin{matrix}\bm{F}^+&|& \bm{w}_1 &|& \cdots &|& \bm{w}_{n-1}\end{matrix}\right)^\intercal,\quad
B=\left(\begin{matrix}\bm{F}^-&|& \bm{w}_1 &|& \cdots &|& \bm{w}_{n-1}\end{matrix}\right)^\intercal
,$$ *cf.* equation .
A linear jump condition arises as well in the solution of the variational problem for piecewise smooth systems. The solution was obtained by Aizerman and Grantmakher [@AizermanGantmakher1958JApplMathMech] and is discussed in the monographs [@BernardoBuddChampneysKowalczyk2008PiecewiseSmoothDynSysBook; @LeineNijmeijer2004book]. Within the interior of the $k$th domain, the evolution of a small perturbation $\bm{u}(t)$ to a trajectory $\bm{y}(t)\approx\gamma(t)+\bm{u}(t)$ evolves, to linear order, as $\dot{\bm{u}}=D\bm{F}_k(\gamma(t))\bm{u}$. Writing $\bm{u}^-=\lim_{t\to 0^-}\bm{u}(t)$ and $\bm{u}^+=\lim_{t\to 0^+}\bm{u}(t)$, the jump in $\bm{u}$, upon $\gamma$ crossing the boundary $\Sigma$ at $\bm{p}$, is given by the *Saltation matrix* $S$. That is, $\bm{u}^+=S\bm{u}^-$, where the matrix $S=I+\Delta\bm{F}\hat{\bm{n}}^\intercal/\left(\hat{\bm{n}}\cdot\bm{F}^- \right)$ is defined in terms of the difference in the vector fields, $\Delta\bm{F}\equiv \bm{F}^+-\bm{F}^-$, and the vector $\hat{\bm{n}}$ normal to the surface $\Sigma$ at $\bm{p}$.
Because the basis vectors satisfy $\bm{w}_i\perp{\hat{\bm{n}}}$ for each $i$, the matrices $A$ and $B$ satisfy the equations $$\label{eq:ABdiscussion}
(S-I)B^\intercal=\left(\begin{matrix}\Delta\bm{F}&|&\bm{0}&|&\cdots&|&\bm{0}\end{matrix}\right)=-(S^{-1}-I)A^\intercal.$$ Comparing -, notice that $A^\intercal-B^\intercal=(S-I)B^\intercal$. It follows immediately that the jump matrix can be written in terms of the saltation matrix: $$M=A^{-1}B=\left(S^{-1}\right)^\intercal.$$ This relation is quite natural: The saltation matrix accounts for changes in the fate of trajectories with perturbed initial conditions with respect to evolution *forward* in time; it corrects the linearized forward (variational) equation. The jump matrix obtained in this paper accounts for changes when tracking the prior history of trajectories that would have converged to common points on a limit cycle; it corrects the linearized backward equation for the effects of boundary crossing.
Alternatively, consider the following elementary derivation.
\[rem:alternative\_saltation\] Assume the isochrons are given by a piecewise smooth function $\theta(\mathbf{u})$. The phase difference between any two points remains constant in time as the trajectories through those two points evolve. Thus for any two points $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{u}$, $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\theta(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{u})-\theta(\mathbf{x})\right)= 0.$$ Introducing the gradient $\mathbf{z}(t)\equiv\nabla\theta(\gamma(t))$ and considering an arbitrary small displacement $\mathbf{u}$, we see that $$\mathbf{z}\cdot\mathbf{u}=\textrm{const}$$ along trajectories, both within the interior of a region, and across the switching boundaries. When $\mathbf{u}$ jumps, in general so does $\mathbf{z}$. We seek a matrix $M$ satisfying $\mathbf{z}_+=M\mathbf{z}_-$, where $\mathbf{z}_-$ is the iPRC just before the switching boundary and $\mathbf{z}_+$ is the iPRC just after. Preserving $\mathbf{z}\cdot\mathbf{u}$ requires $$\mathbf{z}_-^\intercal\mathbf{u}_-=\mathbf{z}_+^\intercal\mathbf{u}_+=\mathbf{z}_-^\intercal M^\intercal S \mathbf{u}_-$$ for arbitrary small perturbations $ \mathbf{u}$. Therefore $M^\intercal S= I$, or $M=\left(S^\intercal\right)^{-1}$, as shown above.
{#ssec:related_literature}
[[ Saltation matrices, or closely related constructions, appear in the analysis of phase response curves in a handful of papers that we now review.]{}]{}
[[ We first derived the general form of the jump condition for the infinitesimal phase response curve of a continuous limit cycle trajectory in arbitrary dimensions in [@Park2013MSThesis] without reference to saltation matrix methods. Subsequently, ]{}]{}
[[ Limitations of the Method]{}]{}
----------------------------------
Our results apply broadly, because many systems have the structure we discuss. Nevertheless some caveats are in order.
The iPRC does not always capture the response to a stimulus. In situations in which the linear approximation to the asymptotic phase function breaks down, for instance when the stimulus drives the oscillator’s trajectory close to the stable manifold of a saddle point on the boundary of the basin of attraction, mechanisms such as shear-induced chaos can lead to complicated responses to periodic forcing that cannot be predicted *via* iPRC analysis. This scenario can arise near the homoclinic bifurcation in the Morris-Lecar model, for example [@LinWedgwoodCoombesYoung2012JMathBiol]. Nevertheless, in many systems the iPRC plays an important role in understanding oscillator entrainment and synchronization.
Limit cycles with a sliding component, see [@KuznetsovRinaldiGragnani2003IJBC], do not satisfy the transverse boundary crossing assumption, and our theory does not apply. Moreover, our results presume the existence and uniqueness of an asymptotic phase function on the basin of attraction of an oscillator; and that the phase function is continuous throughout the basin of attraction, $C^1$ within the domains, and differentiable at the domain boundaries in all directions tangent to the boundary (Assumptions \[a:phase\]–\[a:direct\_deriv\]). For smooth systems, existence, uniqueness and differentiability of the phase function follows from classical results of invariant manifold theory [@Guckenheimer1975JMathBiol]. To our knowledge, parallel results have not been established in full generality for piecewise smooth systems. However, for the examples considered here, the theoretically obtained iPRCs coincide with the iPRCs obtained through direct numerical simulation. Specifically, we validated our calculations for three piecewise linear examples: a 2-dimensional Glass network, a family of 2-dimensional piecewise linear models verging on a heteroclinic cycle, and a 3-dimensional piecewise linear model motivated by motor control in the *Aplysia californica* feeding system. In each example we computed the iPRCs analytically and found strong agreement with numerically derived iPRCs (Figures \[fig:iPRC\_compare\_Glass\], \[modified-iris-iprc\], and \[fig:nominal-biting-prc\]).
In the examples we consider, the decomposition of the vector field into piecewise linear domains is specified in the statement of the original system. The approximation of limit cycles in a smooth system, with limit cycles in a piecewise linear system, has been investigated in a general setting [@StoraceDeFeo2004CircuitsSystems]. However, there is no *a priori* heuristic for how to approximate an arbitrary nonlinear system with a piecewise linear approximation. [[ Our method requires the phase function to be defined within some open neighborhood of the limit cycle (Assumption 4). For some nonsmooth systems, it is possible that the phase function may not be well defined throughout the entire basin of attraction of the limit cycle. For example, Simpson and Jeffrey discuss piecewise smooth systems with a “two-fold singularity" as a mechanism for finite time desynchronization of a limit cycle oscillator [@SimpsonJeffrey2016PRSA]. In their example, the basin of attraction includes regions admitting sliding solutions that remain on the boundary surface for finite times, leading to nonuniqueness of solutions, and hence nonuniquness of the phase function in a portion of the stable manifold of the limit cycle, (although uniqueness is guaranteed within a neighborhood of the limit cycle by the transverse flow condition). Our construction does not apply to such regions of the basin of attraction. ]{}]{}
[[ Further Applications]{}]{} {#ssec:further_applications}
-----------------------------
The extension of results from classical dynamical systems to nonsmooth systems is an active area of research with applications in a wide variety of contexts. Carmona *et al.* studied a canonical form for limit cycles in planar PWL dynamical systems with two regions [@carmona_etal_2013], using Melnikov methods to study existence and bifurcations of limit cycles. Ponce *et al.* studied bifurcations leading to limit cycles in PWL planar systems in [@ponce_etal_2013]. Existence of limit cycles has been shown for planar PWL systems with two regions in [@huan_etal_2012] and [@LlibrePonce2012DCDISSBAA], for planar PWL systems with an arbitrary but finite number of separate regions in [@gaiko_van_horssen_2009], and for a PWL system in $\mathbb{R}^4$ with three regions in [@cheng_2013]. Stability of piecewise linear limit cycles in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $m+1$ regions is analyzed in [@lin_etal_2003] using Poincaré map techniques. The review [@lin_etal_2009] discusses necessary and sufficient conditions for asymptotic stability of piecewise linear systems in $\mathbb{R}^n$; [@ma_et_al_2013] adapts Lyapunov functions for piecewise linear systems. Limit cycles in piecewise linear systems occur not only in biology but also in control engineering [@pettit_1996]. Piecewise linear systems arise naturally in anti-lock braking systems [@morse_1997], which are themselves engineered to produce limit cycle oscillations [@pettit_wellstead_1995]. Piecewise smooth relay feedback systems, first used in heating [@hawkins_1887] and more recently in (PID) control [@johansson_2002], can give rise to limit cycles. The exact conditions for limit cycle existence in relay feedback systems is given in [@tsypkin_1984]. Many piecewise linear biological models exist as well. A piecewise linear version of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo model (also called the McKean model) and a piecewise linear version of the Morris-Lecar model are studied in [@Coombes:2008:SIADS]. The authors in [@bizzarri_etal_2007] convert the Hindmarsch-Rose model into a piecewise linear version and analyze its stability. Gene regulatory networks are a classic example of piecewise linear models exhibiting limit cycle oscillations [@GlassPasternack1978JMB], and a subject of ongoing research. For instance, [@edwards_gill_2003] analyzes the stability of synchronous periodic solutions, assuming weak symmetric coupling of two Glass networks. Rigorous investigations of Glass networks have considered them within the framework of differential inclusions [@acary_etal_2014; @machina_ponosov_2011]. To facilitate construction of networks with customized dynamics [@zinovik_etal_2010] systematically classified cyclic attractors on Glass networks with up to six switching units. [[ Walsh and colleagues studied periodic orbits in a discontinuous vector field as a model of cycling phenomena in glacial dynamics [@walsh2016periodic].]{}]{} In summary, there is a rich collection of contexts in which piecewise linear and piecewise smooth systems arise.
Conclusion
==========
The infinitesimal phase response curve provides a linear approximation to the geometry of the asymptotic phase function in the vicinity of a stable limit cycle. The classical method for obtaining iPRCs from the adjoint [@ErmentroutKopell:1991:JMathBio] breaks down with nonsmooth dynamics because the Jacobian may not be well defined at the domain boundaries. In this paper we have introduced a general theory for the iPRCs for limit cycles arising in piecewise smooth systems, provided the limit cycle intersects the domain boundaries transversely and the boundaries are smooth at the points of intersection. In the case of piecewise smooth systems which are also continuous across the domain boundaries, we obtain continuous iPRCs. Discontinuities in the iPRCs may arise when the vector field is discontinuous across domain boundaries, and our analysis provides the explicit form of the discontinuity, [[ in the form of a linear matching condition related to the classical saltation matrix construction.]{}]{} Our results are consistent with, and extend, existing findings, such as [@Coombes:2008:SIADS]. Because piecewise smooth and piecewise linear systems arise in a wide variety of fields, from biology to engineering, our analysis has the potential for broad application.
Proofs of the Main Results {#section:proofs-of-main-results}
==========================
Proof of Theorem \[theorem\] {#section:proof-of-theorem}
----------------------------
From assumptions \[a:limit\_cycle\]–\[a:phase\], ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$ is a piecewise smooth limit cycle that admits a phase function $\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{x}}}})$ throughout the basin of attraction (B.A.), such that $d\theta/dt=1/T$ throughout the B.A. Also by assumption, $\theta$ is differentiable ($C^1$) in the interior of each region and continuous ($C^0$) at the boundaries between successive regions (assumptions \[a:isochron\] and \[a:phase\_deriv\]).
For a piecewise smooth dynamical system satisfying hypotheses H1–H4 and assumptions \[a:limit\_cycle\]–\[a:sigma\], the crossing point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ lies in an $n-1$ dimensional surface $\Sigma_{k+1}$ that is $C^1$ within a ball $B({\bm{p}}_{k+1},c)$ of radius $c$, and admits a unique unit length normal vector ${\hat{\bm{n}}}$ oriented in the direction of the flow. By Gram–Schmidt, we may construct $n-1$ orthonormal vectors $\hat{\bm{w}}_i$ spanning the hyperplane tangent to $\Sigma_{k+1}$ at ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ orthogonal to ${\hat{\bm{n}}}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n-1$.
Introduce local coordinates $u$ on $B({\bm{p}}_{k+1})\cap \Sigma_{k+1}$ such that $u=0$ corresponds to the point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$. Let $\theta_k$ denote the phase function $\theta$ within the $k$th domain. Although the gradient $\nabla\theta$ is not defined at points on the boundary $\Sigma_{k+1}$, we have well defined directional derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mathbf{w}}(\theta_k)(\mathbf{x}_k) &= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{1}{h}\left(\theta(\mathbf{x}_k+h\mathbf{w})-\theta(\mathbf{x}_k)\right)\\
D_{\mathbf{w}}(\theta_k)(\mathbf{x}_{k+1}) &= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{1}{h}\left(\theta(\mathbf{x}_{k+1}+h\mathbf{w})-\theta(\mathbf{x}_{k+1})\right)\end{aligned}$$ for points $\mathbf{x}_k$ and $\mathbf{x}_{k+1}$ in the interior of region $k$ and region $k+1$, respectively. Fixing a basis vector ${\hat{\bm{w}}_{i}}$ in the plane tangent to $\Sigma_{k+1}$ at ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ and taking the limits as $\mathbf{x}_k\to {\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ and $\mathbf{x}_{k+1}\to{\bm{p}}_{k+1}$, we have (assumption \[a:direct\_deriv\]) $$\hat{\bm{w}}_i \cdot \nabla\theta_{k+1}(u) =\hat{\bm{w}}_i \cdot \nabla\theta_k(u) , \quad \forall i=1,\ldots,n-1$$ (for simplicity, we use $\hat{\bm{w}}_i$ in place of ${\hat{\bm{w}}_{i}}^{k+1}$). For $u=0$, the gradient of the phase function is evaluated along the limit cycle. Referring back to the notation of Eq. we have $$\label{eq:tangent-direction-equivalence}
\hat{\bm{w}}_i\cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} = \hat{\bm{w}}_i\cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k}, \quad \forall i=1,\ldots,n-1.$$ Eq. provides $n-1$ independent linear equations for the $n$ unknown values $\bm{z}_j$, $j=1,\ldots n$. To obtain an $n$th independent linear equation, let $m \in \{k,k+1\}$ and let $\bm{x}_m(t)$ be a trajectory in the basin of attraction of vector field $\bm{F}_m$. By the chain rule, $$\begin{split}
\frac{d\theta_m}{dt} &=\left [ \nabla\theta_m(\bm{x}_m(t)) \right ] \cdot \frac{d}{dt}\bm{x}_m(t)\\
&= \bm{F}_{m}(x_{m}(t))\cdot\nabla\theta_m(\bm{x}_{m}(t)).
\end{split}$$ For a trajectory $\bm{x}_m(t)$ on the limit cycle, i.e., when $\bm{x}_m(t) = \bm{\gamma}_m(t)$, we have by definition of the iPRC (Appendix \[iprc\_derivation-appendix\]), $$\frac{d\theta_m}{dt} = \bm{F}_{m}({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{m}(t))\cdot \bm{z}_{m}(t).$$ Recalling that $d\theta/dt=1/T$, taking the one-sided limits, $$\label{eq:phase-limits}
\begin{split}
\lim_{t \rightarrow 0^+} \bm{F}_{k+1}({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{k+1}(t))\cdot \bm{z}_{k+1}(t) &= \bm{F}_{k+1,0}\cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0},\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow t_k^-} \bm{F}_{k}({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_{k}(t))\cdot \bm{z}_k(t) &= \bm{F}_{k,t_k}\cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k},
\end{split}$$ therefore $$\label{eq:thetaflow}
\bm{F}_{k+1,0}\cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} = \frac{1}{T} = \bm{F}_{k,t_k}\cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k}.$$ Eq. asserts that the phase function advances at the same rate as a function of time everywhere, and in particular on both sides of the boundary point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$. Combining Eq. with Eqs. provides $n$ independent linear equations: $$\label{eq:n-iprc-equations}
\begin{split}
\bm{F}_{k+1,0}\cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} &= \bm{F}_{k,t_k}\cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k},\\
\hat{\bm{w}}_1 \cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} &= \hat{\bm{w}}_1 \cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k},\\
\hat{\bm{w}}_2 \cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} &= \hat{\bm{w}}_2 \cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k},\\
\vdots\\
\hat{\bm{w}}_{n-1} \cdot \bm{z}_{k+1,0} &= \hat{\bm{w}}_{n-1} \cdot \bm{z}_{k,t_k},\\
\end{split}$$ which are equivalent to the equality expressed in Theorem \[theorem\] in terms of the $n \times n$ matrices $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{k}$ as defined in the theorem.
In order to solve for the initial value of the iPRC of the $k+1$ portion of the limit cycle, $\bm{z}_{k+1,0}$, we must invert the matrix $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$. The invertibility of $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$ is guaranteed because the vector field value $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$ and the $n-1$ tangent vectors are linearly dependent if and only if $\bm{F}_{k+1,0} \in \rm{span}(\hat{\bm{w}}_1,\ldots,\hat{\bm{w}}_{n-1})$. However, the vector $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$ can not be written as a linear combination of every ${{\color{black}{\hat{\bm{w}}}}}_i$, because the vector $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$ is always transverse to the boundary at the point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$, by assumption. Therefore, the vector $\bm{F}_{k+1,0}$ and the $n-1$ orthonormal basis vectors of the tangent hyperplane at the point ${\bm{p}}_{k+1}$ are linearly independent, and the matrix $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$ is invertible.
The boundary crossing point considered in the proof is arbitrary, so the proof applies to all boundary crossings of the limit cycle. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Proof of Corollary \[corl:circuit\] {#section:proof-of-corollaryIII2}
-----------------------------------
We adopt the same assumptions as Theorem \[theorem\]. By the assumptions stated in Section \[section:definitions-and-hypotheses\], the limit cycle, ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$, consists of $K$ distinct sections, each passing through a linear vector field $\bm{F}_1,\bm{F}_2,\ldots,\bm{F}_K$. The solution to the adjoint equation of the first region (Eq. ) is $$\bm{z}_1(t) = e^{A_{1} t} \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0},$$ where $A_{1} = -DF_1({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}_1(t))^T$, the negative transpose of the Jacobian matrix $DF_1$ evaluated along the limit cycle ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)$, $e^{A_{1} t}$ is a matrix exponential, and $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$ is an initial condition of the iPRC in the first region. Because the vector field is linear within each region, the Jacobian matrix is piecewise constant. The initial condition of the iPRC of the next region $\bm{z}_{2,0}$ may be written in terms of the initial condition of the iPRC of the first region: $$\begin{split}
\bm{z}_{2,0} &= M_{2} \bm{z}_{1,t_1}\\
&= M_{2} e^{A_{1} t_1} \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}.
\end{split}$$ Similarly, the initial condition of the iPRC of the third region may be written as, $$\begin{split}
\bm{z}_{3,0} &= M_{3} \bm{z}_{2,t_2}\\
&= M_{3} e^{A_{2} t_2} M_{2} e^{A_{1} t_1} \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0},
\end{split}$$ and so forth. Upon traversing the $K$th region we return to $ \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$, which must satisfy $$\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}=M_{1}e^{A_{K}t_{K}}\cdots M_{2}e^{A_{1} t_{1}} \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} =: B \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}.$$ Therefore $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$ is a unit eigenvector of $B$. Uniqueness of the unit eigenvector (up to multiplication by a constant) follows from the stability of the limit cycle (assumption \[a:limit\_cycle\]). If $B\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{q}$ for another eigenvector $\mathbf{q}\not\in\rm{span}(\mathbf{\hat{\mathbf{z}}}_{1,0})$, an arbitrarily small initial condition could be found near ${\bm{p}}_{1}$ that did not converge to ${{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}$.
Uniqueness of the magnitude of $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$ comes from Eq. , which we recall to be, $$\label{eq:normalization-proof}
\bm{F}_{1,0}\cdot \bm{z}_{1,0}=\frac{1}{T},$$ where $\bm{z}_{1,0}$ is the unique initial condition of the iPRC of region 1. The vector $\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}$ must be scaled by some constant $\alpha$ to be equivalent to the initial condition, $\bm{z}_{1,0}$. We can calculate the scaling by use of Eq. : $$\begin{split}
\bm{F}_{1,0} \cdot (\alpha \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}) &=\frac{1}{T}\\
\alpha \bm{F}_{1,0} \cdot \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} &=\frac{1}{T}\\
\alpha &=\frac{1}{T ( \bm{F}_{1,0}\cdot \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} )}.
\end{split}$$ Thus the unique initial condition of the iPRC, $\bm{z}_{1,0}$ is $$\begin{split}
\bm{z}_{1,0} &= \alpha \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}\\
&= \frac{\hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0}}{T ( \bm{F}_{1,0}\cdot \hat{\bm{z}}_{1,0} ) }.
\end{split}$$ This concludes the proof of uniqueness for the initial condition of the iPRC for affine linear vector fields satisfying Theorem \[theorem\]. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Proof of Corollary \[corl:eqn\] {#section:proof-of-corollaryIII3}
-------------------------------
Proof of Corollary \[corl:c0-vector-fields\] {#section:proof-of-corollaryIII4}
--------------------------------------------
If the vector fields are of class $C^0$ over boundaries, then the vector field coordinates $a_i$ and $b_i$ (see Eq. ) are equal for each $i$. Therefore, the matrices $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_k$ of Eq. are identical, and because $M_{k+1}=\mathcal{A}_{k+1}^{-1}\mathcal{B}_k$, the matrix $M_{k+1}$ reduces to the identity matrix for each $k$. [ <1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Derivation of the *Aplysia* Biting Model {#sec:aplysia_derivation}
========================================
We obtain the piecewise linear model for a central pattern generator comprising three motor pools with activities $b_i$ obeying the following dynamics: $$\label{eq:smooth-heteroclinic-appendix}
\frac{db_i}{dt} = f_i \equiv b_i - b_i^2 + \mu - \rho b_i b_{i+1},$$ where $i = 1,2,3$, $\mu$ is the bifurcation parameter, $\rho$ is the strength of coupling, and addition is interpreted cyclically.
We linearize about each saddle point at the heteroclinic bifurcation, and subsequently introduce the bifurcation parameter $a$ to offset each vector field and create a limit cycle. The linearization of system yields the Jacobian matrix: $$Df(\bm{b}) = \left ( \begin{matrix}
1-2b_1 - \rho b_2 & -\rho b_1 & 0\\
0 & 1-2b_2-\rho b_3 & - \rho b_2\\
-\rho b_3 & 0 & 1-2b_3 - \rho b_1 \end{matrix} \right)$$ At each saddle point, we have: $$\begin{split}
Df(1,0,0)(\bm{x}) &= \left ( \begin{matrix}-x -y \rho \\ y \\ z(1-\rho)\end{matrix} \right ), \\
Df(0,1,0)(\bm{x}) &= \left (\begin{matrix}x(1-\rho) \\ -y-z \rho \\ z\end{matrix}\right ), \\
Df(0,0,1)(\bm{x}) &= \left ( \begin{matrix}x \\ y(1-\rho) \\ -z - x \rho\end{matrix}\right ) .
\end{split}$$
.
Derivation of the iPRC for Smooth Systems {#iprc_derivation-appendix}
=========================================
The change in phase, $\Delta \theta$, in response to a perturbation of size $\varepsilon$ in the unit vector direction $\eta$, depends on the time at which the perturbation occurs. To derive the infinitesimal phase response curve, when the asymptotic phase function $\theta$ is $C^1$, we expand the function to first order in $\varepsilon$. $$\label{eq:iprc_derivation}
\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t) + \varepsilon \eta) = \theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)) + \varepsilon D\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))\cdot \eta + O(\varepsilon^2)$$ where $D$ denotes the directional derivative. The change in phase for a small perturbation of magnitude $\varepsilon$ and direction $\eta$ is $$\Delta \theta = \theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t) + \varepsilon \eta) - \theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t)) = \varepsilon D\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))\cdot \eta + O(\varepsilon^2)$$ Taking the limit results in the iPRC $$\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{\Delta \theta}{\varepsilon} = D\theta({{\color{black}{\bm{\gamma}}}}(t))\cdot \eta =: {{\color{black}{\bm{z}}}}(t) \cdot \eta.$$ [[ For a classical derivation of the adjoint equation see [@BrownMoehlisHolmes2004NeComp; @ErmentroutTerman2010book; @SchwemmerLewis2012PRCchapter].]{}]{}
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1413770 and NSF grant DMS-1010434. [The authors thank Dr. Yangyang Wang for suggesting several improvements to the manuscript.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Treewidth is a graph parameter of fundamental importance to algorithmic and structural graph theory. This paper describes several graph parameters tied to treewidth, including separation number, tangle number, well-linked number and cartesian tree product number. We prove that these parameters are tied to treewidth. In a number of cases we also improve known bounds, provide simpler proofs and show that the inequalities presented are tight.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics The University of Melbourne Melbourne, Australia'
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences Monash University Melbourne, Australia'
author:
- 'Daniel J. Harvey'
- 'David R. Wood'
bibliography:
- 'myBibliography.bib'
- 'extra.bib'
title: Parameters Tied to Treewidth
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
Treewidth is an important graph parameter for two key reasons. Firstly, treewidth has many algorithmic applications; for example, there are many results showing that NP-Hard problems can be solved in polynomial time on classes of graphs with bounded treewidth (see @Bodlaender-AC93 for a survey). Treewidth is inherently related to graph separators, which are “small" sets of vertices whose removal leaves no component with more than half the vertices (or thereabouts). Separators are particularly useful when using dynamic programming to solve graph problems; find and delete a separator, recursively solve the problem on the remaining components, and then combine these solutions to obtain a solution for the original problem.
Secondly, treewidth is a key parameter in graph structure theory, especially in Robertson and Seymour’s seminal series of papers on graph minors [@RS-GraphMinors]. Ultimately, the purpose of these papers was to prove what it now known as the Graph Minor Theorem (often referred to as Wagner’s Conjecture), which states that any class of minor-closed graphs (other than the class of all graphs) has a finite set of forbidden minors. In order to prove this, Robertson and Seymour separately considered classes with bounded treewidth and classes with unbounded treewidth. The Graph Minor Theorem is (comparatively) easy to prove for classes with bounded treewidth [@RS-GraphMinorsIV-JCTB90]. In order to prove the Graph Minor Theorem for classes with unbounded treewidth, Robertson and Seymour showed that graphs with large treewidth contain large grid minors. This Grid Minor Theorem has been reproved by many researchers; we will discuss it more thoroughly in Section \[section:gridminors\]. In proving these results, the parameters *linkedness* and *well-linked number* were used. At the heart of the Graph Minor Theorem is the Graph Minor Structure Theorem, which describes how to construct a graph in a minor-closed class; see @KM-GC07 for a survey of several versions of the Graph Minor Structure Theorem. The most complex version, and the one used in the proof of the Graph Minor Theorem, describes the structure of graphs in a minor-closed class with unbounded treewidth in terms of *tangles*. Robertson and Seymour combined all these ingredients in their proof of the Graph Minor Theorem. The purpose of this paper is to present a number of known graph parameters that are closely related to treewidth, including those mentioned above such as separation number, linkedness, well-linked number and tangle number.
Formally, a *graph parameter* is a real-valued function $\alpha$ defined on all graphs such that $\alpha(G_1)=\alpha(G_2)$ whenever $G_1$ and $G_2$ are isomorphic. Two graph parameters $\alpha(G)$ and $\beta(G)$ are *tied*[^3] if there exists a function $f$ such that for every graph $G$, $$\alpha(G) \leq f(\beta(G)) \text{ and } \beta(G) \leq f(\alpha(G)).$$ Moreover, say that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are *polynomially tied* if $f$ is a polynomial.
Drawing on results in the literature, we prove the following:
\[theorem:pttt\] The following graph parameters are polynomially tied:
- treewidth,
- bramble number,
- minimum integer $k$ such that $G$ is a spanning subgraph of a $k$-tree,
- minimum integer $k$ such that $G$ is a spanning subgraph of a chordal graph with no $(k+2)$-clique,
- separation number,
- branchwidth,
- tangle number,
- lexicographic tree product number,
- cartesian tree product number,
- linkedness,
- well-linked number,
- maximum order of a grid minor,
- maximum order of a grid-like-minor,
- Hadwiger number of the Cartesian product $G\square K_2$ (viewed as a function of $G$),
- fractional Hadwiger number,
- $r$-integral Hadwiger number for each $r\geq 2$.
@Fox11 states (without proof) a theorem similar to Theorem \[theorem:pttt\] with the parameters treewidth, bramble number, separation number, maximum order of a grid minor, fractional Hadwiger number, and $r$-integral Hadwiger number for each $r\geq 2$. Indeed, this statement of Fox motivated the present paper.
This paper investigates the parameters in Theorem \[theorem:pttt\], showing where these parameters have been useful, and provides proofs that each parameter is tied to treewidth (except in a few cases). In a number of cases we improve known bounds, provide simpler proofs and show that the inequalities presented are tight. The following graph is a key example. Say $n,k$ are integers. Let $\psi_{n,k}$ be the graph with vertex set $A \cup B$, where $A$ is a clique on $n$ vertices, $B$ is an independent set on $kn$ vertices, and $A \cap B = \emptyset$, such that each vertex of $A$ is adjacent to exactly $k(n-1)$ vertices of $B$ and each vertex of $B$ is adjacent to exactly $n-1$ vertices of $A$. (Note it always possible to add edges in this fashion; pair up each vertex in $A$ with $k$ vertices in $B$ such that all pairs are disjoint, and then add all edges from $A$ to $B$ except those between paired vertices.)
Treewidth and Basics
====================
Let $G$ be a graph. A *tree decomposition* of $G$ is a pair $(T, (B_x \subseteq V(G))_{x \in V(T)})$ consisting of
- a tree $T$,
- a collection of *bags* $B_x$ containing vertices of $G$, indexed by the nodes of $T$.
The following conditions must also hold:
- For all $v \in V(G)$, the set $\{ x \in V(T) : v \in B_x\}$ induces a non-empty subtree of $T$.
- For all $vw \in E(G)$, there is some bag $B_x$ containing both $v$ and $w$.
The *width* of a tree decomposition is defined as the size of the largest bag minus 1. The treewidth ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of $G$. Often, for the sake of simplicity, we will refer to a tree decomposition simply as $T$, leaving the set of bags implied whenever this is unambiguous. For similar reasons, often we say that bags $X$ and $Y$ are adjacent (or we refer to an edge $XY$), instead of the more accurate statement that the nodes of $T$ indexing $X$ and $Y$ are adjacent.
Treewidth was defined by @Halin76 (in an equivalent form which Halin called $S$-functions) and independently by @RS-GraphMinorsII-JAlg86. Intuitively, a graph with low treewidth is simple and treelike — note that a tree itself has treewidth 1. (In fact, ensuring this fact is the reason that 1 was subtracted in the definition of width.) On the other hand, a complete graph $K_{n}$ has treewidth $n-1$.
Say a tree decomposition is *normalised* if each bag has the same size, and if $|X-Y|=|Y-X|=1$ whenever $XY$ is an edge.
\[lemma:normal\] If $G$ has a tree decomposition of width $k$, then $G$ has a normalised tree decomposition of width $k$.
Let $T$ be the tree decomposition of $G$ with width $k$. Thus $T$ contains a bag of size $k+1$. If some bag of $T$ does not contain $k+1$ vertices, then as $T$ is connected, there exist adjacent bags $X$ and $Y$ such that $|X|=k+1$ and $|Y|<k+1$. Then $X-Y$ is non-empty; take some vertex of $X-Y$ and add it to $Y$. This increases $|Y|$, so repeat this process until all bags have size $k+1$.
Now, consider an edge $XY$. Since $|X|=|Y|$, it follows $|X-Y|=|Y-X|$. If $|X-Y| > 1$, then let $v \in X-Y$ and $u \in Y-X$. Subdivide the edge $XY$ of $T$ and call the new bag $Z$. Let $Z = X - \{v\} + \{u\}$. Now $|X-Z| = 1$ and $|Y-Z|=|Y-X|-1$, so repeat this process until $|X-Y|=|Y-X| \leq 1$ for each pair of adjacent bags. Finally, if $XY$ is an edge and $|X-Y|=0$, then contract the edge $XY$, and let the bag at the contracted node be $X$. Repeat this process so that if $X$ and $Y$ are a pair of adjacent bags, then $|X-Y|=|Y-X|=1$. All of these operations preserve tree decomposition properties and width. Hence this modified $T$ is our desired normalised tree decomposition.
A *$k$-colouring* of a graph $G$ is a function that assigns one of $k$ colours to each vertex of $G$ such that no pair of adjacent vertices are assigned the same colour. The *chromatic number* $\chi(G)$ is the minimum number $k$ such that $G$ has a $k$-colouring.
A graph $H$ is a *minor* of a graph $G$ if a graph isomorphic to $H$ can be constructed from $G$ by vertex deletion, edge deletion and edge contraction. *Edge contraction* means to take an edge $vw$ and replace $v$ and $w$ with a new vertex $x$ adjacent to all vertices originally adjacent to $v$ or $w$. If $H$ is a minor of $G$, say that $G$ has an $H$-minor.
The *Hadwiger number* ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)$ is the order of the largest complete minor of $G$. The Hadwiger number is most relevant to *Hadwiger’s Conjecture* [@Hadwiger43], often considered one of the most important unsolved conjectures in graph theory, which states that $\chi(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)$. Hadwiger’s Conjecture can be seen as an extension of the Four Colour Theorem, since every planar graph has ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G) \leq 4$. While the conjecture remains unsolved in general, it has been proved for ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G) \leq 5$ [@RST-Comb93].
Given a graph $H$, an *$H$-model* of $G$ is a set of pairwise vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs of $G$, called *branches*, indexed by the vertices of $H$, such that if $vw \in E(H)$, then there exists an edge between the branches indexed by $v$ and $w$. If $G$ has an $H$-model, then repeatedly contract the edges inside each branch and delete extra vertices and edges to obtain a copy of $H$. Thus if $G$ has an $H$-model, then $H$ is a minor of $G$. Similarly, if $H$ is a minor of $G$, “uncontract" each vertex in the minor to obtain an $H$-model of $G$. Models are helpful when dealing with questions relating to minors, as they describe how the $H$-minor “sits” in $G$.
Brambles
========
Two subgraphs $A$ and $B$ of a graph $G$ *touch* if $V(A)\cap V(B)\neq\emptyset$, or some edge of $G$ has one endpoint in $A$ and the other endpoint in $B$. A *bramble* in $G$ is a set of connected subgraphs of $G$ that pairwise touch. A set $S$ of vertices in $G$ is a *hitting set* of a bramble ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ if $S$ intersects every element of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$. The *order* of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is the minimum size of a hitting set. The *bramble number* of $G$ is the maximum order of a bramble in $G$. Brambles were first defined by @SeymourThomas-JCTB93, where they were called *screens of thickness $k$*. Seymour and Thomas proved the following result.
\[theorem:twdual\] For any graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) = {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) - 1.$$
Here, we present a short proof showing one direction of this result. The other (more difficult) direction can be found in [@SeymourThomas-JCTB93]; see @ShortDiestel for a shorter proof. Let $\beta$ be a bramble in $G$ of maximum order, and let $T$ be the underlying tree in a tree decomposition of $G$. For a subgraph $A \in \beta$, let $T_{A}$ be the subgraph of $T$ induced by the nodes of $T$ whose bags contain vertices of $A$. Since $A$ is connected, $T_A$ is also connected. Similarly, if $A,B \in \beta$, then since these subgraphs touch, there is a node of $T$ in both $T_A$ and $T_B$. So the set of subtrees $\{ T_A : A \in \beta \}$ pairwise intersect. By the Helly Property of trees, there is some node $x$ that is in all such $T_A$. The bag indexed by $x$ contains a vertex from each $A \in \beta$, so it is a hitting set of $\beta$. Hence that bag has order at least ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, and so ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \geq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) - 1$.
Note that this means that the bramble number is equal to the size of the largest bag in a minimum width tree decomposition.
Brambles are useful for finding a lower bound on the treewidth of a graph. Consider the following: given a valid tree decomposition $T$ for a graph $G$, then ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ is at most the width of $T$. Brambles provide the equivalent functionality for the lower bound — given a valid bramble of a graph $G$, it follows that the bramble number is at least the order of that bramble, giving us a lower bound on the treewidth. (For examples of this, see @bodlaenderbramble, @lucenabramble and Lemma \[lemma:gridbramble\].)
$k$-Trees and Chordal Graphs
============================
In certain applications, such as graph drawing [@DMW05; @DiGiacomo] or graph colouring [@KP-DM08; @Albertson-EJC04], it often suffices to consider only the edge-maximal graphs of a given family to obtain a result. The language of $k$-trees and chordal graphs provides an elegant description of the edge-maximal graphs with treewidth at most $k$.
A vertex $v$ in a graph $G$ is *$k$-simplicial* if it has degree $k$ and its neighbours induce a clique. A graph $G$ is a *$k$-tree* if either:
- $G = K_{k+1}$
- $G$ has a $k$-simplicial vertex $v$ and $G-v$ is also a $k$-tree.
Note that there is some discrepancy over this definition; certain authors use $K_{k}$ in the base case. This means that $K_{k}$ is a $k$-tree, but creates no other changes. $k$-trees have a strong tie to treewidth; see Lemma \[lemma:ktree\].
A graph is *chordal* if it contains no induced cycle of length at least four. That is, every cycle that is not a triangle contains a chord. @gavril74 showed that the chordal graphs are exactly the intersection graphs of subtrees of a tree $T$. So construct a tree decomposition with underlying tree $T$ as follows. Think of each $v \in V(G)$ as a subtree of $T$; place $v$ in the bags indexed by the nodes of that subtree. It can easily be seen that this is a tree decomposition of $G$ in which every bag is a clique (that is, every possible edge exists), since should two vertices share a bag, then their subtrees intersect and the vertices are adjacent. It also follows that the graph arising from a tree decomposition with all possible edges (that is, two vertices are adjacent if and only if they share a bag) is a chordal graph. Chordal graphs are therefore interesting by being the edge-maximal graphs for a fixed tree-width.
\[lemma:ktree\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) &= \min\{ k: G \text{ is a spanning subgraph of a $k$-tree }\}. \\
&= \min\{ k: G \text{ is a spanning subgraph of a chordal graph with no $(k+2)$-clique }\}.\end{aligned}$$
For simplicity, let $a(G) = \min\{ k: G$ is a spanning subgraph of a $k$-tree$\}$ and $b(G) = \min\{ k: G$ is a spanning subgraph of a chordal graph with no $(k+2)$-clique$\}$.
First, show $b(G) \leq a(G)$. @FG65 showed that a graph $H$ is chordal if and only if it has a *perfect elimination ordering*; that is, an ordering of the vertex set such that for each $v \in V(H)$, $v$ and all vertices adjacent to $v$ which are after $v$ in the ordering form a clique. If $H$ be an $a(G)$-tree such that $G$ is a spanning subgraph of $H$, then there is a simple perfect elimination ordering for $H$. (Repeatedly delete the $a(G)$-simplicial vertices to obtain $K_{a(G)+1}$, and consider the order of deletion.) So $H$ is chordal. It is clear that each $v$ has only $a(G)$ neighbours after it in this ordering, so $H$ has no $(a(G)+2)$-clique. (For any clique, consider the first vertex of the clique in the ordering, and note at most $a(G)$ other vertices are in the clique.) Thus $b(G) \leq a(G)$.
Second, show $a(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$. Assume for the sake of a contradiction that $G$ is a vertex-minimal counterexample, and say $G$ has treewidth $k$. It is easy to see $a(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ when $G$ is complete, so assume otherwise. Let $T$ be a tree decomposition of $G$ with minimum width. By Lemma \[lemma:normal\], assume $T$ is normalised. Note since $G$ is not complete, $T$ contains more than one bag. Let $G'$ be the graph created by taking $G$ and adding all edges $vw$, where $v$ and $w$ share some bag of $T$. So $G$ is a spanning subgraph of $G'$ and $T$ is a tree decomposition of $G'$ as well as $G$. By the normalisation, there is a vertex $v \in V(G')$ such that $v$ appears in a leaf bag $B$ of $T$ and nowhere else. Hence $v$ has exactly $k$ neighbours in $G'$, which form a clique as they are all in $B$. Since it is smaller than the minimal counterexample, $a(G'-v) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G'-v) \leq k$. Since $G'-v$ contains a $(k+1)$-clique (consider a bag of $T$ other than $B$), it follows $a(G'-v) \geq k$. Thus $a(G'-v)=k$, and $G'-v$ is a spanning subtree of a $k$-tree $H$. As $v$ is $k$-simplicial in $G'$, it follows $G'$ (and thus $G$) is a spanning subgraph of a $k$-tree, which contradicts our assumption. Finally, show ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq b(G)$. $G$ is a spanning subgraph of a $H$, chordal graph with no $(b(G)+2)$-clique. There is a tree decomposition of $H$ where every bag is a clique; this means it has width at most $b(G)$. This tree decomposition is also a tree decomposition for $G$, so ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq b(G)$.
Hence, it follows that $b(G) \leq a(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq b(G)$, which is sufficient to prove our desired result.
Separators {#section:separators}
==========
For a graph $G$, a set $S \subseteq V(G)$, and some $c \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$, a $(k,S,c)$-*separator* is a set $X \subseteq V(G)$ with $|X| \leq k$, such that no component of $G-X$ contains more than $c|S-X|$ vertices of $S$. Note that a $(k,S,c)$-separator is also a $(k,S,c')$-separator for all $c' \geq c$. Define the *separation number* ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G)$ to be the minimum integer $k$ such that there is a $(k,S,c)$-separator for all $S \subseteq V(G)$. We also consider the following variant: a $(k,S,c)^*$-*separator* is a set $X \subseteq V(G)$ with $|X| \leq k$ such that no component of $G-X$ contains more than $c|S|$ vertices of $S-X$. Define ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G)$ analogously to ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G)$, but with respect to these variant separators. It follows from the definition that ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G)$.
Separators can be seen as a generalisation of the ideas presented in the famous planar separator theorem [@LT79], which essentially states that a planar graph $G$ with $n$ vertices has a $(O(\sqrt{n}),V(G),\frac{2}{3})^*$-separator. Unfortunately, the precise definition of a separator and the separation number is inconsistent across the literature. The above definition is an attempt to unify all existing definitions. @RS-GraphMinorsII-JAlg86 gave the first lower bound on ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ in terms of separators, though they do not use the term, nor do they give an explicit definition of separation number. This definition is equivalent to our standard definition but with $c$ fixed at $\frac{1}{2}$. @GM-JCTB, give the above variant definition, with $c$ fixed at $\frac{1}{2}$, and instead call it a *balanced separator*. @Reed97 defines separators using our standard definition, with $c=\frac{2}{3}$. @Bodlaender-TCS98 defines type-1 and type-2 separators, which have variable proportion (i.e. allow for different values of $c$), but are not defined on sets other than $V(G)$. Sometimes [@Fox11; @GM-JCTB; @Bodlaender-TCS98] instead of considering components in $G-X$, separators are defined as partitioning the vertex set of $G-X$ into exactly two parts $A$ and $B$, such that no edge has an endpoint in both parts and $|A \cap S|,|B \cap S| \leq c|S|$. (In fact, @Bodlaender-TCS98 uses both this definition and the standard “components of $G-X$" definition as the difference between type-1 and type-2 separators.) As long as $c \geq \frac{2}{3}$, this is equivalent to considering the components, since Lemma \[lemma:comptrick\] and Corollary \[corollary:comptrick\] allow partitioning of the components into parts $A$ and $B$. However, for lower values of $c$ this no longer holds, for example, if $c=\frac{1}{2}$, it is possible that each component contains exactly $\frac{1}{3}$ of the vertices of $S$, so there is no acceptable partition into $A$ and $B$. As a result, $c=\frac{2}{3}$ and $c=\frac{1}{2}$ are the most “natural" choices for $c$.
Fortunately, ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G),{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G),{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_{c'}(G)$ and ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_{c'}^*(G)$ are all tied for all $c,c' \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$. [^4]
@RS-GraphMinorsII-JAlg86 proved that $${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_{\frac{1}{2}}(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1\enspace.$$ (Of course, they did not use our notation.) @RS-GraphMinorsII-JAlg86 [@RS-GraphMinorsXIII-JCTB95] also proved that $${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1\leq 4\,{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_{\frac{2}{3}}(G) - 2\enspace.$$ (@Reed97 [@Reedktreefinder] gives a more accessible proof of this upper bound.) We now provide a series of lemmas to prove a slightly stronger result, that replaces the multiplicative constant “4" by “3".
First, we prove a useful lemma for dealing with components of a graph.
\[lemma:comptrick\] For every graph $G$ and for all sets $X, S \subseteq V(G)$ such that no component of $G-X$ contains more than half of the vertices of $S-X$, it is possible to partition the components of $G-X$ into at most three parts such that no part contains more than half the vertices of $S-X$.
If $G-X$ has at most three components, the claim follows immediately. Hence assume $G-X$ has at least four components. Initially, let each part simply contain a single component. Merge parts as long as the merge does not cause the new part to contain more than half the vertices of $S-X$. Now if two parts contain more than $\frac{1}{4}$ of the vertices of $S-X$ each, then all other parts (of which there must be at least two) contain, in total, less than $\frac{1}{2}$ of the vertices of $S-X$. Then merge all other parts together, leaving the partition with exactly three parts. Alternatively only one part (at most) contains more than $\frac{1}{4}$ of the vertices of $S-X$. So at least three parts contain at most $\frac{1}{4}$ of the vertices of $S-X$, and so merge two of them. This lowers the number of parts in the partition. As long as there are four or more parts, one of these operations can be performed, so repeat until at most three parts remain.
\[corollary:comptrick\] For every graph $G$ and for all sets $X, S \subseteq V(G)$ such that no component of $G-X$ contains more than two-thirds of the vertices of $S-X$, it is possible to partition the components of $G-X$ into at most two parts such that no part contains more than two-thirds the vertices of $S-X$.
This corollary follows by a very similar argument to Lemma \[lemma:comptrick\].
The following argument is similar to that provided in [@RS-GraphMinorsII-JAlg86].
\[lemma:sepleqtw\] For any graph $G$ and for all $c \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$, $${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1.$$
Fix $S \subseteq V(G)$ and let $k := {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$. It is sufficient to construct a $(k,S,\frac{1}{2})$-separator for $G$. $G$ has a normalised tree decomposition $T$ with maximum bag size $k$, by Lemma \[lemma:normal\]. Consider a pair of adjacent bags $X,Y$. Let $T_X$ and $T_Y$ be the subtrees of $T-XY$ containing bags $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Let $U_X \subseteq V(G)$ be the set of vertices only appearing in bags of $T_X$, and $U_Y$ the set of vertices only appearing in bags of $T_Y$. Then $U_X, X \cap Y, U_Y$ is a partition of $V(G)$ such that no edge has an endpoint in $U_X$ and $U_Y$. Each component of $G-(X \cap Y)$ is contained entirely within $U_X$ or $U_Y$. Say $Q \subseteq V(G)$ is *large* if $|Q \cap S| > \frac{1}{2}|S-(X \cap Y)|$.
If neither $U_X$ or $U_Y$ is large, then no component of $G-(X \cap Y)$ is large. Hence $X \cap Y$ is a $(|X \cap Y|, S,\frac{1}{2})$-separator. Since $|X \cap Y| \leq |Y| \leq k$, this is sufficient.
Alternatively, for all edges $XY \in E(T)$, exactly one of $U_X$ and $U_Y$ is large. (If both sets are large, then $|S-(X \cap Y)| = |U_X \cap S| + |U_Y \cap S| > |S-(X \cap Y)|$, which is a contradiction.) Orient the edge $XY \in E(T)$ towards $X$ if $U_X$ is large, or towards $Y$ if $U_Y$ is large.
Now there must be a bag $B$ with outdegree 0. If $B$ is a $(|B|, S,\frac{1}{2})$-separator, then as $|B|=k$, the result is achieved. Otherwise, exactly one component $C$ of $G-B$ is large. The vertices of $C$ only appear in the bags of a single subtree of $T-B$. Label that subtree as $T'$, and let $A$ denote the bag of $T'$ adjacent to $B$. Recall there is a partition $V(G)$ into $U_A, A \cap B, U_B$ where $|U_B \cap S| > \frac{1}{2}|S-(A \cap B)|$, since the edge $AB$ is oriented towards $B$. Hence $|U_A \cap S| < \frac{1}{2}|S-(A \cap B)|$. Also note the vertices of $G-B$ that only appear in the bags of $T'$ are exactly the vertices of $U_A$. Hence $C \subseteq U_A$, and $|U_A \cap S| > \frac{1}{2}|S-B|$.
So $\frac{1}{2}|S-B| < |U_A \cap S| < \frac{1}{2}|S-(A \cap B)|$. By our normalisation, $|A \cap B| = |B|-1$. So $|S-B| \geq |S-(A \cap B)|-1$. Thus $|S-(A \cap B)|-1 < 2|U_A \cap S| < |S-(A \cap B)|$, which is a contradiction as $|S-(A \cap B)|-1$, $2|U_A \cap S|$ and $|S-(A \cap B)|$ are all integers.
Now we provide a proof of the upper bound.
For any graph $G$, for all $c \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$, $${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq \frac{1}{1-c}{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G).$$
Say $\beta$ is an optimal bramble of $G$ with a minimum hitting set $H$. That is, $|H|={\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$. For the sake of a contradiction, assume that $(1-c){\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) > {\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G)$. So there is a $({\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G),H,c)^*$-separator $X$. If $X$ is a hitting set for $\beta$ then ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq |X| \leq sep_c^*(G) < (1-c){\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, which is a contradiction. So $X$ is not a hitting set for $\beta$. Thus some bramble element of $\beta$ is entirely within a component of $G-X$. Only one such component can contain bramble elements. Call this component $C$. Then we can hit every bramble element of $\beta$ with the vertices of $X$ or the vertices of $H$ inside $C$, that is, $X \cup (H \cap V(C))$ is a hitting set. Since $X$ is a $({\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G),H,c)^*$-separator, $|H \cap V(C)| \leq c|H|$. Thus $|X \cup (H \cap V(C))| = |X| + |H \cap V(C)| \leq |X| + c|H| \leq {\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G) + c|H| < (1-c)|H| + c|H| = |H|$. Thus $X \cup (H \cap V(C))$ is a hitting set smaller than the minimum hitting set, a contradiction.
Hence, from the above it follows that for $c \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$, $${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) + 1 = {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq \frac{1}{1-c}{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(G) \leq \frac{1}{1-c}{\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(G).$$
Each of the above inequalities is tight. For a fixed $c \in [\frac{1}{2},1)$, let $k,n$ be integers such that $k > \frac{c}{1-c}+1$ and $n \geq \frac{k-1}{1-c}$. Then ${\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c^*(\psi_{n,k}) = {\textsf{\textup{sep}}}_c(\psi_{n,k}) = n$, which proves that the first and last inequalities are tight. (See @thesis for a proof of this result.) The remaining two inequalities are tight due to the complete graph $K_n$.
Branchwidth and Tangles
=======================
A *branch decomposition* of a graph $G$ is a pair $(T, \theta)$ where $T$ is a tree with each node having degree 3 or 1, and $\theta$ is a bijective mapping from the edges of $G$ to the leaves of $T$. A vertex $x$ of $G$ is *across* an edge $e$ of $T$ if there are edges $xy$ and $xz$ of $G$ mapped to leaves in different subtrees of $T-e$. The *order* of an edge $e$ of $T$ is the number of edges of $G$ across $e$. The *width* of a branch decomposition is the maximum order of an edge. Finally, the *branchwidth* ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the minimum width over all branch decompositions of $G$. Note that if $|E(G)| \leq 1$, there are no branch decompositions of $G$, in which case we define ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G)=0$. @RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91 first defined branchwidth, where it was defined more generally for hypergraphs; here we just consider the case of simple graphs. Tangles were first defined by @RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91. Their definition is in terms of sets of separations of graphs. (Note, importantly, that a *separation* is not the same as a *separator* as defined in Section \[section:separators\].) We omit their definition and instead present the following, initially given by @Reed97.
A set $\tau$ of connected subgraphs of a graph $G$ is a *tangle* if for all sets of three subgraphs $A,B,C \in \tau$, there exists either a vertex $v$ of $G$ in $V(A \cap B \cap C)$, or an edge $e$ of $G$ such that each of $A,B$ and $C$ contain at least one endpoint of $e$. Clearly a tangle is also a bramble—this is the main advantage of this definition. The *order* of a tangle is equal to its order when viewed as a bramble. The *tangle number* ${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$ is the maximum order of a tangle in $G$.
When defined with respect to hypergraphs, treewidth and tangle number are tied to the maximum of branchwidth and the size of the largest edge. So for simple graphs, there are a few exceptional cases when ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) < 2$, which we shall deal with briefly. If $G$ is connected and ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \leq 1$, then $G$ has at most one vertex with degree greater than 1 (that is, $G$ is a star), and ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)={\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G) \leq 2$. Henceforth, assume ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \geq 2$.
@RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91 prove the following relation between tangle number and branchwidth; we omit the proof. Instead we show that ${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G),{\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G),{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$ and ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ are all tied by small constant factors.
\[theorem:tangbw\] For a graph $G$, if ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \geq 2$, then $${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) = {\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G).$$
@RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91 proved that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq \frac{3}{2}{\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$. @Reed97 provided a short proof that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq 3\,{\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$. Here, we modify Reed’s proof to show that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$.
For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)\leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G).$$
Since every tangle is also a bramble, ${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$.
To prove that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$, let $k:={\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, and say $\beta$ is a bramble of $G$ of order $k$. Consider a set $S \subseteq V(G)$ with $|S| < k$. If two components of $G-S$ entirely contain a bramble element of $\beta$, then those two bramble elements do not touch. Alternatively, if no component of $G-S$ entirely contains a bramble element, then all bramble elements use a vertex in $S$, and $S$ is a hitting set of smaller order than the minimum hitting set. Thus exactly one component $S'$ of $G-S$ entirely contains a bramble element of $\beta$. Clearly, $V(S') \cap S = \emptyset$.
Define $\tau := \{ S' : S \subseteq V(G), |S| < \frac{k}{2} \}$. To prove that $\tau$ is a tangle, let $T_1, T_2, T_3$ be three elements of $\tau$. Say $T_i = S'_i$ for each $i$. Since $|S_1 \cup S_2| < k$, some bramble element $B_1$ of $\beta$ does not intersect $S_1 \cup S_2$. Similarly, some bramble element $B_2$ does not intersect $S_2 \cup S_3$. Since $B_1$ does not intersect $S_1$, it is entirely within one component of $G-S_1$, that is, $B_1 \subseteq T_1$. Similarly, $B_1 \subseteq T_2$ and $B_2 \subseteq T_2 \cap T_3$. Since $B_1,B_2 \in \beta$, they either share a vertex $v$, or there is an edge $e$ with one endpoint in $B_1$ and the other in $B_2$. In the first case, $v \in V(T_1 \cap T_2 \cap T_3)$. In the second case, one endpoint of $e$ is in $T_1 \cap T_2$, the other in $T_2 \cap T_3$. It follows that $\tau$ is a tangle. The order of $\tau$ is at least $\frac{k}{2}$, since a set $X$ of size less than $\frac{k}{2}$ has a defined $X' \in \tau$, and so $X$ does not intersect all subgraphs of $\tau$. Then ${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G) \geq \frac{k}{2}$.
We now provide a proof for a direct relationship between branchwidth and treewidth. Note again these proofs are modified versions of those in [@RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91].
\[lemma:twbranch\] For a graph $G$, if ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \geq 2$ then $${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1 \leq \frac{3}{2}\,{\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G).$$
We prove the second inequality first. Assume no vertex is isolated. Let $k:= {\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G)$, and let $(T,\theta)$ be a branch decomposition of order $k$. We construct a tree decomposition with $T$ as the underlying tree, and where $B_x$ will denote the bag indexed by each node $x$ of $T$. A node $x$ in $T$ has degree 3 or 1. If $x$ has degree 1, then let $B_{x}$ contain the two endpoints of $e = \theta^{-1}(x)$. If $x$ has degree 3, then let $B_{x}$ be the set of vertices that are across at least one edge incident to $x$. We now show that this is a tree decomposition. Every vertex appears at least once in the tree decomposition. Also, for every edge $vw \in E(G)$, the bag of the leaf node $\theta(vw)$ contains both $v$ and $w$. If we consider vertex $v \in V(G)$ incident with $vw$ and $vu$, then $v$ is across every edge in $T$ on the path from $\theta(vw)$ to $\theta(vu)$. Thus, $v$ is in every bag indexed by a node on that path. Such a path exists for all neighbours $w,u$ of $v$. It follows that the subtree of nodes indexing bags containing $v$ form a subtree of $T$. Thus $(T, (B_x)_{x \in V(T)})$ is a tree decomposition of $G$. A bag indexed by a leaf node has size 2. If $x$ is not a leaf, then $B_x$ contains the vertices that are across at least one edge incident to $x$. Suppose $v$ is across exactly one such edge $e$. Then there exists $\theta(vw)$ and $\theta(vu)$ in different subtrees of $T-e$. Without loss of generality, $\theta(vw)$ is in the subtree containing $x$. But then the path from $x$ to $\theta(vw)$ uses one of the other two edges incident to $x$. Hence if $v$ is in $B_{x}$ then $v$ is across at least two edges incident to $x$. If the sets of vertices across the three edges incident to $x$ are $A,B$ and $C$ respectively, then $|A| + |B| + |C| \geq 2|B_{x}|$. But $|A|+|B|+|C| \leq 3k$. Therefore, regardless of whether $x$ is a leaf, $|B_{x}| \leq \max\{2,\frac{3}{2}k\} =\frac{3}{2}k$ (since $k \geq 2$). Therefore ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1 \leq \frac{3}{2}k$.
Now we prove the first inequality. Let $k:={\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$. Hence there exists a tree decomposition $(T, (B_x)_{x \in V(T)})$ with maximum bag size $k$; choose this tree decomposition such that $T$ is node-minimal, and such that the subtree induced by $\{ x \in V(T) : v \in B_x\}$ is also node-minimal for each $v \in V(G)$. If $k < 2$, then $G$ contains no edge, and ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) = 0$. Now assume $k \geq 2$ and $E(G) \neq \emptyset$. As this result is trivial when $G$ is complete, we assume otherwise, and thus $T$ is not a single node.
Note the following facts: if $x$ is a node of $T$ with degree 2, then there exists some pair of adjacent vertices $v,w$ such that $B_x$ is the only bag containing $v$ and $w$. (Otherwise, $T$ would violate the minimality properties.) Similarly, if $x$ is a leaf node, then there exists some $v \in V(G)$ such that $B_x$ is the only bag containing $v$. $B_x$ also contains the neighbours of $v$, but nothing else.
Now, for every edge $vw \in E(G)$, choose some bag $B_x$ containing $v$ and $w$. Unless $x$ is a leaf with $B_x = \{v,w\}$, add to $T$ a new node $y$ adjacent to $x$, such that $B_y = \{v,w\}$. Clearly $(T, (B_x)_{x \in V(T)})$ is still a tree decomposition of the same width. From our above facts, every leaf node is either newly constructed or was already of the form $B_x = \{v,w\}$. Also, every node that previously had degree 2 now has higher degree. A node that was previously a leaf either remains a leaf, or now has degree at least 3. So no node of the new $T$ has degree 2.
If a node $x$ has degree greater than 3, then delete the edges from $x$ to two of its neighbours (denoted $y,z$), and add to $T$ a new node $s$ adjacent to $x,y$ and $z$. Let $B_s := B_x \cap (B_y \cup B_z)$. Clearly this is still a tree decomposition of the same width. Now the degree of $x$ has been reduced by 1, and the new node has degree 3. Repeat this process until all nodes have either degree 3 or 1.
Since each leaf bag contains exactly the endpoints of an edge (and no edge has both endpoints in more than one leaf), there is a bijective mapping $\theta$ that takes $vw \in E(G)$ to the leaf node containing $v$ and $w$. Together with $T$, this gives a branch decomposition of $G$. If $xy \in E(T)$, then all edges of $G$ across $xy$ are in $B_x \cap B_y$. So the order of this branch decomposition is at most $k$. Thus ${\textsf{\textup{bw}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$.
(Note that our minimality properties would imply that $|B_x \cap B_y| < k$, however converting the tree to ensure that all nodes have degree 3 or 1 does not necessarily maintain this.)
@RS-GraphMinorsX-JCTB91 showed the bounds in Lemma \[lemma:twbranch\] are tight. To show this, we shall use Theorem \[theorem:tangbw\] and consider the bounds in terms of ${\textsf{\textup{tn}}}(G)$. $K_n$ exhibits the upper bound on ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ when $n$ is divisible by 3; let the tangle contain all subgraphs with more than $\frac{2}{3}n$ vertices. The graph $K_{n,n}$ minus a perfect matching exhibits the lower bound on ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ when $n \geq 4$; let the tangle contain all connected subgraphs with at least $n$ vertices.
Tree Products
=============
Let the *lexicographic tree product number* of $G$, denoted by ${\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)$, be the minimum integer $k$ such that $G$ is a minor of $T[K_k]$ for some tree $T$. Here $T[K_k]$ is the lexicographic product, which is the graph obtained from $T$ by replacing each vertex by a copy of $K_k$ and each edge by a copy of $K_{k,k}$. We now show that ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}$ and ${\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}$ are within constant factors of each other.
\[lemma:ltp\] For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)-1\leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)\leq2{\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)-1\enspace.$$
First we prove that ${\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)\leq{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$. Consider a tree decomposition of $G$ with width $k:={\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$ whose underlying tree is $T$. Clearly, $G$ is a minor of $T[K_{k+1}]$. Thus ${\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)\leq k+1$.
Now we prove that ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)\leq2{\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)-1$. Let $T$ be a tree such that $G$ is a minor of $T[K_k]$ where $k:={\textsf{\textup{ltp}}}(G)$. For each vertex $v$ of $T$ let $K_v$ be the copy of $K_k$ that replaces $v$ in the construction of $T[K_k]$. Let $T'$ be the tree obtained from $T$ by subdividing each edge. Now we construct a tree decomposition of $T[K_k]$ whose underlying tree is $T'$. For each vertex $v$ of $T$, let the bag at $v$ consist of $K_v$. For each edge $vw$ of $T$ subdivided by vertex $x$, let the bag at $x$ consist of $K_v\cup K_w$. Thus each edge of $T[K_k]$ is in some bag, and the set of bags that contain each vertex of $T[K_k]$ form a connected subtree of $T'$. Hence we have a tree decomposition of $T'$. Each bag has size at most $2k$. Hence ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(T[K_k])\leq 2k-1$. (In fact, ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(T[K_k])= 2k-1$ since $T[K_k]$ contains $K_{2k}$.) Thus every minor of $T'$, including $G$, has treewidth at most $2k-1$.
If $T$ is a tree, let $T^{(k)}$ denote the cartesian product of $T$ with $K_k$. That is, the graph with vertex set $\{(x,i): x \in T, i \in \{1, \dots, k\}\}$ and with an edge between $(x,i)$ and $(y,j)$ when $x=y$, or when $xy \in E(T)$ and $i=j$. Then define the *cartesian tree product number* of $G$, ${\textsf{\textup{ctp}}}(G)$, to be the minimum integer $k$ such that $G$ is a minor of $T^{(k)}$. ${\textsf{\textup{ctp}}}(G)$ was first defined by @holst and @yves, however they did not use that name or notation. They also proved the following result. We provide a different proof.
\[lemma:ctp\] For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{ctp}}}(G)-1 \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{ctp}}}(G).$$
Let $k:= {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$. By Lemma \[lemma:ktree\], $G$ is the spanning subgraph of a chordal graph $G'$ that has a $(k+1)$-clique but no $(k+2)$-clique. Let $(T, (B_x \subseteq V(G))_{x \in V(T)})$ be a minimum width tree decomposition of $G'$. This has width $k$ and is also a tree decomposition of $G$. To prove the first inequality, it is sufficient to show that $G$ is a minor of $T^{(k+1)}$. Let $c$ be a $(k+1)$-colouring of $G'$. (It is well-known that chordal graphs are perfect.) For each $v \in V(G)$, define the connected subgraph $R_v$ of $T^{(k+1)}$ such that $R_v := \{(x,c(v)): v \in B_x\}$. If $(x,i) \in V(R_v) \cap V(R_w)$ then both $v$ and $w$ are in $B_x$ and $c(v)=c(w)=i$. But if $v$ and $w$ share a bag then $vw \in E(G')$, which contradicts the vertex colouring $c$. So the subgraphs $R_v$ are pairwise disjoint, for all $v \in V(G)$. If $vw \in E(G)$, then $v$ and $w$ share a bag $B_x$. Hence there is an edge $(x,c(v))(x,c(w))$ between the subgraphs $R_v$ and $R_w$. Hence the $R_v$ subgraphs form a $G$-model of $T^{(k+1)}$.
Now we prove the second inequality. Let $k:= {\textsf{\textup{ctp}}}(G)$, and choose tree $T$ such that $G$ is a minor of $T^{(k)}$. As ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(T^{(k)})$, it is sufficient to show that ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(T^{(k)}) \leq k$. Let $T'$ be the tree $T$ with each edge subdivided $k$ times. Label the vertices created by subdividing $xy \in E(T)$ as $xy(1), \dots, xy(k)$, such that $xy(1)$ is adjacent to $x$ and $xy(k)$ is adjacent to $y$. Construct $(T', (B_x \subseteq V(G))_{x \in V(T')})$ as follows. For a vertex $x \in T$, let $B_x = \{(x,i) | i \in \{1, \dots, k\}\}$. For a subdivision vertex $xy(j)$, let $B_{xy(j)} = \{(x,i),(y,i') | 1 \leq i' \leq j \leq i \leq k\}$. This is a valid tree decomposition with maximum bag size $k+1$. Hence ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(T^{(k)}) \leq k$ as required.
All these bounds are tight. Let $k,n$ be integers such that $n \geq 3$. Then the first inequalities in Lemma \[lemma:ltp\] and Lemma \[lemma:ctp\] are tight for $\psi_{n,k}$ [@thesis]. (Also see @MS for a similar result.) The second inequalities are tight for the complete graph $K_n$ (for Lemma \[lemma:ltp\], ensure that $n$ is even).
Linkedness
==========
@Reed97 introduced the following definition. For a positive integer $k$, a set $S$ of vertices in a graph $G$ is *$k$-linked* if for every set $X$ of fewer than $k$ vertices in $G$ there is a component of $G-X$ that contains more than half of the vertices in $S$. The *linkedness* of $G$, denoted by ${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$, is the maximum integer $k$ for which $G$ contains a $k$-linked set. Linkedness is used by @Reed97 in his proof of the Grid Minor Theorem.
\[lemma:lemmalink\] For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)\leq2\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)\enspace.$$
First we prove that ${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$. Let $k:={\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$. Let $S$ be a $k$-linked set of vertices in $G$. Thus, for every set $X$ of fewer than $k$ vertices there is a component of $G-X$ that contains more than half of the vertices in $S$. This component is unique. Call it the *big* component. Let $\beta$ be the set of big components (taken over all such sets $X$). Clearly, any two elements of $\beta$ intersect at a vertex in $S$. Hence $\beta$ is a bramble. Let $H$ be a hitting set for $\beta$. If $|H|<k$ then (by the definition of $k$-linked) there is a component of $G-H$ that contains more than half of the vertices in $S$, implying $H$ does not hit some big component. This contradiction proves that $|H|\geq
k$. Hence $\beta$ is a bramble of order at least $k$. Therefore ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)\geq k={\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$.
Now we prove that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)\leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$. Assume for the sake of a contradiction that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) > 2\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$. Let $k := {\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$, so $G$ is not $(k+1)$-linked. Let $H$ be a minimum hitting set for a bramble $\beta$ of $G$ of largest order. Since $H$ is not $(k+1)$-linked, there exists a set $X$ of order at most $k$ such that no component of $G-X$ contains more than half of the vertices in $H$. Note that at most one component of $G-X$ can entirely contain a bramble element of $\beta$ (otherwise two bramble elements do not touch). If no component of $G-X$ entirely contains a bramble element of $\beta$, then $X$ is a hitting set for $\beta$ of order $|X| \leq k < \frac{1}{2}{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, which contradicts the order of the minimum hitting set. Finally, if a component of $G-X$ entirely contains some bramble element of $\beta$, then let $H' \subset H$ be the set of vertices of $H$ in that component. Now $H'$ intersects all of the bramble elements contained in the component (since those bramble elements do not intersect any other vertices of $H$), and $X$ intersects all remaining bramble elements, as in the previous case. Thus, $H' \cup X$ is a hitting set for $\beta$. However, $|X| \leq k < \frac{1}{2}{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, and by the choice of $X$, $|H'| \leq \frac{1}{2}|H| = \frac{1}{2}{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$. So $|H' \cup X| = |H'| + |X| < {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$, again contradicting the order of the minimum hitting set.
When $n$ is even ${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(K_n) = \frac{n}{2}$, so the second inequality is tight. The first inequality is tight since ${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(\psi_{n,k}) = {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(\psi_{n,k}) = n$ when $k \geq 2$ and $n \geq 3$ [@thesis].
Well-linked and $k$-Connected Sets
==================================
For a graph $G$, a set $S \subseteq V(G)$ is *well-linked* if for every pair $A,B \subseteq S$ such that $|A|=|B|$, there exists a set of $|A|$ vertex-disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$. If we can ensure these vertex-disjoint paths also have no internal vertices in $S$, then $S$ is *externally-well-linked*. The notion of a well-linked set was first defined by @Reed97, while a similar definition was used by @RST-JCTB94. Reed also described externally-well-linked sets in the same paper (but did not define it explicitly) and stated but did not prove that $S$ is well-linked iff $S$ is externally-well-linked. We provide a proof below. Let ${\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) := \max\{|S| : S \subseteq V(G), S$ is well-linked$\}$ denote the *well-linked number* of $G$.
\[lemma:extwl\] $S$ is well-linked iff $S$ is externally-well-linked.
It should be clear that if $S$ is externally-well-linked that $S$ is well-linked, so we prove the forward direction. Let $S \subseteq V(G)$ be well-linked. It is sufficient to show that for all $A,B \subseteq S$ with $|A|=|B|$ there are $|A|$ vertex-disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$ that are internally disjoint from $S$. Define $C := S - (A \cup B)$ and $A' := A \cup C$ and $B' := B \cup C$. Now $S = A' \cup B'$. Since $S$ is well-linked and $|A'| = |B'|$, there are $|A'|$ vertex-disjoint paths between $A'$ and $B'$. Each such path uses exactly one vertex from $A'$ and one vertex from $B'$. Thus, if $v \in C \subseteq A \cap B$, then the path containing $v$ must simply be the singleton path $\{v\}$. Thus this path set contains a set of singleton paths for each vertex of $C$ and, more importantly, a set of paths starting in $A'-C = A$ and ending at $B'-C = B$. Since every vertex of $S$ is in either $A'$ or $B'$, and each path starts at a vertex in $A'$ and ends at one in $B'$, no internal vertex of these paths is in $S$. This is the required set of disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$ that are internally disjoint from $S$.
@Reed97 proved that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) \leq 4\,{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$. We provide that proof of the first inequality and modify the proof of the second to give:
\[lemma:welllink\] For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) \leq 3\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G) \leq 3\,{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G).$$
We first prove that ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$. Assume for the sake of a contradiction that ${\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) < {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)$. Let $\beta$ be a bramble of largest order, and $H$ a minimal hitting set of $\beta$. Thus $H$ is not well-linked (since $|H| = {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) > {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$). Choose $A,B \subseteq H$ such that $|A|=|B|$ but there are not $|A|$ vertex-disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$. By Menger’s Theorem, there exists a set of vertices $C$ with $|C| < |A|$ such that after deleting $C$, there is no $A$-$B$ path in $G$. Now consider a bramble element of $\beta$. If two components of $G-C$ entirely contain bramble elements, then those bramble elements cannot touch. Thus, it follows that at most one component of $G-C$ entirely contains some bramble element. Label this component $C'$; if no such component exists label $C'$ arbitrarily. $C'$ does not contain vertices from both $A$ and $B$, so without loss of generality assume $A \cap C' = \emptyset$. Thus all bramble elements entirely within $C'$ are hit by vertices of $H-A$, and all others are hit by $C$. So $(H-A) \cup C$ is a hitting set for $\beta$, but $|(H-A) \cup C| = |H|-|A|+|C| < |H|$, contradicting the minimality of $H$. Hence ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$.
Now we show that ${\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) \leq 3\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)$. For the sake of a contradiction, say $3\,{\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G)< {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$. Define $k := \frac{1}{3}{\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$. Let $S$ be the largest well-linked set. That is, $|S| = {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)$. By Lemma \[lemma:extwl\] $S$ is externally-well-linked. $S$ is not ${\ensuremath{\protect\lceilk\rceil}}$-linked as ${\textsf{\textup{link}}}(G) < {\ensuremath{\protect\lceilk\rceil}}$. Hence there exists a set $X \subseteq V(G)$ with $|X| < {\ensuremath{\protect\lceilk\rceil}}$ such that $G-X$ has no component containing more than $\frac{1}{2}|S|$ vertices of $S$. Since $|X|$ is an integer, $|X| < k$. Let $a := |X \cap S|$.
Using an argument similar to Lemma \[lemma:comptrick\], the components of $G-X$ can be partitioned into two or three parts, each with at most $\frac{1}{2}|S|$ vertices of $S$. Some part contains at least a third of the vertices of $S-X$. Let $A$ be the set of vertices in $S$ contained in that part, and let $B$ be the set of vertices in $S$ in the other parts of $G-X$. Now $\frac{1}{2}|S| \geq |A| \geq \frac{1}{3}|S-X| = \frac{1}{3}(|S| - a)$, and so $|B| \geq |S| - |S \cap X| - |A| \geq |S| - a - \frac{1}{2}|S|$. Remove vertices arbitrarily from the largest of $A$ and $B$ until these sets have the same order. Hence $|A|=|B|$ and $|A| \geq \min\{\frac{1}{3}(|S| - a), \frac{1}{2}|S| - a\}$. Since $A,B \subseteq S$ and $S$ is externally-well-linked, there are $|A|$ vertex-disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$ with no internal vertices in $S$. Since $A$ and $B$ are in different components of $G-X$, these paths must use vertices of $X$, but more specifically, vertices of $X-S$. Thus there are at most $|X-S|$ such paths. Thus $|A| \leq |X-S| < k-a$.
Either $\frac{1}{3}(|S|-a) \leq |A| < k-a$ or $\frac{1}{2}|S| - a \leq |A| < k-a$, so $|S| < 3k$. However, $|S|={\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G)=3k$, which is a contradiction.
The final inequality follows from Lemma \[lemma:lemmalink\].
The first inequality in Lemma \[lemma:welllink\] is tight since ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(K_n) = {\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(K_n) = n$. We do not know if the second inequality is tight, but ${\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(G) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)-2$ would be best possible since ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(K_{2n,n}) = n+1$ and ${\textsf{\textup{wl}}}(K_{2n,n}) = 2n$ (the larger part is the largest well-linked set).
@diestelHC defined the following: $S \subseteq V(G)$ is *$k$-connected* in $G$ if $|S| \geq k$ and for all subsets $A,B \subseteq S$ with $|A| = |B| \leq k$, there are $|A|$ vertex-disjoint paths from $A$ to $B$. If we can ensure these vertex-disjoint paths have no internal vertex or edge in $G[S]$, then $S$ is *externally $k$-connected*. This construction was used in [@diestelHC] to prove a short version of the grid minor theorem.
Note the obvious connection to well-linked sets; $X$ is well-linked iff $X$ is $|X|$-connected. Also note that @Diestel00a, in his treatment of the grid minor theorem, provides a slightly different formulation of externally $k$-connected sets, which only requires vertex-disjoint paths between $A$ and $B$ when they are disjoint subsets of $S$. These definitions are equivalent, which can be proven using a similar argument as in Lemma \[lemma:extwl\]. @Diestel00a also does not use the concept of $k$-connected sets, just externally $k$-connected.
@diestelHC prove the following, but due to its similarity between $k$-connected sets and well-linked sets, we omit the proof.
If $G$ has ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) < k$ then $G$ contains $(k+1)$-connected set of size $\geq 3k$. If $G$ contains no externally $(k+1)$-connected set of size $\geq 3k$, then ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) < 4k$.
Grid Minors {#section:gridminors}
===========
A key part of the previously mentioned Graph Minor Structure Theorem is as follows: given a fixed planar graph $H$, there exists some integer $r_{H}$ such that every graph with no $H$-minor has treewidth at most $r_{H}$. This cannot be generalised to when $H$ is non-planar, since there exist planar graphs, the grids, with unbounded treewidth. (By virtue of being planar, the grids do not have a non-planar $H$ as a minor.) In fact, since every planar graph is the minor of some grid, it is sufficient to just consider the grids, which leads to the Grid Minor Theorem:
For each integer $k$ there is a minimum integer $f(k)$ such that every graph with treewidth at least $f(k)$ contains the $k \times k$ grid as a minor.
All of our previous sections have provided parameters with linear ties to treewidth. However, the order of the largest grid minor is not linearly tied to treewidth. The initial bound on $f(k)$ by @RS-GraphMinorsV-JCTB86 was an iterated exponential tower. Later, @RST-JCTB94 improved this to $f(k) \leq 20^{2k^5}$. They also note, by use of a probabilistic argument, that $f(k) \geq \Omega(k^2\log k)$. @diestelHC obtained an upper bound of $2^{5k^{5}\log k}$, which is actually slightly worse than the bound provided by Robertson, Seymour and Thomas, but with a more succinct proof. @KenandYusuke proved that $f(k) \leq 2^{O(k^2 \log k)}$, and @SeymourLeaf proved that $f(k) \leq 2^{O(k\log k)}$. Very recently, @CCpoly proved a polynomial bound of $f(k) \leq O(k^{228})$. Together with the following lower bound, this implies that treewidth and the order of the largest grid-minor are polynomially tied.
\[lemma:gridbramble\] If $G$ contains a $k \times k$ grid minor, then ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \geq k$.
If $H$ is a minor of $G$ then ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(H) \leq {\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$. Thus it suffices to prove that the $k \times k$ grid $H$ has treewidth at least $k$, which is implied if ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(H) \geq k+1$. Consider $H$ drawn in the plane. For a subgraph $S$ of $H$, define a *top vertex* of $S$ in the obvious way. (Note it is not necessarily unique.) Similarly define *bottom vertex*, *left vertex* and *right vertex*. Let subgraph $H'$ of $H$ be the top-left $(k-1) \times (k-1)$ grid in $H$. A *cross* is a subgraph containing exactly one row and column from $H'$, and no vertices outside $H'$. Let $X$ denote the bottom row of $H$, and $Y$ the right column without its bottom vertex. Let $\beta:= \{X,Y, \text{ all crosses}\}$. A pair of crosses intersect in two places. There is an edge from a bottom vertex of a cross to $X$ and a right vertex of a cross to $Y$. There is also an edge from the right vertex of $X$ to the bottom vertex of $Y$. Hence $\beta$ is a bramble. If $Z$ is a hitting set for $\beta$, it must contain $k-1$ vertices of $V(H')$, for otherwise a row and column are not hit, and so a cross is not hit. $Z$ must also contain two other vertices to hit $X$ and $Y$. So $|Z| \geq k+1$, as required.
Grid-like Minors
================
A *grid-like-minor of order $t$* of a graph $G$ is a set of paths ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ with a bipartite intersection graph that contains a $K_t$-minor. Note that if the intersection graph of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ is partitioned $A$ and $B$, then we can think of the set of paths $A$ as being the “rows" of the “grid", and the set $B$ being the “columns". Also note that an actual $k$-by-$k$ grid gives rise to a set ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ with an intersection graph that is complete bipartite and as such contains a complete minor of order $k$+1. Let ${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G)$ be the maximum order of a grid-like-minor of $G$. Grid-like-minors were first defined by @ReedWood-EuJC as a weakening of a grid minor; see Section \[section:gridminors\]. As a result of this weakening, it is easier to tie ${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G)$ to ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$. This notion has also been applied to prove computational intractability results in monadic second order logic; see @MR2904950 [@Ganian14] and @KT10 [@MR2809681].
The *fractional Hadwiger number* ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$ of $G$ is the maximum $h$ for which there is a bramble ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ in $G$, and a weight function $w :{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$, such that $h
=\sum_{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}}w(X)$ and for each vertex $v$, the sum of the weights of the subgraphs in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ that contain $v$ is at most 1. For example, the branch sets of a $K_{{\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)}$-minor form a bramble, for which we may weight each vertex by 1. Thus ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G) \geq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)$. For a positive integer $r$, the *$r$-integral Hadwiger number* ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G)$ is defined the same as the fractional Hadwiger number, except that all the weights must be multiples of $\frac{1}{r}$.
The graph $G\square K_2$ (that is, the Cartesian product of $G$ with $K_2$) consists of two disjoint copies of $G$ with an edge between corresponding vertices in the two copies.
\[lemma:glmhad\] For every graph $G$ and integer $r\geq2$, $${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2) \leq 3\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G) \enspace,$$ and if $r$ is even then $${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)\enspace.$$
@ReedWood-EuJC proved that ${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)$. Here we provide a proof. Let $t:={\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G)$. It suffices to show there exists a $K_t$-model in $G\square K_2$. Label the vertices of $K_2$ as $1$ and $2$, so a vertex of $G \square K_2$ has the form $(v,i)$ where $v \in V(G)$ and $i \in \{1,2\}$. If $S$ is a subgraph of $G$, define $(S,i)$ to be the subgraph of $G \square K_2$ induced by $\{(v,i) | v \in S\}$. Let $H$ be the intersection graph of a set of paths ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ with bipartition $A,B$, such that $H$ has a $K_t$-minor. For each $P \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$, let $P' := (P,i)$ where $i=1$ if $P \in A$, and $i=2$ if $P \in B$.
If $PQ \in E(H)$, then without loss of generality $P \in A$ and $Q \in B$, and there exists a vertex $v$ such that $v \in V(P) \cap V(Q)$. Then the edge $(v,1)(v,2) \in E(G \square K_2)$ has one endpoint in $P'$ and the other in $Q'$. So $P' \cup Q'$ is connected.
Let $X_1, \dots, X_t$ be the branch sets of a $K_t$-model in $H$. Define $X_i':= \bigcup_{P \in X_i} P'$. Now each $X_i'$ is connected. It is sufficient to show, for $i \neq j$, that $V(X_i' \cap X_j') = \emptyset$ and there exists an edge of $G \square K_2$ with one endpoint in $X_i'$ and the other in $X_j'$. If there exists $v \in V(X_i' \cap X_j')$ then there exists $P'$ such that $v \in P'$ and $P' \in X_i' \cap X_j'$. But then $P \in X_i \cap X_j$, which is a contradiction. So $V(X_i' \cap X_j') = \emptyset$. Also, since $X_1, \dots, X_t$ is a $K_t$-model of $H$, there exists some $PQ \in E(H)$ such that $P \in X_i$ and $Q \in X_j$. From above, there exists an edge between $P'$ and $Q'$ in $G \square K_2$, which is sufficient.
For the other inequalities, let $X_1,\dots,X_t$ be the branch sets of a $K_t$-minor in $G\square
K_2$, where $t:={\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)$. Let $X'_i$ be the projection of $X_i$ into the first copy of $G$. Thus $X'_i$ is a connected subgraph of $G$. If $X_i$ and $X_j$ are joined by an edge between the two copies of $G$, then $X'_i$ and $X'_j$ intersect. Otherwise, $X_i$ and $X_j$ are joined by an edge within one of the copies $G$, in which case, $X'_i$ and $X'_j$ are joined by an edge in $G$. Thus $X'_1,\dots,X'_t$ is a bramble in $G$. Weight each $X'_i$ by ${\ensuremath{\protect\lfloor\frac{r}{2}\rfloor}}/r$, which is at least $\frac{1}{3}$ and at most $\frac{1}{2}$. Since $X_1,\dots,X_t$ are pairwise disjoint, each vertex of $G$ is in at most two of $X'_1,\dots,X'_t$. Hence the sum of the weights of $X'_i$ that contain a vertex $v$ is at most $1$. Hence ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G)$ is at least the total weight, which is at least $\frac{t}{3}$. That is, ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)\leq 3{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G)$. If $r$ is even then the total weight equals $\frac{t}{2}$ and ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)\leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G)$, which is at most $2\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$ by definition.
\[lemma:hadbn\] For every graph $G$, $${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)\enspace.$$
Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ be a bramble in $G$ and let $w:{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ be a weight function, such that ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G) =\sum_{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}}w(X)$ and for each vertex $v$, the sum of the weights of the subgraphs in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ that contain $v$ is at most 1. Let $S$ be a hitting set for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$. Thus $$|S|=\sum_{v\in S}1
\geq \sum_{v\in S}\sum_{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}:v\in X}w(X) = \sum_{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}}|X\cap
S|w(X) \geq \sum_{X\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}}w(X) ={\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)\enspace.$$ That is, the order of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}$ is at least ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$. Hence ${\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) \geq
{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$.
Note this lemma is tight; consider $G = K_n$. @Wood-ProductMinor proved that ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)\leq 2{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+2$ and @ReedWood-EuJC proved that ${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq 2{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+2$. More precisely, Lemma \[lemma:glmhad\] and Lemma \[lemma:hadbn\] imply that $${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)\leq 2 {\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G) \leq 2{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G) = 2{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+2\enspace,$$ and for every integer $r\geq2$, $${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) \leq 3 {\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r(G) \leq 3 {\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G) \leq 3{\textsf{\textup{bn}}}(G)
=3{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+3\enspace.$$ Conversely, @ReedWood-EuJC proved that $${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G) \leq c\, {\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G)^4 \sqrt{ \log {\textsf{\textup{glm}}}(G) }\enspace,$$ for some constant $c$. Thus ${\textsf{\textup{glm}}}$, ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G\square K_2)$, ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f$, ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_r$ for each $r\geq2$, and ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}$ are tied by polynomial functions.
Fractional Open Problems
========================
Given a graph $G$ define a *$b$-fold colouring* for $G$ to be an assignment of $b$ colours to each vertex of $G$ such that if two vertices are adjacent, they have no colours assigned in common. We can consider this a generalisation of standard graph colouring, which is equivalent when $b=1$. A graph $G$ is *$a\!:\!b$-colourable* when there is a $b$-fold colouring of $G$ with $a$ colours in total. Then define the *$b$-fold chromatic number* $\chi_b(G) := \min\{a| G$ is $a\!:\!b$-colourable$\}$. So $\chi_1(G) = \chi(G)$. Then, define the *fractional chromatic number* $\chi_f(G) = \lim_{b \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\chi_b(G)}{b}$. See @SU-FGT97 for an overview of the topic. @ReedSeymour-JCTB98 proved that $\chi_f(G) \leq 2\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)$. Hence there is a relationship between the fractional chromatic number and Hadwiger’s number. We have $$\chi_f(G)\leq \chi(G)\quad\text{and}\quad{\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)\leq{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)\leq{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1\enspace.$$
Hadwiger’s Conjecture asserts that $\chi(G)\leq{\textsf{\textup{had}}}(G)$, thus bridging the gap in the above inequalities. Note that $\chi(G)\leq{\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$. (Since $G$ has minimum degree at most ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)$, a minimum-degree-greedy algorithm uses at most ${\textsf{\textup{tw}}}(G)+1$ colours.) Thus the following two questions provide interesting weakenings of Hadwiger’s Conjecture:
$\chi(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$.
$\chi_f(G)\leq {\textsf{\textup{had}}}_f(G)$.
Finally, note that the above results prove that ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_3$ is bounded by a polynomial function of ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_2$. Is ${\textsf{\textup{had}}}_3(G) \leq c\,{\textsf{\textup{had}}}_2(G)$ for some constant $c$?
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Many thanks to Jacob Fox and Bruce Reed for instructive conversations.
[^1]: Research of D.R.W. is supported by the Australian Research Council.
[^2]: Research of D.J.H. is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.
[^3]: Occasionally, other authors use the term *comparable* [@Fox11]
[^4]: @Fox11 defines a separator to be a set $X \subseteq V(G)$ that partitions $V(G)$ into $X \cup A \cup B$ with no $A-B$ edge and $|A|,|B| \leq \frac{2}{3}|V(G)|$. Fox then defines the separation number to be the minimum integer $k$ such that each subgraph of $G$ has a separator of size $k$. However, we will not consider this definition in this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we consider biased Maker-Breaker games played on the edge set of a given graph $G$. We prove that for every $\delta>0$ and large enough $n$, there exists a constant $k$ for which if $\delta(G)\geq \delta n$ and $\chi(G)\geq k$, then Maker can build an odd cycle in the $(1:b)$ game for $b=O\left(\frac{n}{\log^2
n}\right)$. We also consider the analogous game where Maker and Breaker claim vertices instead of edges. This is a special case of the following well known and notoriously difficult problem due to Duffus, [Ł]{}uczak and Rödl: is it true that for any positive constants $t$ and $b$, there exists an integer $k$ such that for every graph $G$, if $\chi(G)\geq k$, then Maker can build a graph which is not $t$-colorable, in the $(1:b)$ Maker-Breaker game played on the vertices of $G$?
**Keywords: Maker-Breaker games, DLR conjecture, odd cycle game**
author:
- |
[^1] [^2]\
[^3] [^4] [^5]
title: The biased odd cycle game
---
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a finite set and let $\mathcal{F}\subseteq 2^X$ be the family of subsets of $X$. Let $a$ and $b$ be positive integers. In an $(a:b)$ *Maker-Breaker* game $(X,\mathcal{F})$, two players, *Maker* and *Breaker*, take turns claiming previously unclaimed elements of $X$. The game ends when every element of $X$ has been claimed by a player. Maker claims exactly $a$ board elements per turn and Breaker claims exactly $b$ board elements per turn. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we will assume that Maker is the first player. Maker wins the game if he is able to fully claim some element of $\mathcal{F}$; otherwise Breaker wins. The set $X$ is often referred to as the *board* of the game and the members of $\mathcal{F}$ are referred to as the *winning sets*.
It is natural to play a Maker-Breaker game on the edge set of a given graph $G$. In this case the board is $X=E(G)$ and the winning sets are all the edge sets of subgraphs $H\subseteq G$ which possess a graph property $\mathcal P$ of special interest. For example, in the *connectivity* game, the winning sets are all the edge sets of subgraphs $H\subseteq G$ which contain a spanning tree of $G$. Given a positive integer $k$, in the *non-$k$-colorability* game, $\mathcal {NC}_k(G)$, the winning sets are all the edge sets of subgraphs $H\subseteq G$ which are not $k$-colorable. Since a graph $G$ is not $2$-colorable if and only if it contains an odd cycle, we refer to $\mathcal {NC}_2(G)$ as the *odd cycle game*.
The following question is due to Duffus, [Ł]{}uczak and Rödl [@DLR]:
\[conj1\] Is it true that for any positive integers $k$ and $b$, there exists an integer $r=r(k,b)$ such that Maker has a winning strategy for the $(1:b)$ game $\mathcal {NC}_k(G)$, played on any graph $G$ such that $\chi(G)\ge r$?
Not much is known about Conjecture \[conj1\]. By a *strategy stealing* argument the answer for Question \[conj1\] is “yes" for $b=1$ and any $k$ (for more details the reader is referred to [@AHK]). Note that strategy stealing is a purely existential argument; we do not know any explicit strategy for Maker to win the game with these parameters.
For any $b \geq 2$ and any $k \geq 2$ Question \[conj1\] is open. Two partial results were obtained in [@AHK]. The first result shows that $\chi(G) = \Omega(\log (|V(G)|))$ suffices to ensure Maker’s win. The second result shows that if $\chi(G) \geq r$ holds in some robust way, then Maker has a winning strategy for the game on $G$. However, no bounds on $\chi(G)$ which do not depend on $|V(G)|$ are known.
In [@DLR], Duffus, [Ł]{}uczak and Rödl ask the following question:
\[conj2\] Is it true that there exists an integer $k$ such that for all graphs $G$ with $\chi(G)\geq k$, Maker has a strategy to claim an odd cycle in the game where Maker claims one vertex each turn and Breaker claims two?
In this paper we partially answer Questions \[conj1\] and \[conj2\] for the case where Maker’s goal is to build an odd cycle (a non-2-chromatic graph), playing on a graph $G$ with high minimum degree. Our main results are the following:
\[main1\] For every $0<\delta<1$, there exists an integer $n_0=n_0(\delta)$ for which the following holds. Suppose that:
1. $G$ is a graph with $|V(G)|=n\geq n_0$, and
2. $\delta(G)\ge \delta n$, and
3. $\chi(G)>32/\delta$.
Then for every $b\le \frac{\delta^2 n}{6400(\log_2 n)^2}$, Maker has a winning strategy in the $(1:b)$ game $\mathcal {NC}_2(G)$.
The next result shows that the bound on the chromatic number of $G$ can be lowered to the optimal $\chi(G)\ge 3$ if $G$ has high connectivity instead of high minimum degree. In particular, $O(\log
n)$-connectivity suffices in a game with a constant Breaker’s bias. (This is because every $k$-chromatic graph $G$ contains a $k$-color-critical subgraph $G_0\subset G$, and every $k$-color-critical graph is $(k-1)$-edge-connected. Thus Theorem \[main3\] can be applied to $G_0$.) This reproves Theorem 1.6 of [@AHK] for the odd cycle game.
\[main3\] For every positive integer $b$, there exists an integer $n_0=n_0(b)$ for which the following holds. Suppose that:
1. $G$ is a graph with $|V(G)|=n\geq n_0$, and
2. $G$ is $\left(10^4\log_2 n\cdot b^2(\log_2
b)^2\right)$-edge-connected, and
3. $\chi(G)\ge 3$.
Then Maker has a winning strategy in the $(1:b)$ game $\mathcal {NC}_2(G)$.
The following theorem is the “vertex version" of Theorem!\[main1\], where instead of claiming edges, Maker and Breaker claim vertices of the graph $G$.
\[main2\] For every $0<\delta<1$ and for every positive integer $b$, there exists an integer $n_0=n_0(\delta,b)$ for which the following holds. Suppose that:
1. $G$ is a graph with $|V(G)|=n\geq n_0$, and
2. $\delta(G)\geq \delta n$, and
3. $\chi(G)>2(b+1)/\delta$.
Then Maker has a winning strategy in the $(1:b)$ odd-cycle game played on $V(G)$. Furthermore, the odd cycle that Maker builds is of constant size (depending only on $\delta$).
Notation
--------
The notation in this paper is standard and follows that of [@D]. In particular we use the following. Given a graph $G$, denote by $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ its sets of vertices and edges, respectively. For two subsets $A,B\subseteq V(G)$, let $E_G(A,B)$ be the set of edges in $E(G)$ with one endpoint in $A$ and one endpoint in $B$. For a vertex $v\in V(G)$ and a subset $U\subseteq V(G)$, denote by $d_G(v,U)$ the number of edges from $v$ to $U$. Denote by $G[U]$ the induced subgraph on $U$ and set $U^c=V(G)\setminus U$. We also denote $N_G(U)=\{v\in V(G):\exists u\in U. vu\in E(G)\}$.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:aux\], we will list some tools to be used in our arguments. Theorems \[main1\] and \[main3\] are proved in Section \[main-pf\]. Theorem \[main2\] is proved in Section \[main2-pf\].
Preliminaries {#sec:aux}
=============
The following lemma shows that if $G$ is a graph with high minimum degree and high chromatic number, then it contains a subgraph which is highly connected and is only one edge far from being bipartite. This is a key ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[main1\].
\[key1\] Let $0<\delta<1$ and let $n$ be a sufficiently large integer. Suppose that $G$ is a graph on $n$ vertices with $\delta(G)\geq
\delta n$ and $\chi(G)>32/\delta$. Then there exist two disjoint subsets $A,B\subseteq V(G)$ such that the bipartite graph $H=(A\cup
B,E_G(A,B))$ is $\delta^2 n/64$-connected and $E_G(A)\neq
\emptyset$.
To prove Lemma \[key1\] we use the following lemma due to Bohman, Frieze, Krivelevich and Martin [@BFKM] which enables us to partition a dense graph into a few vertex disjoint subgraphs which are highly connected:
\[lem1\] Let $H$ be a graph on $n$ vertices with minimum degree $k>0$. Then there exists a partition $V(H)=V_1\cup\ldots\cup V_t$ such that for every $1\le i\le t$ the set $V_i$ has at least $k/8$ vertices and the induced subgraph $H[V_i]$ is $k^2/(16n)$-vertex-connected.
For the convenience of the reader we include the proof of Lemma \[lem1\].
**Proof.** Recall a classical result of Mader (see [@D]) stating that every graph of average degree at least $k$ has a $k/4$-vertex-connected subgraph.
Let $(C_1,\ldots,C_t)$ be a family of disjoint subsets of $V(H)$ with the property that each induced subgraph $H[C_i]$ is $k/8$-connected and that, among all such families of subsets, the set of vertices $$C:=\bigcup_{i=1}^t C_i$$ is maximal. According to Mader’s Theorem, $t>0$. Also, $|C_i|\ge k/8$ for all $i$ and thus $t\le 8n/k$.
Let now $(V_1,\ldots,V_t)$ be a family of disjoint subsets of $V(H)$ such that $C_i\subseteq V_i$, the induced subgraph $H[V_i]$ is $k^2/(16n)$-connected for all $1\le i\le t$ and that among all such families the set of vertices $$U:=\bigcup_{i=1}^t V_i$$ is maximal. We claim that $U=V(H)$. Assume to the contrary that there exists a vertex $v\in U^c$. If $|N_H(v)\cap V_i|\ge k^2/(16n)$ for some $i$, then adding $v$ to $V_i$ can be easily seen to keep $H[V_i]$ $k^2/(16n)$-connected, contradicting the maximality of $U$. Thus $v$ has less than $k^2/(16n)$ neighbors in each of the $t\le
8n/k$ sets $V_i$, and therefore $d(v,U^c)>k-(8n/k)(k^2/(16n))=k/2$. We conclude that the minimum degree of the induced subgraph $H[U^c]$ is at least $k/2$. Applying Mader’s Theorem, this time to $H[U^c]$, unveils a $k/8$-connected subgraph disjoint from $C$, a contradiction of the choice of $(C_1,\ldots,C_t)$. Hence the family $(V_1,\ldots,V_t)$ indeed covers all the vertices of $H$ and thus forms a required partition. [$\Box$ ]{}
**Proof of Lemma \[key1\].** Let $V(G)=X_1\cup X_2$ be a partition such that for every $X_i\in \{X_1,X_2\}$ and for every $v\in X_i$, $d(v,X_{3-i})\ge d(v)/2$ (easily obtained by taking a partition which maximizes $|E(X_1,X_2)|$). Consider the bipartite subgraph $G'\subseteq G$ obtained by removing all the edges inside $X_1$ and $X_2$; clearly $\delta(G')\ge \delta(G)/2\ge \delta n/2$. Now, applying Lemma \[lem1\] to $G'$, we get a partition $V(G')=V_1\cup\ldots\cup V_t$ with $$|V_i|\ge \left(\frac{\delta n}{2}\right)/8=\frac{\delta n}{16},$$ hence $$t\le \frac{n}{\delta n/16}=\frac{16}{\delta},$$ and the induced subgraph $G'[V_i]$ is $\left(\delta
n/2\right)^2/(16n)=\delta^2 n/64$-connected, for every $1\le i\le t$. Since $\chi(G)>32/\delta\ge 2t$, we conclude that there exists $1\leq i\leq t$ for which $G[V_i]$ is not $2$-colorable, since otherwise giving distinct sets of $2$ colors to each $G[V_i]$ yields a proper $2t$-coloring, a contradiction. Recall that $G'[V_i]$ is bipartite, so we can denote its parts by $A$ and $B$ in such a way that $E_G(A)\neq \emptyset$. This completes the proof. [$\Box$ ]{}
The following theorem of Alon, Hefetz and Krivelevich [@AHK] enables Maker to win the $(1:b)$ connectivity game played on the edge set of some given graph $G$, provided that $G$ is a highly edge-connected graph. It will be useful in the proof of Theorems \[main1\] and \[main3\].
\[edge-conn\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and let $b\ge 2$ and $k=k(n)\ge \log_2 n$ be integers. If $G$ is $(100kb\log_2
b)$-edge-connected, then in the $(1:b)$ game played on $E(G)$, Maker (as a first or second player) has a strategy for building a $k$-edge-connected spanning subgraph of $G$. In particular, Maker can build a connected spanning subgraph of $G$.
For the proof of Theorem \[main2\] we need the following lemmas:
\[key2\] Let $0<\delta<1$, $b$ be a positive integer and $n$ be a sufficiently large integer. Suppose that $G$ is a graph on $n$ vertices with $\delta(G)\geq \delta n$ and $\chi(G)>2(b+1)/\delta$. Then there exist two disjoint subsets $A,B\subseteq V(G)$ such that the bipartite graph $H=(A\cup
B,E_G(A,B))$ satisfies
1. $|E_H(U,U^c)|= \Omega(n^{3/2})$ for every $U\subseteq A\cup B$ of size $\delta n/2\leq |U|\leq |A\cup B|-\delta n/2$;
2. $\delta(H)\ge\delta^2 n/2$;
3. all but $o(n)$ vertices in $H$ have degree at least $(1-o(1))\delta
n/2$; and
4. $\chi(G[A])> b+1$.
In a similar way as the proof of Lemma \[key1\], Lemma \[key2\] is an immediate consequence of the following:
\[keylemma\] Let $0<\delta< 1 $ and let $n$ be a sufficiently large integer. Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices with $\delta(G)\geq \delta n$. Then there exists a partition $V(G)=V_1\cup\ldots\cup V_t$ which satisfies:
1. $|V_i|\geq \delta n(1-o(1))$ for every $1\leq i\leq t$;
2. $\delta(G[V_i])\ge \delta^2 n$ for every $1\leq i \leq t$;
3. all but $o(n)$ vertices in $G[V_i]$ have degree at least $\delta n(1-o(1))$ for every $1\leq i\leq
t$; and
4. $|E_G(A,B)|= \Omega(n^{3/2})$ for every partition $V_i=A\cup B$ for which $\delta n \leq |A|\leq |V_i|-\delta
n$ and for every $1\leq i\leq t$.
**Proof.** We construct the partition in the following way: initially, let $V_1:=V(G)$ and $U:=\emptyset$. Assume we have a partition $V(G)=V_1\cup\cdots \cup V_k$ and a current set $U$ (notice that $U$ will be modified during the iterations). If there exists an index $1\leq i\leq k$ and a partition $V_i=A\cup B$ for which $|A|,|B| \ge \delta n$ and $e(A,B)< n^{3/2} $, then we break $V_i$ into $A\cup B$ and define a new partition $V_1\cup\cdots \cup V_{i-1}\cup A \cup B \cup V_{i+1}\cup \cdots
V_k$. Notice that there are at most $n^{3/4}$ vertices $v$ in $X\in
\{A, B\}$ such that $d(v,X)< d(v,V_i)-n^{3/4}$. Otherwise, we get that $e(A,B)\geq n^{3/2}$, a contradiction. We add these at most $2n^{3/4}$ vertices to $U$. Since none of the $V_i$’s is ever smaller than $\delta n$, we get that this procedure stops after at most $1/\delta$ iterations. Let $V(G)=V_1\cup \ldots \cup V_t$ be the final partition and let $U$ be the corresponding set of vertices with (possibly) small degrees inside their parts. Notice that for every $i\in [t]$ and every $v\in V_i\setminus U$, we have $d(v,V_i)\geq \delta n - t n^{3/4}=\delta n(1-o(1))$. By the previous argument, in every iteration we increase $|U|$ by at most $2n^{3/4}$, hence $|U|\leq 2n^{3/4}/\delta$. Now for every vertex $v\in U$, choose a part $V_j$, $1\le j\le t$, for which $d(v,V_j)\geq \delta^2 n$ and move $v$ to $V_j$ (recall that $d_G(v)\geq \delta n$ and that $t\leq 1/\delta$). We get a final partition which satisfies properties $(i)-(iv)$. [$\Box$ ]{}
For the next lemma, we need to define an auxiliary game. Given a graph $H$ and a subset $M \subseteq V(H)$, consider the Maker-Breaker game $\mathcal G(H,M)$ played on $V(H)$, in which the winning sets are all subsets $T\subseteq V(H)$, such that $H[T\cup
M]$ is a connected subgraph of $H$ or it contains a triangle.
\[key3\] Let $H=(A\cup B,E_G(A,B))$ be a graph satisfying $(i)-(iii)$ of Lemma \[key2\]. Let $M\subseteq V(H)$ be any subset that can be partitioned to $M=D\cup R$, where $D$ is any dominating set of size $O(\log n)$, and such that for each vertex $v\in D$ there exists $u\in R$ with degree at least $(1-o(1))\delta n/2$ such that $uv\in
E(H)$. Then, for any constant $b$, Maker can win the $(1:b)$ game $\mathcal G(H,M)$ within $O(\log n)$ moves.
**Proof.** First, notice that since $|D|=O(\log n)$ we conclude that there are at most $O(\log n)$ components in $H[M]$. Now, in order to complete the proof, it suffices to prove that Maker can merge two components of $H[M]$ within two rounds, by claiming extra vertices.
Let $C$ be a component of $H[M]$. Recall that $C$ spans an edge $xy$, where $x\in D$ with $d(x)\ge \delta(H)\ge \delta^2 n/2$ and $y\in N_H(x)\setminus D$ with $d(y)\geq(1-o(1))\delta n/2$. Let $U=C\cup N_H(C)$. We may assume that $|N_H(x)\cup N_H(y)|\ge \delta
n/2$, since otherwise $|N_H(x)\cap N_H(y)|=d(x)+d(y)-|N_H(x)\cup
N_H(y)|\ge (1-o(1))\delta^2 n/2$, and Maker can claim a vertex in $N_H(x)\cap N_H(y)$ to complete a triangle. Hence $|U|\ge
|N_H(x)\cup N_H(y)|\ge \delta n/2$. We consider two cases depending on the size of $U^c$.
**Case 1:** $|U^c|\ge \delta n/2$. Then by Lemma \[key2\] (i), $|E_H(U,U^c)|=\Omega(n^{3/2})$. Note that edges between $U$ and $U^c$ can only go from $N_H(C)\setminus C$ to $U^c$. Therefore, since $|N_H(C)\setminus C|\le n$, there exist $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ many vertices $z\in N(C)\setminus C$ with $d(z,U^c)=\Omega(\sqrt{n})$. Since Breaker’s bias $b$ is a constant, Maker can claim such a $z$ and one of its neighbors in $U^c$, say $z'$, in two rounds. Since $z'\in U^c$, $z'$ is not adjacent to any vertex in $C$. However, $D\subset M$ is a dominating set of $H$, thus $z'$ is adjacent to some vertex in $M$ contained in a component of $H[M]$ other than $C$. Thus after claiming $z$ and $z'$, Maker merges two components of $H[M]$.
**Case 2:** $|U^c|<\delta n/2$. We are done if $U^c$ is empty, thus $U^c$ is not empty and contains some component of $H[M]$, call it $C'$. Similarly, $C'$ contains two adjacent vertices $x',y'$ such that $d(x')\ge \delta^2 n/2$ and $d(y')\ge (1-o(1))\delta n/2$. We may assume that $|(N(C)\cap N(C'))\setminus (C\cup C')|=o(n)$, since otherwise Maker can merge two components in just one move by claiming a vertex in $N(C)\cap N(C')$. Thus all but $o(n)$ vertices in $N(x')\cup N(y')$ are in $U^c$. But $|U^c|<\delta n/2$, thus $|N(x')\cap N(y')|\ge (1-o(1))\delta^2 n/2$. Then Maker can easily claim a vertex in $N_H(x)\cap N_H(y)$ to complete a triangle. [$\Box$ ]{}
Proofs of Theorems \[main1\] and \[main3\] {#main-pf}
==========================================
In this section we prove Theorems \[main1\] and \[main3\].
**Proof of Theorem \[main1\].** First we describe a strategy for Maker and then prove it is indeed a winning strategy. At any point during the game, if Maker cannot follow the proposed strategy, then he forfeits the game. Maker’s strategy is divided into the following two stages:
**Stage I:** Let $H=(A\cup B, E_G(A,B))$ be a subgraph of $G$ as described in Lemma \[key1\] and let $e\in E_G(A)$. In his first move, Maker claims the edge $e$.
**Stage II:** In this stage, Maker builds a connected spanning subgraph of $H$.
Notice that if Maker can follow the proposed strategy then he wins the game. Indeed, if Maker has built a connected spanning subgraph of $H$, then since $H$ is a bipartite graph and $e$ is in one of its sides then adding $e$ to Maker’s graph creates an odd cycle. It thus suffices to prove that indeed Maker can follow the proposed strategy without forfeiting the game. We consider each stage separately.
**Stage I:** Follows immediately from Lemma \[key1\] and since Maker is the first player to claim an edge.
**Stage II:** Apply Theorem \[edge-conn\] on $H$ with $b\le
\frac{\delta^2 n}{6400(\log_2 n)^2}$ and $k=\log_2 n$, then $$100k\cdot b\cdot\log_2 b\le 100\log_2 n\cdot \frac{\delta^2 n}{6400(\log_2 n)^2}\cdot\log_2 n\le \frac{\delta^2 n}{64}.$$ Thus $H$ is $(100kb\log_2 b)$-edge-connected, and Maker has a winning strategy for the $(1:b)$ $k$-edge-connectivity game played on $E(H)$. In particular, Maker can build a connected spanning subgraph of $H$. [$\Box$ ]{}
The idea for Theorem \[main3\] is similar, we provide only a sketch here.
**Proof of Theorem \[main3\]:** Let $G$ be a graph which satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[main3\]. Set $k:=100\log_2 n\cdot
b\log_2 b$, then $G$ is $(100kb\log_2 b)$-edge-connected. Now we consider two cases:
**Case 1:** Suppose that there exists a spanning subgraph $G'\subseteq G$ that is bipartite and $k$-edge-connected. Then since $\chi(G)\ge 3$, at least one side of $G'$ spans an edge in $G$. Maker, in his first move, claims such an edge. Starting from his second move, Maker plays a connectivity game on $E(G')$. Let $k'=\log_2 n$, then $G'$ is $k=(100k'b\log_2 b)$-edge-connected. Thus by Theorem \[edge-conn\], Maker can build a $k'$-edge-connected spanning subgraph $G''\subseteq G'$. Then $G''$ together with the first edge Maker claimed contains an odd cycle.
**Case 2:** Suppose that all spanning subgraphs of $G$ that are $k$-edge-connected are non-bipartite. Then Maker plays the $k$-connectivity game on $E(G)$. By Theorem \[edge-conn\], he can build a $k$-edge-connected spanning subgraph of $G$, which is, under the assumption of Case 2, non-bipartite as desired. [$\Box$ ]{}
Proof of Theorem \[main2\] {#main2-pf}
==========================
In this section we prove Theorem \[main2\].
**Proof.** First we describe a strategy for Maker and then prove it is indeed a winning strategy. At any point during the game, if Maker cannot follow the proposed strategy, then he forfeits the game. Maker’s strategy is divided into the following four stages:
**Stage I:** Let $H=(A\cup B, E_G(A,B))$ be a subgraph of $G$ as described in Lemma \[key2\]. In his first two moves, Maker claims two adjacent vertices, $u$ and $v$, in $A$.
**Stage II:** In this stage, Maker claims a dominating set $D$ of $H$ of size $100\log n/\delta^2$.
**Stage III:** Let $D'=D\cup\{u,v\}$. In this stage, for every vertex $w\in D'$, Maker claims a distinct vertex $z\in N(w)\setminus D'$ with $d_H(z)=(1-o(1))\delta n/2$.
**Stage IV:** Let $M$ be the set of vertices that Maker has claimed so far. In this stage Maker claims a set of vertices $T\subseteq V(H)$ of size $O(\log n)$, for which $H[M\cup T]$ is connected.
Notice that if Maker can follow the proposed strategy then he has claimed an odd cycle. Indeed, if Maker connects $M$ in $H$, in particular Maker has built a $(u,v)$-path, say $P$, in $H$. Then since $H$ is a bipartite graph and $u$ and $v$ are in the same partition class, $P$ is of even length. Thus $P$, together with the edge $uv$ that he claimed in Stage I, form an odd cycle claimed by Maker. Furthermore, we will show that Maker can also ensure an odd cycle of constant length.
We prove that indeed Maker can follow the proposed strategy without forfeiting the game.
**Stage I:** By Lemma \[key2\] (iv) we have $b+1< \chi(G[A])\le
\Delta(G[A])+1$. Hence $\Delta(G[A])\ge b+1$, namely there is a star with $b+1$ leaves in $G[A]$. Since Breaker can only claim $b$ vertices at each round, Maker can claim the center of this star in his first move and then claim one of its leaves in his second move.
**Stage II:** We show that by claiming vertices uniformly at [**random**]{}, after claiming $100\log n/\delta^2$ vertices, with high probability (that is, with probability $1-o(1)$), Maker claims a dominating set $D$ of $H$ against any strategy of Breaker. Since the game of claiming a dominating set of $H$ in $100\log n/\delta^2$ moves is a finite, perfect information game (and therefore – deterministic), it follows that Maker has a deterministic strategy for claiming such a $D$ (although we do not describe it here). It suffices to show that a set $D$ of $100\log n/\delta^2$ vertices chosen uniformly at random from $V(H)$ is with high probability a dominating set of $H$. Fix a vertex $x\in V(H)$, since $\delta(H)\ge
\delta^2 n/2$, the probability that no vertex from $N_H(x)$ is chosen is at most $(1-\delta^2/2)^{100\log n/\delta^2}$. Applying the union bound we get $$\mathbb{P}\mbox{[$D$ is not a dominating set of $H$]}\le n\cdot (1-\delta^2/2)^{100\log n/\delta^2}\le n\cdot e^{-\frac{\delta^2}{2}\cdot 100\log n/\delta^2}=o(1).$$
It could happen that some vertex that Maker wants to claim, when building $D$, is already taken by Breaker. However, Stages I and II take only $|D|+2=O(\log n)$ rounds. Therefore, during the first two stages Breaker claims $O(\log n)=o(n/\log n)$ many vertices. It thus follows that, in each move, the probability that Maker will choose a vertex which has already been claimed by Breaker is at most $o(1/\log n)$. Hence, with probability $1-o(1)$ Maker never chooses any vertex that Breaker has already claimed.
**Stage III:** By Lemma \[key2\] (ii) and (iii), every $w\in
D'$ has $\Theta(n)$ many neighbors, all but $o(n)$ of which have degree $(1-o(1))\delta n/2$. Since $|D'|=O(\log n)=o(n)$, Maker can secure such a distinct neighbor for each vertex in $D'$.
**Stage IV:** Let $F$ be the set of vertices that Breaker has claimed in Stage I, II and III. Notice that $|F|=O(\log n)=o(n)$ has negligible size. Applying Lemma \[key3\] to $H\setminus F$ gives us the desired result.
We will finish the proof by showing that the odd cycle that Maker built is of constant length. Observe that with high probability $D$ from Stage II has the following property:
**(P1)** $\forall v\in V(H)$, $d(v,D)\ge 25\log_2 n$.
Consider a vertex $v$ in $H$. Since $\delta(H)\ge \delta^2 n/2$, for every vertex Maker has claimed in $D$, the probability that it is a neighbor of $v$ is at least $\delta^2/2$. Thus the expected number of neighbors of $v$ in $D$ is at least $\delta^2/2\cdot
|D|=\delta^2/2\cdot 100\log_2 n/\delta^2=50\log_2 n$. Thus a standard Chernoff bound argument implies **(P1)**.
By **(P1)**, the minimum degree of Maker’s graph is $\Omega(\log n)$. On the other hand, Maker’s graph is of order $O(\log n)$, since the whole game ends in $O(\log n)$ rounds. Therefore Maker’s graph (even minus the special edge $uv$) is connected and is of linear minimum degree (with respect to the order of the graph), which implies that its diameter is constant (see e.g, [@west] Problem 2.1.65). Therefore, removing the edge $uv$, taking a shortest path between $u,v$ and adding $uv$ back, we obtain an odd cycle of constant length. [$\Box$ ]{}
**Acknowledgments:** A major part of this work was done when the authors participated in the 4th Emléktábla workshop at Lake Balaton. The authors wish to thank Balázs Patkós and Dömötör Pálvölgyi for organizing this very nice event.
[alpha]{}
N. Alon, D. Hefetz and M. Krivelevich, *Playing to retain the advantage*. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 19 (2010), 481–491.
T. Bohman, A. Frieze, M. Krivelevich and R. Martin, *Adding random edges to dense graphs*. Random Structures and Algorithms 24 (2004), 105–117.
R. Diestel, **Graph Theory**. Springer-Verlag, 4th edition, (2010).
D. Duffus, T. [Ł]{}uczak and V. Rödl, *Biased positional games on hypergraphs*, Studia Scientarum Matematicarum Hungarica 34 (1998), 141–149.
D. B. West, **Introduction to Graph Theory**. Prentice Hall, 2001.
[^1]: Institut für Mathematik, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 3-5, D-14195 Berlin, Germany. Email: [email protected]. Research supported by DFG within the research training group “Methods for Discrete Structures”.
[^2]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA. Email: [email protected].
[^3]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA. Email: [email protected]. Research supported in part by OTKA Grant NK78439.
[^4]: Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Information Technology, Thákurova 9, 160 00, Prague 6, Czech Republic. Supported by the Centre of Excellence – Inst. for Theor. Comp. Sci., Prague (project P202/12/G061 of GA ČR). Email: [email protected].
[^5]: Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, P.O.B. 127, Budapest H-1364, Hungary. Email: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Lieb-Mattis theorem is generalized to an antiferromagnetic spin-ladder model with four-spin cyclic exchange interaction. We prove that for $J > 2 K$, the antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels takes place separately in two sectors, which remain symmetric and antisymmetric under the reflection with respect to the longitudinal axis of the ladder. We prove also that at the self-dual point $J = 2 K$, the Lieb-Mattis rule holds in the sectors with fixed number of rung singlets. In both cases, it agrees with the similar rule for Haldane chain with appropriate spin number.'
author:
- Tigran Hakobyan
date: 'February 17, 2008'
title: 'Antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels for spin ladder with four-spin cyclic exchange: Generalization of the Lieb-Mattis theorem'
---
The systems with multi-spin exchanges have gained a lot of interest for a long time (for a recent review, see Refs. ). These interactions arise at higher orders of a strong coupling expansion of a half-filled Hubbard model and provide perturbative corrections to the Heisenberg model. [@Tak77] The multi-spin cyclic permutations first were suggested to be important in two-dimensional (2D) quantum solids like ${}^3$He. [@Th65] The relevance of the four-spin cyclic interaction around square plaquettes of CuO${}_2$ planes in high-temperature superconductors was suggested in Ref. , and then it was proven experimentally. [@Rog05] Recently, their quasi-1D counterparts with similar structure and properties have been studied intensively (see Ref. for a review). Note that the spin-ladder model is the simplest system, where the four-spin cyclic exchange appears from the electron interaction. In fact, the investigations of some copper-based spin-ladder materials have revealed the relevance of four-spin exchange term [@Breh99] (see Ref. for a review). The ground-state phase diagrams of frustrated spin-1/2 ladder systems are well investigated. [@Ners00] The inclusion of four-spin interactions may result in new unconventional phases. [@NT97; @Mom03; @Hik03; @LT06] The different phases are related by a duality transformation. [@Mom03]
In this paper, we will generalize the well-known Lieb-Mattis theorem on ordering of energy levels to the ladder model with four-spin cyclic interaction. For finite-size Heisenberg models on bipartite lattices, Lieb and Mattis proved that the lowest energy $E(S)$ in the sector, where the total spin is equal to $S$, is a monotone increasing function of the spin for any $S\ge
S_{\text{gs}}$, [@LM62] where $ S_{\text{gs}}$ is the spin of the ground state. This property is known as Lieb-Mattis theorem about antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels. The bipartiteness means that the lattice can be divided into two sublattices $A$ and $B$, so that all interactions within the same sublattice are ferromagnetic while the interactions between different sublattices are antiferromagnetic. Moreover, the quantum ground state of finite-size system is a unique multiplet with total spin $S_{\text{gs}}=|S_A-S_B|$, which coincides with the spin of the classical ground state, namely, the Néel state. Here, $S_A$ and $S_B$ are the highest possible spins on corresponding sublattices. [@LM62] In one dimension, the Lieb-Mattis theorem is valid for a more general class of quantum systems. In particular, it is true for the Hubbard chain. [@LM62'] Recently, it has been generalized to SU($n$) symmetric chain. [@H04] A ferromagnetic ordering of energy levels has also been formulated and proven for the Heisenberg chain. [@Nach03]
According to numerical simulations, a weak frustration may preserve the antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels [@Rich95] and the ground-state spin value, [@Liu02] whereas a stronger frustration can violate the Lieb-Mattis property. For many frustrated systems, the lowest levels $E(S)$ show approximately parabolic or linear growth. [@Schnack01] So, although the Lieb-Mattis theorem is not valid for frustrated spin systems in general, it (or its proper extensions) may be valid for certain systems. In particular, its generalization to reflection-symmetric frustrated spin-1/2 ladder model has been formulated and proven recently. [@H07] Here, we obtain similar results for the frustration caused by four-spin ring interaction.
The Hamiltonian of the system reads: $$\label{H}
\begin{split}
H&=\sum_{l=1}^{N-1} J^\parallel_l({{\bf S}}_{1, l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1, l+1}+{{\bf S}}_{2, l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2, l+1})
\\
&+ \sum_{l=1}^{N} J^\perp_l{{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l}
+ \sum_{l=1}^{N-1}K_l (P_{l,l+1}^\square + P_{l,l+1}^{\square-1}),
\end{split}$$ where ${{\bf S}}_{1,l}$ and ${{\bf S}}_{2,l}$ are the spin-1/2 operators of the first and second chains respectively. The cyclic ring exchange $P^\square+P^{\square-1}$ is a superposition of clockwise and counter clockwise permutations of four spins around each plaquette. We consider the following range of couplings: $$\label{range}
J^\parallel_l > 2K_l > 0.$$
The system possesses SU(2) spin symmetry. It has also $Z_2$ symmetry corresponding to the reflection with respect to the longitudinal axis. So, the Hamiltonian remains invariant on individual sectors with fixed values of spin $S$ and reflection $\sigma=\pm1$ quantum numbers.
We will prove that for the model , , the antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels holds independently in symmetric ($\sigma=1$) and antisymmetric ($\sigma=-1$) sectors and conforms to the similar rule for Haldane chain, [@Hal83] i.e. spin-1 Heisenberg chain, with $N$ and $N-1$ spins, respectively. Namely, the lowest-energy levels $E_\sigma(S)$ in sectors with spin $S$ and parity $\sigma$ are nondegenerate and monotone increasing functions of $S$ for $S\ge S_\text{gs}(\sigma)$. Here, $$S_\text{gs}(\sigma)=
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if $\sigma=(-1)^N$}\\
1, & \text{if $\sigma=(-1)^{N-1}$}\\
\end{cases}$$ is the ground-state spin value in the sector with parity $\sigma$. The nondegeneracy means that all states on corresponding level form a unique multiplet. So, the ground state in $\sigma=(-1)^N$ sector is a unique singlet while in $\sigma=(-1)^{N-1}$ sector it is a unique triplet.
We will prove also that at the self-dual point $J^\parallel_l =
2K_l$, the Lieb-Mattis rule holds in the sectors with fixed number of rung singlets $N_0$ and agrees with the similar rule for the Haldane chain with $N-N_0$ spins.
We begin by introducing the basis of three triplet and one singlet states for each rung: $$\begin{split}
\label{rung}
&{\left|1\right\rangle}={{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\uparrow\\[4pt]\uparrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}}, \quad
{\left|\tilde{0}\right\rangle}=\frac1{\sqrt{2}}
\left({{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\uparrow\\[4pt]\downarrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}}+{{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\downarrow\\[4pt]\uparrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}}\right),
\quad {\left|-1\right\rangle}={{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\downarrow\\[4pt]\downarrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}},
\\
&{\left|0\right\rangle}=\frac1{\sqrt{2}}\left({{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\uparrow\\[4pt]\downarrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}}-{{\left|\begin{subarray}{c}\downarrow\\[4pt]\uparrow\end{subarray}\right\rangle}}\right).
\end{split}$$ Below, we will prove that all nonvanishing off-diagonal elements of the Hamiltonian , become negative in the basis $$\begin{split}
\label{neg-basis}
&{\left|m_1,\ldots,m_{N}\right\rangle}
\\
&\qquad=(-1)^{[N_0/2]+N_{0\tilde0}+M_\text{odd}} {\left|m_1\right\rangle}\otimes\ldots\otimes{\left|m_{N}\right\rangle},
\end{split}$$ where $ m_l=\pm1, \tilde0,0$ marks one of the four rung states . In the sing factor, $N_0$ is the number of singlets, and $N_{0\tilde0}$ is the number of pairs $(0,\tilde0)$ in the sequence $m_1,\dots,m_N$, where $0$ is on the left-hand side from $\tilde 0$. [@H07] $M_\text{odd}=\sum_l m_{2l-1}$ is the total $z$-projection of odd-site spins. Note that the basic states above are eigenstates of the reflection operator with eigenvalue $\sigma=(-1)^{N_0}$.
First, we rewrite the Hamiltonian in a form that is more convenient for further purposes. The four-spin interaction term can be expressed via spin operators as follows (see, for instance, Ref. ): $$\begin{split}
P_{l,l+1}^\square &+ P_{l,l+1}^{\square-1} = {{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}
+{{\bf S}}_{2,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1} +{{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l}
\\
&+ {{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1} + {{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1}
+{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l}
\\
& + 4({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1})({{\bf S}}_{2,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})
\\
& + 4({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l})({{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})
\\
& - 4({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})({{\bf S}}_{2,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1})+1/4.
\end{split}$$ Using the relation ${{\bf S}}_1\cdot{{\bf S}}_2=P_{12}/2-1/4$, where the operator $P_{12}$ permutes two spin states, one can present the expression above in the following form: $$\begin{split}
\label{cyclic} P_{l,l+1}^\square + P_{l,l+1}^{\square-1} &=
2({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1}+{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l})
\\
&+ P^{\, \parallel}_{l,l+1}+P^{\, =}_{l,l+1}-P^\times_{l,l+1}.
\end{split}$$ Here, $P^{\, \parallel}_{l,l+1}$, $P^{\, =}_{l,l+1}$ and $P^\times_{l,l+1}$ are, respectively, four-spin permutations along the plaquette rungs, legs and diagonals. Further, we express the two-spin interactions in terms of the symmetrized and antisymmetrized rung spin operators $$\label{S-sa} {{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l={{\bf S}}_{1,l}+{{\bf S}}_{2,l}, \qquad
{{\bf S}}^{(a)}_l={{\bf S}}_{1,l}-{{\bf S}}_{2,l}.$$ The operator ${{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l$ describes the total spin of $l$th rung. Using , and omitting nonessential scalar term, one can reduce the Hamiltonian to the following form: $$\begin{split}
\label{H-s-a} H &= \sum_{l=1}^{N-1}(J^s_l\,
{{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l\cdot{{\bf S}}^{(s)}_{l+1}+J^a_l\,
{{\bf S}}^{(a)}_l\cdot{{\bf S}}^{(a)}_{l+1})
\\
&+ \sum_{l=1}^{N-1} K_l(P^{\, \parallel}_{l,l+1}+P^{\,
=}_{l,l+1}-P^\times_{l,l+1})
\\
&+ \sum_{l=1}^{N} \frac{J^\perp_l}{2}({{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l)^2.
\end{split}$$ In the above equation, we have introduced the symmetrized and antisymmetrized couplings $$\label{Jsa} J^s_l=\frac{J^\parallel_l}2+K_l, \qquad
J^a_l=\frac{J^\parallel_l}2-K_l.$$ Note that a similar decomposition for the Hamiltonian without four-spin exchange was applied in Refs. and . The permutations $P^{\, \parallel}_{l,l+1}$ and $P^{\, \times}_{l,l+1}$ have been used in Ref. .
The $J^\perp$ part of the Hamiltonian is just the sum of rung spins squares, which is diagonal in the basis . The local terms $P^{\,\parallel}_{l,l+1}$ are also diagonal (with eigenvalues $\pm1$), since any triplet (singlet) rung state stays symmetric (antisymmetric) under the reflection.
The $J^s$ terms correspond to the so-called composite spin model. [@ST86] They conserve the spins of individual rungs because ${{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l$ describes the total spin of $l$th rung. [@Xian95] The singlets remain frozen at their points, and, therefore, the factor $(-1)^{[N_0/2]+N_{0\tilde0}}$ in remains invariant. All nonvanishing off-diagonal matrix elements come from the exchanges ${\left|\tilde0\right\rangle}\otimes{\left|\tilde0\right\rangle}\leftrightarrow{\left|\pm1\right\rangle}\otimes{\left|\mp1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|\tilde0\right\rangle}\otimes{\left|\pm1\right\rangle}\leftrightarrow{\left|\pm1\right\rangle}\otimes{\left|\tilde0\right\rangle}$ of two neighboring triplet states, which alter the sign of $(-1)^{M_\text{odd}}$. Note that they coincide with similar matrix elements of the Haldane chain, in (nonpositive) basis formed by the states $(-1)^{M_\text{odd}}{\left|m_1\right\rangle}\otimes\ldots\otimes{\left|m_{N}\right\rangle}$. [@LM62] So, the composite spin part of the Hamiltonian is nonpositive in the basis .
The matrix elements produced by the antisymmetric local terms of Hamiltonian have been considered already in Ref. . In terms of lowering-raising operators $S^{(a)\pm}=S^{(a)x}\pm iS^{(a)y}$, each such term reads $(S^{(a)+}_lS^{(a)-}_{l+1}+S^{(a)-}_lS^{(a)+}_{l+1})/2+S^{(a)z}_lS^{(a)z}_{l+1}$. In contrary to the symmetric case, the antisymmetrized spin operators mix triplet and singlet states. Their nonzero matrix elements are: [@Noak06] $$\begin{split}
\label{s-asym}
&{\left\langle0\right|}S^{(a)+}{\left|-1\right\rangle}=\sqrt{2}, \quad
{\left\langle1\right|}S^{(a)+}{\left|0\right\rangle}=-\sqrt{2},
\\
&{\left\langle\tilde0\right|}S^{(a)z}{\left|0\right\rangle}=1.
\end{split}$$ Using the above equations and the definition of basic states , it is easy to check that $$\label{s-pm-a}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle\dots,0_l,0_{l+1},\dots\right|}S^{(a)\mp}_l S^{(a)\pm}_{l+1} {\left|\dots,\pm1_l,\mp1_{l+1},\dots\right\rangle}
\\
=-2(-1)^{[N_0/2]+N_{0\tilde0}+M_\text{odd}-[N'_0/2]-N'_{0\tilde0}-M'_\text{odd}}=-2,
\end{split}$$ where the unchanged sites are replaced by dots. The quantum numbers of bra- and -ket states are mentioned, respectively, without and with primes. Indeed, according to the definition of $N_{0\tilde0}$, the difference $N_{0\tilde0}-N'_{0\tilde0}$ in is an even number. Also, $N'_0=N_0+2$ and $M_\text{odd}=M'_\text{odd}\pm1$ depending on whether $l$ is even or odd. Therefore, the exponent in is an even number, and the equation is true. The next nontrivial matrix element is also negative. Namely, $$\label{s-pm-b}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle\dots,0_l,\pm1_{l+1},\dots\right|}S^{(a)\mp}_l S^{(a)\pm}_{l+1} {\left|\dots,\pm1_l,0_{l+1},\dots\right\rangle}
\\
=2(-1)^{M_\text{odd}-M'_\text{odd}}=2(-1)^{\pm1}=-2
\end{split}$$ because the quantum numbers $N_{0\tilde0}$ and $N_0$ are the same for both states.
In contrast, the $z$ projections of antisymmetrized spin operators preserve the quantum number $M_\text{odd}$. They produce negative matrix elements too: $$\label{s-z-a}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle\dots,0_l,0_{l+1},\dots\right|}S^{(a)z}_l S^{(a)z}_{l+1} {\left|\dots,\tilde0_l,\tilde0_{l+1},\dots\right\rangle}
\\
=(-1)^{N_{0\tilde0}-N'_{0\tilde0}+(N_0-N'_0)/2}=(-1)^{\text{even}-1}=-1
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{s-z-b}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle\dots,\tilde0_l,0_{l+1},\dots\right|}S^{(a)z}_l S^{(a)z}_{l+1} {\left|\dots,0_l,\tilde0_{l+1},\dots\right\rangle}
\\
=(-1)^{N_{0\tilde0}-N'_{0\tilde0}}=(-1)^1=-1.
\end{split}$$ The expressions , , , together with conjugate ones constitute the full set of nontrivial matrix elements of Hamiltonian generated by $J^a$ terms.
Finally, consider the off-diagonal terms, which are responsible for four-spin cyclic exchange. The operator $P^{\,=}_{l,l+1}$ just permutes two adjacent rung states. At the same time, $P^\times_{l,l+1}$ is a signed permutation: While permuting the singlet with a triplet state it produces an additional minus sign. Therefore, the difference $P^{\,=}_{l,l+1}-P^\times_{l,l+1}$ vanishes if the spins of both rungs are the same. If their spins differ, this operator just permutes them multiplying by $2$. Then, using the definition of basic states, we obtain $$\label{k-term}
\begin{split}
{\left\langle\dots,t_l,0_{l+1},\dots\right|} P^{\,=}_{l,l+1}-P^\times_{l,l+1} {\left|\dots,0_l,t_{l+1},\dots\right\rangle}
\\
=2(-1)^{M_\text{odd}-M'_\text{odd}+N_{0\tilde0}-N'_{0\tilde0}}=-2,
\end{split}$$ where $t=\tilde0,\pm1$ is any triplet state. Indeed, in the sign factor above, $M_\text{odd}=M'_\text{odd}$ and $N_{0\tilde0}-N'_{0\tilde0}=1$ for $t=\tilde0$. For $t=\pm1$, $N_{0\tilde0}=N'_{0\tilde0}$ and $|M_\text{odd}-M'_\text{odd}|=1$. Together with the conjugate element, this is a sole nonvanishing off-diagonal matrix element produced by the four-spin cyclic exchange term.
According to the constraints imposed on the couplings, the coefficients $J^s_l,J^a_l,K_l$ in are positive. This finishes the proof that the ladder Hamiltonian has no positive off-diagonal element in the basis .
Due to the spin and reflection symmetries, the Hamiltonian is invariant on each $(M,\sigma)$ subspace, all states of which have $S^z=M$ and $\sigma=\pm1$ quantum numbers. Any two basic states within the same subspace are connected at least by two-spin interaction terms of the Hamiltonian, as can be easily verified by induction. [@H07] So, we can apply the Perron-Frobenius theorem [@PF] to the matrix of the Hamiltonian restricted to any $(M,\sigma)$ subspace. As a result, the lowest energy state there (usually called a relative ground state) is unique and is a positive superposition of all basic states: $$\label{gs} {\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{M,\sigma}=
\sum_{{\left|m_1,\dots,m_{N}\right\rangle}\in (M,\sigma)}
\omega_{m_1\dots m_N}{\left|m_1,\dots,m_{N}\right\rangle},$$ where $\omega_{m_1\dots m_N}>0$. The uniqueness implies that this state must have a certain value of spin $S_{M,\sigma}$, which can be obtained by comparing with the similar state of the Haldain chain. The last model corresponds to the restriction of the composite spin model $\sum_l {{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l\cdot{{\bf S}}^{(s)}_{l+1}$ on the states with triplets on all rungs. In fact, all such type states from form a nonpositive basis for the Haldane chain. [@LM62] Its relative ground state ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_M$ in $S^z=M$ subspace is a positive superposition of all basic states and has the highest possible spin value, i.e., $|M|$, except $M=0$ and odd $N$ case when its spin is one. [@LM62] Therefore, for $\sigma=1$, both states ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{M,\sigma}$ and ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_M$ overlap, and, hence, must have the same spin. Similarly, the restriction of composite spin model to the subspace of states with one singlet frozen at the last rung corresponds to the Haldane chain with $N-1$ sites. So, for $\sigma=-1$, the spin of coincides with the spin of the corresponding state of the Haldane chain having one site less. Therefore, the spin of the relative ground state is $|M|$ except $M=0$ and $\sigma=(-1)^{N-1}$ case when it equals one.
Now we are ready to finish the proof of our main result. For $\sigma=(-1)^N$, the relative ground states ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{\pm S,\sigma}$ are, correspondingly, the highest and lowest states of a unique spin-$S$ multiplet, which has the minimum energy $E_\sigma(S)$ among all spin-$S$ states with parity $\sigma$. The $(S,\sigma)$ subspace contains a representative from any multiplet with $S'\ge S$ and parity $\sigma$. Together with the uniqueness condition, this implies that $E_\sigma(S')$ must be higher than $E_\sigma(S)$ for all $S'>S$. Consequently, $E_\sigma(S)$ is a monotone increasing function of $S$, and the ground state in $\sigma=(-1)^N$ sector is a nondegenerate spin singlet. For $\sigma=(-1)^{N-1}$, the states ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{\pm
S,\sigma}$ are the highest and lowest states only if $S\ge 1$. Therefore, $E_\sigma(S)$ monotonically increases in this region. Note that the states ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{\pm 1,\sigma}$ and ${\left|\Omega\right\rangle}_{0,\sigma}$, which have the lowest energy in $\sigma=(-1)^{N-1}$ sector, form a spin triplet.
Consider separately the limiting case of $J^\parallel_l=2K_l$ when the $J^{a}$ terms in are absent. Then $\sum_l
({{\bf S}}^{(s)}_l)^2$ commutes with the Hamiltonian and with the total spin operator. [@Mom03] As a result, the symmetry group SU(2)$\times Z_2$ expands to SU(2)$\times$U(1)=U(2). The U(1) symmetry reflects the invariance under the duality transformation and results in the conservation of singlet number $N_0$. [@Hik03] Any $(M,\sigma)$ subspace splits into invariant subspaces with fixed singlet number obeying $(-1)^{N_0}=\sigma$. It is easy to see that the Hamiltonian is connected on every such subspace. Therefore, the relative ground state there is unique and is a positive superposition of all basic states with $S^z=M$ and $N_0$ rung singlets. Again, comparing it with the action of the composite spin model on the states with singlets on the last $N_0$ rungs, one can conclude that the relative ground state has the highest possible spin value, except $M=0$ and odd $N-N_0$ case when it is a triplet state. The antiferromagnetic ordering of energy levels takes place independently in any sector with fixed singlet number and corresponds to the similar rule for the Haldane chain with $N-N_0$ spins.
For appropriate values of couplings, the results of this paper remain true, if diagonal interactions ${{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1}+{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l}$ are included in the Hamiltonian . Similarly, one can consider a more general biquadratic interaction of type $
K'_l({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1})({{\bf S}}_{2,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})
+ 4K_l({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l})({{\bf S}}_{1,l+1}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})
- 4K_l({{\bf S}}_{1,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{2,l+1})({{\bf S}}_{2,l}\cdot{{\bf S}}_{1,l+1})
$ with arbitrary couplings $K'_l$ because the first term in the sum is diagonal in the basis , .
The author is grateful to V. Ohanyan for useful discussions. This work was supported by grants UC-06/07, INTAS-05-7928, ANSEF-1386-PS and the Artsakh Ministry of Science & Education.
[99]{}
M. Roger, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. **66**, 1412 (2005), cond-mat/0504141.
G. Misguich and C. Lhuillier, in *Frustrated Spin Systems*, edited by H. T. Diep (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), pp. 229-307, cond-mat/0310405. M. Takahashi, J. Phys. C [**10**]{}, 1289 (1977); A. H. MacDonald, S. M. Girvin, and D. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. B **41**, 2565 (1990); *ibid.* **37**, 9753 (1988); A. L. Chernyshev, D. Galanakis, P. Phillips, A. V. Rozhkov, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 235111 (2004).
D. J. Thouless, Proc. Phys. Soc. London [**86**]{}, 893 (1965); M. Roger, J. H. Hetherington, and J. M. Delrieu, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**55**]{}, 1 (1983), and references therein.
M. Roger and J. M. Delrieu, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2299 (1989).
E. Dagotto, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**62**]{}, 1525 (1999); E. Dagotto and T. M. Rice, Science [**271**]{}, 618 (1996).
S. Brehmer, H.-J. Mikeska, M. Muller, N. Nagaosa, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. B **60**, 329 (1999); T. S. Nunner, P. Brune, T. Kopp, M. Windt, and M. Grüninger, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 180404(R) (2002); N. Haga, S. I. Suga, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 134432 (2003); K. P. Schmidt, A. Gössling, U. Kuhlmann, C. Thomsen, A. Löffert, C. Gross, and W. Assmus, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 094419 (2005); A. Gössling, U. Kuhlmann, C. Thomsen, A. Löffert, C. Gross, and W. Assmus, Phys. Rev. B **67**, 052403 (2003); M. Matsuda, K. Katsumata, R. S. Eccleston, S. Brehmer, and H.-J. Mikeska, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 8903 (2000); J. Appl. Phys. **87**, 6271 (2000). K. P. Schmidt and G. S. Uhrig, Mod. Phys. Lett. B **19**, 1179 (2005).
D. Allen, F. H. L. Essler, and A. A. Nersesyan, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 8871 (2000); X. Wang, Mod. Phys. Lett. B [**14**]{}, 327 (2000); E. H. Kim, G. Fáth, J. Sólyom, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 14965 (2000); T. Hakobyan, J. H. Hetherington, and M. Roger, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 144433 (2001); B. W. Ramakko and M. Azzouz, Phys. Rev. **B** 76, 064419 (2007); Can. J. Phys. **86**, 509 (2008); E. H. Kim, Ö. Legeza, and J. Sólyom, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 205121 (2008).
A. A. Nersesyan and A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 3939 (1997); M. Müller, T. Vekua, and H.-J. Mikeska, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 134423 (2002); A. Läuchli, G. Schmid, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 100409(R) (2003); Y. Honda and T. Horiguchi, cond-mat/0106426 (unpublished); K. Hijii and K. Nomura Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 104413 (2002); M. Sato, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 054427 (2007); T. Hikihara and Sh. Yamamoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**77**]{}, 014709 (2008).
T. Hikihara, T. Momoi, and Xiao Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 087204 (2003). T. Momoi, T. Hikihara, M. Nakamura, and Xiao Hu, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 174410 (2003). P. Lecheminant and K. Totsuka, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 224426 (2006). E. H. Lieb and D. Mattis, J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{}, 749 (1962); E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1201 (1989).
E. H. Lieb and D. Mattis, Phy. Rev. [**125**]{}, 164 (1962).
T. Hakobyan, Nucl. Phys. B [**699**]{}, 575 (2004).
B. Nachtergaele, W. Spitzer, and Sh. Starr, J. Stat. Phys. [**116**]{}, 719 (2004); B. Nachtergaele and Sh. Starr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 057206 (2005).
J. Richter, K. Retzlaff, A. Voigt, and N. B. Ivanov, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**140-144**]{}, 1611 (1995); J. Richter, N. B. Ivanov, A. Voigt, and K. Retzlaff, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**99**]{}, 363 (1995).
Y. J. Liu, Y. C. Chen, M. F. Yang, and C. D. Gong, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 024403 (2002).
J. Schnack, H.-J. Schmidt, J. Richter, and J. Schulenburg, Eur. Phys. J. B [**24**]{}, 475 (2001); J. Schnack, Lect. Notes Phys. [**645**]{}, 155-194 (2004).
T. Hakobyan, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 214421 (2007).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **50**, 1153 (1983).
V. Gritsev, B. Normand, and D. Baeriswyl, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 094431 (2004).
Y. Xian, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 12485 (1995).
J. Solyom and J. Timonen, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 487 (1986); [**39**]{}, 7003 (1989); [**40**]{}, 7150 (1989). J.-B. Fouet, F. Mila, D. Clarke, H. Youk, O. Tchernyshyov, P. Fendley, and R. M. Noack, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 214405 (2006).
P. Lancaster, *Theory of Matrices* (Academic, New York, 1969).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that in weakly disordered Luttinger liquids close to a commensurate filling the ratio of thermal conductivity $\kappa$ and electrical conductivity $\sigma$ can deviate strongly from the Wiedemann Franz (WF) law valid for Fermi liquids scattering from impurities. In the regime where the Umklapp scattering rate $\Gamma_U$ is much larger than the impurity scattering rate $\Gamma_{\rm imp}$, the Lorenz number $L=\kappa/(\sigma T)$ rapidly changes from very large values, $L \sim \Gamma_U/\Gamma_{\rm imp} \gg 1$ at the commensurate point to very small values, $L \sim \Gamma_{\rm imp}/\Gamma_{U} \ll 1$ for a slightly doped system. This surprising behavior is a consequence of approximate symmetries existing even in the presence of strong Umklapp scattering.'
author:
- 'Arti Garg$^{1}$, David Rasch$^{2}$, Efrat Shimshoni$^{3}$ and Achim Rosch$^{2,4}$'
title: Large violation of Wiedemann Franz law in Luttinger liquids
---
In a Fermi liquid, a quasi particle carries charge $e$ and has an energy of the order of $k_B T$. These basic properties are reflected in the Wiedemann–Franz (WF) law [@wiedemann; @sommerfeld]: the ratio of the thermal conductivity divided by the temperature $T$ and the electrical conductivity, the so-called Lorenz number, $$L = \frac{\kappa}{\sigma T}=\frac{\pi^2 k_B^2}{3 e^2} = L_0
\label{WF}$$ takes a universal value $L_0$. The WF law, $L=L_0$, is valid and routinely observed in the low-$T$ regime of Fermi liquids where impurity scattering dominates. Deviations from the WF law, $L/L_0 \neq 1$, in the low-$T$ regime, which have e.g. been reported for high-temperature superconductors [@hill] or close to quantum-critical points [@paglione], are regarded as evidence that the low-energy excitations cannot be viewed as electronic quasi particles. But even if a description of thermal and electric transport in terms of Fermi liquid quasiparticles is possible, the WF law will not be valid if inelastic scattering processes dominate which in general relax heat- and charge currents differently. Typically, these corrections to $L/L_0$ are of the order of 1 and not very large [@orignac; @moreWF].
Large violations of the WF law usually reflect a dramatic change of the excitation spectrum associated with the opening of a gap. For example, in a Mott insulator $\sigma$ is exponentially small while heat can still efficiently be transported by spin fluctuations. The opposite case occurs in a superconductor where $\sigma=\infty$ while $\kappa$ remains finite at finite $T$ due to thermally excited quasi particles.
In this paper, we show that small changes in the doping can trigger enormous changes of the Lorenz number $L$ in Luttinger liquids in situations where the Umklapp scattering rate $\Gamma_U$ is larger than the impurity scattering rate, $\Gamma_{\rm imp}\ll \Gamma_U$, see Fig. \[fig1\]. This happens even in regimes where Umklapp scattering does [*not*]{} open a charge gap. This peculiar behavior can be traced back to the presence of approximate symmetries of the clean system which affect charge- and heat current in a completely different way. This has to be contrasted with a situation where impurity scattering provides the dominant relaxation mechanism for both heat- and charge currents. For this case Li and Orignac [@orignac] have shown that only violations of order $1$ of the WF law exist.
When investigating the thermal or electrical conductivity of low-dimensional systems, it is important to account for the role of symmetries and conservation laws even if these are only approximate. For example in integrable one-dimensional models, conductivities are usually infinite at finite $T$ [@reviewZotos] as the conservation laws protects the currents from decaying. Small perturbations render the conductivity finite, but still large [@almostIntegrable]. Below we demonstrate the implications on the thermoelectric effects.
We consider a weakly disordered one-dimensional (1D) metal described by a single band with the filling $\nu=\nu_0+\delta \nu$, and the electron density $2 \nu$, where $\nu_0=m_c/n_c$ with integers $m_c$, $n_c$ is a commensurate filling. The low-energy Hamiltonian is given [@book] by $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&H_{LL}+H_U+H_{\rm imp}\\
H_{LL}&=& \int \frac{d x}{2 \pi} \sum_{i=c,s} v_i \left( K_i (\partial_x \theta_i)^2 +\frac{1}{K_i} (\partial_x \phi_i)^2\right) \nonumber\\
H_U &=&\frac{g}{\left(2 \pi a\right)^{n_c}} \int dx \, e^{i \sqrt{2}\left(n_c \phi_c\left(x\right)+n_s \phi_s\left(x\right)\right)} e^{-i \Delta k x} + h.c.
\nonumber
\\
H_{\rm imp}&=&
\frac{1}{\pi a}\int dx\,\eta(x) \left(e^{i\sqrt{2} \phi_c\left(x\right)}\cos\left(\sqrt{2}\phi_s\left(x\right)\right)+ h.c.\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\rm LL}$ is the usual Luttinger liquid Hamiltonian expressed in terms of spin (s) and charge (c) densities $\partial_x \phi_{c,s}$ and their conjugate variable $\partial_x \theta_{c,s}$ with $[\phi_{c,s}(x),\partial_{x'} \theta_{c,s}(x')]=i\pi\delta(x-x')$. $H_U$ is the dominant Umklapp scattering process where $\Delta k = 2 n_c k_F - m_c G=n_c G \delta \nu$ (with $G=\frac{2\pi}{a}$) is proportional to the deviation from commensurate filling and $n_s=0,1$ for even and odd $n_c$, respectively. The term $H_{\rm imp}$ with a Gaussian correlated impurity potential, $\langle \eta(x) \eta(x') \rangle=D \delta(x-x')$, describes a weak backscattering due to disorder.
Even in the presence of Umklapp scattering, an approximate symmetry closely related to momentum conservation exists [@pseudo]. The so-called pseudo momentum $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{P}&=&P_t-\frac{m_c G}{2 n_c} (N_R-N_L) =P+\frac{\Delta k}{2 n_c} (N_R-N_L)\ \ \label{pseudo}\end{aligned}$$ (where $N_{R(L)}$ is the number of right(left) movers) commutes with $H_{LL}+H_U$ (even if effects like band curvature or a weak three-dimensional coupling are added [@pseudo; @FL]). Here $P_t$ is the crystal momentum and $P=P_t-k_F(N_R-N_L)$ measures the momentum relative to the two Fermi points.
Because of the pseudo momentum conservation, even a strong Umklapp scattering may not be sufficient to relax the heat and charge currents. To capture this, one needs a transport theory which properly accounts for the role of conservation laws and the associated vertex corrections. For the non-linear interaction describing Umklapp scattering in Luttinger liquids the memory matrix approach to transport [@forster] is to our knowledge the only available method, especially as there are presently no numerical methods to calculate conductivities at finite but low $T$. As discussed in Ref. [@bounds], this method allows to calculate lower bounds to $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ in the perturbative regime, and gives precise results as long as the relevant slow modes are included in the calculation. It was shown to capture prominent features of observable transport phenomena, e.g. magnetothermal transport in spin-chains [@thermomagnetic].
The first step to set up the memory matrix formalism, is to list a number of relevant operators $J_i$ which in our case includes the electrical current $J_1=J_c=v_c K_c (N_R-N_L)$, the heat current $J_2=J_h=-\sum_{i=c,s} \int v_i^2 \partial_x \phi_i \partial_x \theta_i$ and the momentum operator $J_3=P=-
\sum_{i=c,s} \int \partial_x \phi_i \partial_x \theta_i$. To leading order in $H_U$, $H_{imp}$, the matrix of conductivities is then obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}&=&\hat{\chi} \hat{M}^{-1} \hat{\chi}, \quad
M_{ij}=\lim_{{\omega}\to 0} \frac{{\rm Im} \langle \partial_t J_i ; \partial_t J_j \rangle_{\omega}}{{\omega}} \label{mem}\end{aligned}$$ with the $3 \times 3$ memory matrix $\hat{M}=\hat{M}_U+\hat{M}_{\rm imp}$. As the time derivatives $\partial_t J_i=i [H,J_i]$ are already linear in the weak perturbations $g_U$ and $\eta$, the correlators are evaluated with respect to $H_{\rm LL}$. $\hat \chi$ is the matrix of static susceptibilities $\chi_{ij}=
\langle J_i;J_j \rangle_{{\omega}=0}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\chi} &\approx& \frac{\pi T^2}{3} \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{6 v_c K_c}{\pi^2 T^2} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & v_c+v_s & \frac{1}{v_c}+\frac{1}{v_s}\\[1mm]
0 & \frac{1}{v_c}+\frac{1}{v_s} & \frac{1}{v_c^3}+\frac{1}{v_s^3}
\end{array}
\right)\; .\end{aligned}$$ The Umklapp contribution to Eq. (\[mem\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\hat{M}_U}{c_U \Gamma_U} &\approx& \left(
\begin{array}{ccc} \frac{2 v_c^2 n_c^2K_c^2F_{00}}{\pi T^2} &
\frac{ v_c n_c K_c F_{3}}{ \Delta k} &
\frac{- v_cn_cK_c \Delta k F_{00}}{ \pi T^2} \\
\frac{ v_c n_c K_c F_{3}}{ \Delta k} &
-v_c^2 F_{4}/2 &
F_{3}/2 \\
\frac{- v_cn_cK_c \Delta k F_{00}}{\pi T^2} &
F_{3}/2 &
\frac{ \Delta k^2 F_{00}}{2\pi T^2}
\\ \end{array}\right)~~~\end{aligned}$$ where $c_U = \frac{(\pi)^{K_c n_c^2+ K_s n_s^2-1}}{(2 \pi)^{2n_c-1}}\left(\frac{v_c}{v_s}\right)^{K_sn_s^2}$ and $\Gamma_U = \frac{g^2}{a^{2n_c-1}}\left(\frac{aT}{v_c}\right)^{K_c n_c^2+K_s n_s^2-1}$. $F_{mn}$ are the dimensionless functions $$\begin{aligned}
F_{mn}&=&2\int dx dt ~\,t\,e^{i\delta x} (\partial_x^m f_c(x,t)) (\partial_x^n f_s(x,t))\\
f_c(x,t)&=&\left(\sinh(x+it)\sinh(x-it)\right)^{-\frac{K_cn_c^2}{2}} \nonumber \\
f_s(x,t)&=&\left(\sinh\left(x v_c/v_s +it\right)\sinh\left(x v_c/v_s -it\right)\right)^{-\frac{K_sn_s^2}{2}}\nonumber \\
F_{3}&=& \pi[F_{20}+(v_s/v_c)^2 F_{02} +(1+(v_s/v_c)^2)F_{11}] \nonumber\\
F_{4}&=& \pi[F_{20}+(v_s/v_c)^4 F_{02}+ 2 (v_s/v_c)^2 F_{11}] \;
,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which depend on doping and $T$ via $\delta=v_c \Delta k / (\pi T)$. Note that $\hat{M}_U$ has a vanishing eigenvalue reflecting that $[H_U,\tilde{P}]=0$. The disorder contribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\hat{M}_{\rm imp}}{c_{\rm imp} \Gamma_{\rm imp}} &\approx&
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc} \left(\frac{4 K_c v_c}{2\pi T}\right)^2& 0&
0\\
0& v_c v_s \tilde{K}
&\frac{K_t^2}{1+K_t}\\
0&
\frac{K_t^2}{1+K_t}&
\frac{(\frac{K_c}{v_c^2}+\frac{K_s}{v_s^2})K_t}{ 1+K_t}
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$
where $c_{\rm imp} = \frac{(2\pi)^{K_t-1}}{2}\left(\frac{v_c}{v_s}\right)^{K_s} \frac{\Gamma^2(K_t/2)}{\Gamma(K_t)}$, $\Gamma_{\rm imp} = \frac{D}{a^2}\left(\frac {aT}{v_c}\right)^{K_t}$, $K_t=K_c+K_s$ and $\tilde{K}=\frac{(K_cv_c^2+K_sv_s^2)K_t}{v_c v_s (1+K_t)}$. Finally, $\sigma$, $\kappa$ and $L$ of Eq. (\[WF\]) are obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma&=&\hat{\sigma}_{11}, \quad \kappa=\kappa_0-T S^2 \sigma=
\frac{1}{T} \left(\hat{\sigma}_{22}-\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{21}^2}{\hat{\sigma}_{11}} \right). \label{te}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that $\kappa$ is measured experimentally in a setup where the charge current vanishes, resulting in the thermoelectric counter terms of Eq. (\[te\]). $S=\hat\sigma_{21}/(T \hat\sigma_{11})$ is the thermopower.
For given Luttinger liquid parameters $v_{c,s}, K_{c,s}$, the Lorenz number depends only on two dimensionless quantities, describing the ratio of renormalized disorder strength and Umklapp scattering and the doping: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dimless}
\tilde{D}=\frac{\Gamma_{\rm imp}}{\Gamma_U}=\frac{D a^{2 n_c-3}}{g^2 (a T/v_c)^{\gamma}}, \quad \delta=\frac{v_c \Delta k}{\pi T}\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma=
(n_c^2-1) K_c+(n_s^2-1) K_s-1$. Fig. \[fig1\] shows the striking doping dependence of $\sigma, \kappa$ and the Lorenz number $L/L_0$ for the filling $1/3$ ($n_c=3$, $n_s=1$). For large effective disorder, $\tilde{D}\gtrsim 1$, $L/L_0$ is of order 1 and there is essentially no doping dependence. For $\tilde D\ll 1$ one obtains instead a huge and sharp peak of height $1/\tilde D$ and width $\sqrt{\tilde D}$ followed by a wider dip located at $\delta \sim 1$, where the minimum scales as $\tilde D$.
This behavior can be understood by investigating the relation of the currents $J_h$ and $J_c$ to the approximately conserved $\tilde P$, Eq. (\[pseudo\]). From the continuity equation, one can show [@FL] that the cross susceptibility of $J_c$ and $\tilde{P}$ is (up to exponentially small corrections) given by the doping $\delta \nu$ away from the commensurable point $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{J_c \tilde{P}}&=& 2\delta \nu \approx \frac{\Delta k \hat\chi_{11}}{2 n_c K_c v_c} +\hat\chi_{31} \label{overlap}\end{aligned}$$ while $\chi_{J_h \tilde{P}}\sim T^2 >0$. $\chi_{J_i \tilde{P}}$ measures the ”overlap“ of the current and the conserved operator. A vanishing $\chi$ implies that the operators are orthogonal to each other, i.e. the current is [*not*]{} protected by the conservation law and can decay rapidly by Umklapp processes. Therefore, at the commensurate point where $\chi_{J_c \tilde{P}}=0$, $J_c$ can decay by Umklapp processes, while $J_h$ is protected. Indeed, as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig1\], at $\delta=0$ one obtains $\sigma\sim 1/\Gamma_U$ small, but $\kappa\sim 1/\Gamma_{\rm imp}$, resulting in $L/L_0 \sim 1/\tilde D$ in the clean limit, $\tilde D \ll 1$.
For finite doping, $\chi_{J_c \tilde{P}}=\delta \nu >0$ and therefore $\sigma\sim (\delta \nu)^2/\Gamma_{\rm imp}$ grows rapidly until it becomes of the same order as the heat conductivity in the [*absence*]{} of electrothermal correction, $\kappa_0/T$. In this regime, the leading contribution to $\kappa/T$, however, of order $1/\Gamma_{\rm imp}$ is exactly canceled by the thermoelectric counter terms in Eq. (\[te\]). The physical origin of this cancelation is that $\kappa$ is measured under the boundary condition $J_c=0$. As the component of $J_c$ perpendicular to $\tilde P$ decays rapidly by Umklapp, $J_c$ and $\tilde P$ become almost parallel for small $\tilde D$ implying that effectively the heat conductivity measurement is performed under the boundary condition of vanishing $\tilde P$. Therefore $\kappa$ becomes of order $1/\Gamma_U$, and $L/L_0\sim\tilde D$. For neutral liquids a related effect is well known: while mass currents do not decay due to momentum conservation, the heat conductivity measured under the boundary condition of vanishing mass currents remains finite (this situation is more transparent as momentum and mass current are proportional to each other while this is not the case for $J_c$ and $\tilde P$). Finally, for $\delta \gg 1$ the Umklapp scattering is exponentially suppressed, both $\sigma$ and $\kappa/T$ are of order $1/\Gamma_{\rm imp}$, and $L/L_0\sim 1$ [@orignac].
In Fig. \[fig2\] the $T$ dependence of the WF ratio, $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ are shown using the appropriate dimensionless variables $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dimless2}
\tilde\delta&=&\frac{\delta}{{\tilde D}^{1/\gamma}}, \quad
\tilde T=\frac{T}{T_D}, \quad T_D\equiv\frac{v_c}{a} \left(\frac {D a^{2 n_c-3}}{g^2} \right)^{1/
\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Upon lowering $T$, the disorder close to $1/3$ filling becomes more and more important, $\tilde{D}$ grows and $L/L_0$ becomes of order $1$ for low $T$. As explained above, for vanishing doping $\tilde \delta=0$, $\sigma$ is much smaller than $\kappa/T$ as long as Umklapp scattering dominates. For finite doping, Umklapp scattering is exponentially suppressed at low $T$ (see inset of Fig. \[fig2\]). However when it sets in ($\tilde T > 1$), it leads to a larger suppression of $\kappa/T$ compared to $\sigma$ due to the partial cancellations from thermoelectric corrections.
While the theoretical analysis of the problem described above is most transparent for the filling close to $1/3$, it is useful to study a case with direct experimental realizations. One possible candidate is the quarter-filled quasi-1D Bechgaard salt (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ [@bechgaard] where the anisotropy of the kinetic energy ($t_a:t_b:t_c = 250:20:1$ meV) allows a Luttinger liquid description for $T\gtrsim 100K$. Two extra complications arise at quarter filling: first, in the absence of disorder the effective low-energy model, $H_{LL}+H_U$ becomes the integrable sine-Gordon model, which formally has an infinite number of conservation laws on top of the pseudo momentum. For an analysis of transport one has to identify the leading corrections which break integrablity (see Ref. [@almostIntegrable]). Second, for $H_{LL}+H_U$ there is a strict separation of charge and spin degrees of freedom the latter being not affected by Umklapp scattering. We therefore have to take band-curvature [@haldane] into account, which couples spin and charge and breaks integrability: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{BC}=-\frac{1}{6\sqrt{2}m} \int \bigl(\partial_x\phi_c^3 + 6\partial_x\phi_s\partial_x\theta_s\partial_x\theta_c
\nonumber \\
+ 3\partial_x\phi_c
(\partial_x\phi_s^2 + \partial_x\theta_s^2 + \partial_x\theta_c^2)\bigr)- \delta \mu \int \partial_x\phi_c\; .\end{aligned}$$ Here we have added an extra $T$-dependent chemical potential $\delta\mu = \frac{T^2\pi^2}{12m}\left(\frac{1}{v_c^2}\left(K_c+K_c^{-1}\right)+\frac{1}{v_s^2}\left(K_s+K_s^{-1}\right)\right)$ to account for the $T$-independent particle density $2 \nu$ in a 3D crystal. To leading order in $1/m$, corrections to $\hat \chi$ arise only for $\chi_{12}=\chi_{21}\approx \frac{\pi T^2}{3 m}
\left( 1/v_c+1/v_s \right)$ and $\chi_{13}=\chi_{31}\approx \frac{\pi T^2}{3 m}
\left(1/v_c^3+1/v_s^3\right)$. As both $N_R-N_L$ and $P$ commute with $H_{BC}$, only $\hat{M}_{22}$ gets an extra contribution, $\hat{M}_{22}^{BC}=\frac{\pi^8T^5}{128m^2v_s^4v_c^4}K_c\left(K_s^{-2}+K_s^2-2\right)
\int t {\rm Im}[(4\cosh^2(x+it)+2)\sinh(x+it)^{-4}\sinh(xv_c/v_s+it)^{-2}\sinh(xv_c/v_s-it)^{-2}]$. As $J_c \to J_c+P/m$, $\sigma$ is given by $\sigma=\hat \sigma_{11}+2 \hat\sigma_{13}/m+\hat{\sigma}_{33}/m^2$ (the corresponding correction to $J_h$ is subleading and therefore omitted).
An example for the expected doping and $T$ dependencies is shown in Fig. \[fig3\] for a filling close to $1/4$ using parameters consistent with existing resistivity data for (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ [@bechgaard]. Both $\rho(T)$ and $\sigma(\omega)$ in this system can be explained [@bechgaard] by Umklapp scattering in a $1/4$ filled Luttinger liquid with $K_c\approx 0.22$ leading to $\rho \sim g^2 T^{16K_c-3}$ (i.e. $\sigma \sim T^{-0.56}$, see Fig. \[fig3\]) along the chain. Other parameters like $K_s$, $v_s$, $m$, and, most importantly, disorder strength $D$, are not known experimentally. The absence of any visible disorder contribution to $\rho(T)$ in the Luttinger liquid regime, $T\gtrsim 100$K, allows us to estimate crudely $D \ll 0.0005$ in units of $g^2/a^{2n_c-3}$. Our results shown in Fig. \[fig3\] strongly suggest that a large violation of the WF law (after subtraction of the phonon contribution not discussed here) should be observable in Bechgaard salts and similar materials.
Qualitatively, the doping dependence of $L/L_0$ for $1/4$ and $1/3$ filling are similar. The WF ratio $L/L_0$ shows a pronounced sharp peak of height $1/\tilde{D}$ followed by a dip for $v_c \Delta k \sim T$. $T$-dependencies might differ in the two cases due to the different $T$ dependence of $\tilde{D}$: whether $1/\tilde{D}$ grows or shrinks upon lowering $T$ depends on $K_c$ and $K_s$. However, the most prominent $T$-dependence arises from the fact that Umklapp scattering is effectively switched off at lowest $T$ for $\delta \nu >0$, resulting in $L \sim L_0$.
We expect that the strong violation of the WF law in regimes where Umklapp scattering is large compared to disorder will not only occur for the strictly 1D systems discussed here but even if a weak inter-chain tunneling (as in case of Bechgaard salts) is taken into account, as a small modulation of the 1D bands does not affect the structure of approximate conservation laws, see [@FL]. Besides the disparate behavior of $\kappa/T$ and $\sigma$ an interesting finding of our study is the importance of thermoelectric corrections for the slightly doped system. In the regime where $L/L_0$ gets very small due to a partial cancelation of $\kappa_0$ and $T S^2 \sigma$, the dimensionless thermoelectric figure of merit, $Z T=T \sigma S^2/\kappa_0$, which measures the efficiency of a thermoelectric element for power generation or refrigeration, becomes $1$, a remarkably large value [@figureOfMerit].
This work was supported by the DFG under SFB 608, the NSF grant PHY05-51164 and the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF).
[235]{} R. Franz and G. Wiedemann, Ann. Phys.(Berlin) [**165**]{}, 497 (1853). A. Sommerfeld, Naturwissenschaften [**15**]{}, 825 (1927). R. W. Hill [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**414**]{}, 711 (2001). M. A. Tanatar [*et al.*]{},Science [**316**]{}, 1320 (2007). M.-R. Li, E. Orignac, Europhys. Lett. [**60**]{}, 432 (2002). C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3192 (1996); A. Houghton, S. Lee and B. J. Marston, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 220503 (2002); M. G. Vavilov and A. D. Stone, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 205107 (2005); D. Podolsky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 014520 (2007); B. Kubala, J. König and J. Pekola, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 066801 (2008). X. Zotos and P. Prelovsek, in [*Interacting Electrons in Low Dimensions*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003). P. Jung, R. W. Helmes and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 067202 (2006). T. Giamarchi, [*Quantum Physics in One Dimension*]{}, (Oxford, New York, 2004). A. Rosch and N. Andrei, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1092 (2000). A. Rosch and N. Andrei, JLTP [**126**]{} 1195 (2002).
D. Forster, [*Hydrodynamic Fluctuations, Broken Symmetry, and Correlation Functions*]{}, (Benjamin, Massachusetts, 1975). P. Jung and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. B 75, 245104 (2007). E. Shimshoni [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 064406 (2009). M. Dressel [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 075104 (2005), and references therein. F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. C, [**14**]{}, 2585 (1981). M. S. Dresselhaus [*et al.*]{}, Adv. Materials [**19**]{}, 1043 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
There are various ways to analyze the dynamical response of clusters and molecules to electromagnetic perturbations. Particularly rich information can be obtained from measuring the properties of electrons emitted in the course of the excitation dynamics. Such an analysis of electron signals covers observables such as total ionization, Photo-Electron Spectra (PES), Photoelectron Angular Distributions (PAD), and ideally combined PES/PAD. It has a long history in molecular physics and was increasingly used in cluster physics as well. Recent progress in the design of new light sources (high intensity, high frequency, ultra short pulses) opens new possibilities for measurements and thus has renewed the interest on these observables, especially for the analysis of various dynamical scenarios, well beyond a simple access to electronic density of states. This, in turn, has motivated many theoretical investigations of the dynamics of electronic emission for molecules and clusters up to such a complex and interesting system as C$_{60}$. A theoretical tool of choice is here Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (TDDFT) propagated in real time and on a spatial grid, and augmented by a Self-Interaction Correction (SIC). This provides a pertinent, robust, and efficient description of electronic emission including the detailed pattern of PES and PAD. A direct comparison between experiments and well founded elaborate microscopic theories is thus readily possible, at variance with more demanding observables such as for example fragmentation or dissociation cross sections.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the theoretical tools developed on the basis of real-time and real-space TDDFT and to address in a realistic manner the analysis of electronic emission following irradiation of clusters and molecules by various laser pulses. After a general introduction, we shall present in a second part the available experimental results motivating such studies, starting from the simplest total ionization signals to the more elaborate PES and PAD, possibly combining them and/or resolving them in time. This experimental discussion will be complemented in a third part by a presentation of available theoretical tools focusing on TDDFT and detailing the methods used to address ionization observables. We shall also discuss the shortcomings of standard versions of TDDFT, especially what concerns the SIC problem, and show how to improve formally and practically the theory on that aspect. A long fourth part will be devoted to representative results. We shall illustrate the use of total ionization in pump and probe scenarios with fs lasers for tracking ionic dynamics in clusters. More challenging from the experimental point of view is pump and probe setups using attosecond pulses. The effort there is more on the capability to define proper signals to be measured/computed at such a short time scale. TDDFT analysis provides here a valuable tool in the search for the most efficient observables. PES and PAD will allow one to address more directly electronic dynamics itself by means of fs or ns laser pulses. We shall in particular discuss the impact of the dynamical regime in PES and PAD. We shall end this fourth part by addressing the role of temperature in PES and PAD. When possible, the results will be directly compared to experiments. The fifth part of the paper will be devoted to future directions of investigations. From the rich choice of developments, we shall in particular address two aspects. We shall start to discuss the information content of energy/angular spectra of emitted electrons in case of excitation by swift and highly charged ions rather than lasers. The second issue concerns the account of dissipative effects in TDDFT to be able to consider longer laser pulses where the competition between direct electron emission and thermalization is known to play a role as, e.g., in experiments with C$_{60}$. Although such questions have been superficially addressed in the simple case of alkaline clusters by means of semi-classical methods, no satisfying quantum formulation, compulsory for most realistic systems, is yet available. First encouraging results will be presented on that occasion. We shall finally give a short conclusion.
address:
- |
$^a$CNRS, LPT (IRSAMC)\
118 route de Narbonne F-31062 Toulouse Cédex, France
- |
$^b$Université de Toulouse, UPS, Laboratoire de Physique Théorique (IRSAMC)\
118 route de Narbonne F-31062 Toulouse Cédex, France
- |
$^c$Institut f[ü]{}r Theoretische Physik, Universit[ä]{}t Erlangen,\
Staudtstrasse 7 D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
- '$^d$Physics Department, University at Buffalo, The State University New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA'
author:
- 'P. Wopperer$^{a,b}$, P. M. Dinh$^{a,b}$'
- ', P.-G. Reinhard$^c$, and E. Suraud$^{a,b,d}$'
title: 'Electrons as probes of dynamics in molecules and clusters : a contribution from Time Dependent Density Functional Theory'
---
Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory ,Electronic observables ,Ionization ,Lasers ,Charged projectiles ,Photo-Electron Spectrum ,Photoelectron Angular Distribution ,Orientation averaging , Self-interaction correction ,Time-resolved observables ,Temperature effects ,Dissipation effects
34.10.+x,34.35.+a,34.50.-s,34.50.Gb,36.40.-c,61.46.Bc
General introduction and physical context {#sec:intro}
=========================================
Irradiation of matter constitutes a key tool in physics, chemistry, and biology, for analyzing structural and dynamical properties of atoms, molecules, clusters and bulk material. Lasers offer here an especially flexible and powerful instrument which has been widely exploited, especially during the last decades with the enormous technological progress reached in the manipulation of laser light [@Kel03; @Rul05; @Pas08]. We dispose now of a broad choice of laser intensities, frequencies, pulse lengths, and pulse shapes. Collisions with charged projectiles [@Ish13] are also used as sources of short electromagnetic pulses. However, they often require access to dedicated facilities.
Radiation damage is the other side of irradiation studies and it is of high current interest, for example in connection with biological tissues (“human-controlled” as in a medical context or “natural” when referring to earth or space radiations) [@Gar12]. There are also other interesting domains of application. A typical example is the case of the irradiation of materials (especially insulators) with applications to nuclear waste management. The field is rather unexplored from the microscopic dynamical point of view and any possibility of treating irradiation scenarios on large systems would be here of invaluable help [@Rei16]. In both above examples, though, the lack of understanding of microscopic mechanisms calls for dedicated studies on prototype, finite systems. Let us cite as an example the detailed studies of irradiation of molecules of biological interest coated by a finite and well known number of water molecules [@Liu06]. The study of the irradiation of finite molecular systems and clusters is thus not only of interest for basic science but also for a wide range of practical applications.
In all cases, the immediate electronic response of the irradiated system plays a key role as the doorway to all subsequent dynamical scenarios. A basic feature is here the optical response corresponding to electronic oscillations [@Mie08; @Kre93]. It delivers a first overview of the coupling between irradiation and matter in a large variety of dynamical situations, from gentle to strong perturbations [@Bra93; @Hee93; @Rei03a; @Saa06aR]. Optical response related to photo-absorption is the leading signal in the case of gentle perturbations. It has been explored in great detail for a large variety of electronic systems, from bulk down to atoms. For the case of stronger perturbations, further response channels, especially ionization, become highly relevant [@Cal00; @Rei03a; @Fen10]. Still, the optical response spectrum, which characterizes the structural coupling of the system to light, provides a highly valuable information on any ensuing response mechanism, especially on ionization pattern. A typical example here is the case of resonant ionization occurring when the laser frequency comes close to an eigenfrequency of the system [@Cal00].
Equally important in energetic irradiation processes is electron transport, particularly electron emission. As typical examples, one can cite the many studies on irradiation of clusters by short and intense laser pulses [@Fen10], providing invaluable information especially through energy (Photo-Electron Spectra, PES [@Cam00]) and, more recently, angle-resolved [@Bar09] distributions of emitted electrons (Photoelectron Angular Distributions, PAD). Electron emission can also change the resonant ionization conditions in the course of time evolution which, in turn, influences back again the optical response, making the whole scenario extremely rich [@Fen10]. Secondary electrons in DNA damage [@Bou00] also provide a remarkable example where a microscopic understanding of irradiation damage in biological systems will only be achieved when including such complex non-linear electronic effects. A deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms is highly desirable, as this example is of great practical interest, especially in relation to oncology [@Gar12].
The analysis and understanding of electronic emission from a finite system is thus a key issue in a wide range of physical, chemical and biological processes. Electrons are usually the first constituents to respond to an electromagnetic pulse. Strong excitations lead to immediate ionization of the system, often with dramatic long-time effects as, e.g., dissociation or Coulomb explosion [@Saa06aR]. It implies electronic transport and possible indirect effects on neighboring species. A typical example of indirect effects is provided by Dissociative Electron Attachment (DEA) in biological systems [@Gar12] where electrons emitted somewhere else are attached to a target biological molecule which, in turn, leads to the break up of the latter. Emitted electrons may also provide valuable insight into reaction pathways when properly tracked. Typical examples are here PES and PAD. Moreover, Time-Resolved (TR) PES and PAD have been recorded in molecules [@Sei02] and more recently in clusters, [see e.g. [@Roh10].]{} Electrons are thus leading players at all stages of an excitation of a system subject to an external electromagnetic perturbation (i.e. an irradiation). They are the first to respond at short time scales and distribute then the excitation more or less quickly to other degrees of freedom. They are finally useful probes along the whole dynamical process, especially when emitted from the system and properly recorded.
Analyzing the characteristics of emission properties of clusters and molecules is thus at the core of the understanding of irradiation processes. The numerous new experimental developments in analysis of electronic emission (PES, PAD) now allow an ever improving detailed access to electron dynamics in irradiated species. In turn, a theoretical description of these highly involved dynamical scenarios calls for dedicated modeling. It is the aim of this paper to provide an overview of the theoretical description of observables from electron emission on the basis of the well established theoretical framework of Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory (TDDFT) [@Mar12]. This will be done with a view on applications, as far as possible in direct relation to ongoing experiments. Before going into the details, we will in this introductory section briefly remind the reader the typical systems (and associated scales) that we aim at describing. It is also of relevance to address here basic properties of laser pulses as presently accessible experimentally.
On the typical systems considered in this paper
-----------------------------------------------
In order to provide a basis for the forthcoming discussions, we shortly present here a few typical systems we shall consider in the following. This will be the occasion to remind typical scales associated to these systems, especially in terms of times and energies.
Fig. \[fig:systems\] provides four examples of systems computed with the tools described in Secs. \[sec:theo\], \[sec:sic\_stat\] and \[sec:sic\_optresp\]. They cover several different binding types and properties.
![Four typical examples of molecules and clusters explored theoretically in this review, namely the metal cluster ${{\rm
Na}_{41}}^+$ (upper left), the Buckminster fullerene C$_{60}$ (upper right), the carbon chain C$_5$ (lower left), and the covalent molecule H$_2$O (lower right). For each panel: Top row : ionic structures (all plotted at the same scale) and single particle energies of the valence electrons whose number is indicated; Bottom row : corresponding optical response. For C$_5$, the transverse spectrum is multiplied by 20 to ease the comparison with the longitudinal response. The vertical dashes indicate the position of the ionization potential in each case. \[fig:systems\]](fig1ter){width="0.92\linewidth"}
The figure shows single-particle (s.p.) energies, optical response and ionic structure. The four presented systems are ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ as an example of a simple metal cluster, C$_{60}$ for its outstanding properties and many applications, H$_2$O as a prototype of a covalent molecule, and C$_5$ as a simple carbon chain, which displays interesting optical properties. Let us analyze each system separately to extract typical properties.
We start with the ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ cluster (upper left block in Fig. \[fig:systems\]) which is a medium size alkaline cluster. It contains 40 valence electrons forming an electronic shell closure. This leads to a particularly abundant/stable species. The s.p. energies span an energy range of order 2.6 eV and the Ionization Potential (IP) is of order 5.3 eV. Such values are typical of alkaline clusters. The optical response displays a pronounced collective, essentially single, peak around 2.6 eV. This is called the Mie surface plasmon and it is a typical mode for simple metal clusters. In larger clusters, the density of s.p. states grows, which leads to more Landau fragmentation and somewhat broadens the plasmon peak. The Mie plasmon frequency is related to a typical time scale of order 1.5 fs, again a characteristic time scale for simple metals. Ionic time scales (not shown in Fig. \[fig:systems\]) are more sensitive to the actual material due to the largely differing atomic weight. In Na clusters, vibrational modes typically lie in the 10 meV range and are associated to ionic motion in the 100 fs range.
The second example is C$_{60}$ (upper right block) with 240 valence electrons (4 per C atom). The s.p. energies now ranges in a span of about 17.3 eV, much wider than in Na. The IP is 7.6 eV. The deeper binding and broader span of energies is typical of carbon, and more generally of organic systems with a covalent binding. Due to the high symmetry close to sphericity, the optical response exhibits the same behavior in all spatial directions. It has, however, a more complex structure than in ${{\rm
Na}_{41}}^+$. One can identify two prominent features, a strong resonance peak just below the IP and a much broadened peak centered around 20 eV. The latter part of the optical response lies well above the IP, whence its highly fragmented structure. It is considered to represent the Mie surface plasmon in C$_{60}$. The energies are higher and thus the associated time scales much smaller than in Na, typically well sub-fs. Ionic vibration energies typically lie in the 40-200 meV range with associated time scales of order 20-100 fs.
The case of the small carbon chain C$_5$ (lower left block) is complementing C$_{60}$ in the sense that it has the same binding type, but a different geometry and thus different optical response. The s.p. energies span of the 20 valence electrons is of order 14 eV, and the IP of order 9.9 eV. These values are of the same order of magnitude for larger chains. According to the linear geometry of the chain, the optical response shows a dominant resonance peak along the longitudinal direction at a frequency of 6.4 eV. The transverse modes are suppressed by at least one order of magnitude (mind that transverse strengths have been multiplied by a factor of 20 to allow a better graphical comparison with the longitudinal modes) and are significantly fragmented. There are three main peaks : one at the same energy as the longitudinal plasmon peak, and two other ones at higher energies near the IP energy. The all dominant longitudinal mode lies well below the IP, a feature common to all carbon chains. Associated time scales are now typically ranging from sub-fs to fs. Ionic vibration energies lie again in the 0.15 eV range with associated time scales of order 27.6 fs.
We finally discuss the case of the prototypical water molecule H$_2$O (lower right block) which has 8 active valence electrons in our calculations (6 for O and 1 per each H). The s.p. energy span is now with 16 eV even larger than in C$_{60}$, in spite of the much smaller number of electrons. The IP is of order 15.1 eV. Such large IP’s are typical of covalent systems of small to moderate size. The optical response, as well, is typical of covalent molecules with its highly fragmented structure above the IP, and some isolated low energy peaks below the IP. Associated time scales lie well below fs. Ionic vibrations are more energetic than in other systems because of the especially light H species and the strong covalent binding between H and O. The O-H ionic vibration energy is about 0.5 eV with associated period of 8.3 fs.
All in all, the four above examples point out the diversity and richness of the various systems nowadays accessible to both experimental and theoretical investigations. The various cases also show that the range of energy and time scales to be investigated is rather large from attosecond to several fs for electrons, and from fs to ps for ions. In addition, the optical spectra exhibit different pattern. Specific for metals is the especially well marked Mie surface plasmon with simple scaling properties with size [@Bra93]. The case of covalent systems is more involved with basically no simple scaling properties, but nevertheless some generic trends. Optical spectra are generally much more fragmented below and even more so above IP. Pure carbon systems contain besides covalent binding a fraction of metallic binding which produces also plasmon structures amongst the highly fragmented spectrum.
Optical response is the key to understanding the coupling of the system to laser light, at least in the frequency-dominated regime (see Secs. \[sec:lasers\] and \[sec:mecha\]). This will constitute a mostly used tool of investigation of dynamical scenarios in the following discussions. Before introducing the actual observables which can be attained that way, we will briefly discuss present days capabilities of lasers and the description of the electromagnetic fields they deliver. This aspect is addressed in the following Sec. \[sec:lasers\].
On excitation mechanisms {#sec:lasers}
------------------------
Cluster dynamics requires excitation of the cluster formerly resting in its ground state. In this paper, we will exclusively addess excitation by electromagnetic fields, predominantly by laser pulses and in a few cases by short pulses from collisions with highly charged ions. The corresponding excitation mechanisms are shortly explained in this section. Thereby, we focus on laser properties and finally address ion collisions in a short paragrph.
### Laser pulse characteristics {#sec:las_pulse}
Laser science has experienced impressive progress during the last few decades [@Pas08]. The versatility of laser pulses has increased remarkably, thus allowing one to shape a wide range of dynamical scenarios in the course of irradiation processes. We briefly remind here key quantities of the laser pulses we are going to use in the following. Throughout this paper, we shall work in the dipole approximation which requires that the irradiated system is much smaller than the laser wavelength $\lambda= 2\pi c/\omega_\mathrm{las}$. In practice, the dipole approximation is well justified in the optical domain ($\lambda \sim
\mu$m) for systems of nm size. It may become questionable for XUV photons and very large clusters in which field variations [*inside*]{} the system itself should be accounted for. But we shall not consider such cases here. In the non-relativistic regime, linearly polarized laser pulses acting on atoms, molecules or clusters can then be described as a homogeneous time-dependent electric field of the form $$\mathbf{E}(t)
=
\mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol} \, E_0 \, f(t) \, \sin(\omega_\mathrm{las}t
+
\varphi)
\quad.
\label{eq:Elaser}$$ In this expression, $\mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol}$ denotes the (linear) polarization, $E_0$ is the peak field strength, $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ is the photon frequency, and $\varphi(t)$ is some phase shift, usually assumed to be zero. Finally $f(t)$ is the pulse envelop. The peak laser intensity is $I_0 = c \, \varepsilon_0\, E_0^2/2$ ($c$ being velocity of light in vacuum) usually expressed in W/cm$^2$. The net yield in a laser pulse is often characterized by the fluence $\mathcal{F}=\int \textrm dt I(t)\approx I_0T_\mathrm{FWHM}$, [where the latter time $T_{\rm FWHM}$ stands for the Full Width at Half Maximum of the pulse]{}. This allows one to compare the energy impact of laser pulses with different durations.
For the sake of simplicity, we keep in the present discussion a fixed value of $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ but the latter quantity can also be made time-dependent (“chirped”) which can induce interesting effects [@Pas08]. One may also render the phase $\varphi$ time-dependent, which could produce interesting phenomena. We shall not discuss these aspects here. The laser polarization is usually taken linear but there also exists experiments/calculations using circularly polarized light [@Pas08]. Again, we shall not discuss much such cases in the following and thus recur to a linear polarization for the present discussion.
The laser pulse envelop can be varied in a large range. Most flexible, and most widely used, are optical lasers with pulse lengths from nano-seconds down to atto-seconds [@Bra00aR; @Kra09]. Free Electron Lasers (FEL) [@Fel05; @Pas08] are yet on their way to comparable flexibility, with present pulse lengths down to 20 fs. It should also be noted that the actual shape of $f(t)$ is not exactly known experimentally. In many situations, the actual pulse of interest is built upon a (hopefully harmless) background of a long, low intensity, pulse. Moreover, the peak intensity has a spatial variation decreasing towards the edges of the pulse. This has to be kept in mind when assigning the observed signal to the laser pulse characteristics. Ignoring background, experimental short laser pulses have a pulse profile of Gaussian type. The theoretical situation is simpler as the pulse profile can be exactly specified. The Gaussian profile is theoretically not welcome since it never fully vanishes and requires unnecessarily long computation times to cover the pulse sufficiently well. Therefore, we mostly use for computations a $\sin^2$ pulse : $$f(t)
=
\sin^2 \left(\frac{t\pi}{T_\mathrm{pulse}} \right)
\, \theta(t) \, \theta(T_\mathrm{pulse}-t)
\quad.
\label{eq:cos2}$$ where $\theta$ stands here for the Heaviside function. This pulse is limited to a finite time interval $t\in[0,T_\mathrm{pulse}]$, but soft enough to deliver a clean frequency spectrum. It can be simply characterized by its FWHM which is in this case $T_\mathrm{FWHM}=T_\mathrm{pulse}/2$. Note that the FWHM of the intensity $I(t)$, which is proportional to the square of the field $\mathbf E(t)$, is rather $T_{\rm pulse}/3$. The pulse maximum occurs at $t=T_\mathrm{pulse}/2$. Note that the sin$^2$ profile is written here for the laser field amplitude, which means that the time profile of the intensity time has a sin$^4$ shape. Thus far, we have discussed simple one-peak pulses. More flexibility is conceivable. The next important tool are dual pulses as used in pump-and-probe experiments in which the laser irradiation is performed in two steps. We shall illustrate such cases at several places below.
In practice, the effect of the laser field will be accounted for in our calculations as an external potential $U_{\rm ext}(\mathbf{r},t)$ which delivers a time-dependent perturbation. In the long wavelength limit, the electric field is homogeneous and delivers the potential : $$U_{\rm ext}(\mathbf{r},t)
=
-e\, E_0\, f(t)\, \sin(\omega_\mathrm{las}t)\,
\mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol}\cdot\mathbf{r}
\quad,
\label{eq:lasfield-x}$$ where $f(t)$ is the time profile usually taken according to Eq. (\[eq:cos2\]). This is, in fact, the laser field in space gauge. Equivalently, one can use the velocity gauge for which the laser field is described by the interaction operator : $$\hat{U}_{\rm ext}^{(v)}
=
-\frac{e}{c} \, E_0 \, F(t)\, \mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{p}}
\quad.
\label{eq:lasfield-v}$$ The rules of gauge transformation relate time profiles and wave functions by : $$\begin{aligned}
F(t)
&=&
\displaystyle \int^t_{-\infty} \mathrm dt'\,f(t') \, \sin(\omega_\mathrm{las}t')
\quad,
\label{eq:gaugeF}
\\
\varphi_i^{(v)}(\mathbf{r},t)
&=&
\varphi_i^{\mbox{}}(\mathbf{r},t)
\exp{\left[\mathrm{i}\, E_0\, F(t)\, \mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol}\cdot\mathbf{r}\right]}
\quad.
\label{eq:gaugepsi}\end{aligned}$$ Both gauges are fully equivalent. Which one is to be preferred is a matter of the actual numerical scheme. Most observables are not even sensitive to gauge. An exception is the evaluation of photoelectron spectra where the phase of the wave function plays a role. In this case, one has to consider gauges carefully. This will be addressed in more detail in Sec. \[sec:observ\_theo\].
### Varying laser characteristics {#sec:las_charac}
As pointed out above, all laser parameters can be tuned in rather large ranges. The point is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:laser-regimes\] which displays typical regions of interest in the intensity-frequency plane.
![Schematic representation of various dynamical regimes as a function of laser intensity $I$ and photon frequency $\omega$. The dashed diagonal line represents frequency-intensity combinations with constant Keldysh parameter $\gamma=1$, see text for details. This line characterizes the transition from photon-dominated to field-dominated regime for an assumed IP of a few eV. The blocks to the right side indicate typical frequency ranges as labeled. The block below the plot indicates typical atomic field strengths related to given laser intensities. \[fig:laser-regimes\] ](laser_regimes){width="0.9\linewidth"}
One can notice the enormous large intensity range of optical lasers. But the range of available conditions is also dramatically extended by FEL, which exist for photons in the IR, VUV and X-ray regime. Also indicated outside the axes are corresponding regions of relevance in atoms and molecules in terms of energy/frequency and field/intensity. The lowest frequencies in the deep IR are associated with molecular vibrations, while the range around visible light belongs to the dynamics of valence electrons and core electrons move at much higher frequencies in X-ray regime. The gray box below the plot indicates typical atomic and molecular field strengths in terms of an equivalent laser intensity.
Laser characteristics have to be considered in relation to the electronic response. This is usually quantified via the ponderomotive potential $U_p$ and the associated Keldysh parameter $\gamma$. $U_p$ represents the electron kinetic energy (averaged over one photon cycle) of a freely oscillating electron (pure quiver motion, no drift velocity) in a laser field. At peak laser intensity, it reads : $$\begin{aligned}
U_p
=
\frac{e^2\, E_0^2}{4\, m_{\rm el}\, \omega_{\rm las}^2}
=
9.33\times10^{-14}{\rm eV}\times\,
I_0[{\rm W/cm^2}]\,(\lambda_\mathrm{las}[{\rm \mu m}])^2
\quad ,
\label{eq_U_pond}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_\mathrm{las}$ is the photon wavelength. The other aspect concerns the electronic binding in the system, which can be quantified by the ionization potential (IP) with associated energy $E_\mathrm{IP}$. What counts is the relation between $E_\mathrm{IP}$ an $U_p$, quantified by the Keldysh parameter [@Kel64] : $$\gamma
=
\sqrt{\frac{E_\mathrm{IP}}{2U_p}}
=
\sqrt{\frac{2\, E_\mathrm{IP}\, \omega_\mathrm{las}^2}{I_0}}
\quad.
\label{eq:Keldysh}$$ The value $\gamma = 1$ (see Fig. \[fig:laser-regimes\] in the case $E_\mathrm{IP}=1$ eV) separates two regimes. For $\gamma\ll 1$, direct ionization (over barrier or tunneling) prevails. This regime is dominated by laser intensity and not so much by laser frequency (field-dominated regime). For $\gamma\gg 1$, emission proceeds through multi-photon ionization in a regime of weak perturbations. There, the results sensitively depend on laser frequency (photon- or frequency-dominated regime).
### Not on lasers: collisions with fast ions {#sec:ioncoll}
There is an alternative excitation mechanism by collisions with charged projectiles. We shall also marginally consider a few examples of collisions with fast ions and thus comment briefly about this tool here. Experiments with charged, fast ions often require access to large scale facilities. Thus there are much less experiments with irradiation by charged projectiles than by the more easily accessible and versatile lasers. Although collisions with charged particles also provide a strong electromagnetic perturbation (often in form of a short pulse as soon as the projectile velocity is large enough), the characteristics of the perturbing field are significantly different from those delivered by a laser pulse. While lasers provide (up to details) an electromagnetic field with a well defined frequency band (basically the laser frequency), collisions with charged projectiles deliver a perturbation covering a very broad band of frequencies, the broader the shorter the pulse. This delivers useful, complementing information to that attained from lasers. It is important to note that collisions with charged projectiles also concern a wide range of potential applications of irradiation dynamics, especially in relation to radiation damage and applications thereof. The present review concentrates on laser excitations. Nevertheless, we shall discuss a few cases with high energy projectiles. For them, the delivered electromagnetic perturbation can be modeled as an instantaneous boost ($\propto \delta(t)$) at the initial time of the simulation. This is the way we shall treat this case in the following (see in particular Sec. \[sec:projectile\]).
From integrated to detailed observables {#sec:observ}
=======================================
Electronic emission can be analyzed at various levels of sophistication, starting from fully integrated quantities (total ionization) down to energy-resolved (Photo-Electron Spectra, PES) and angle-resolved (Photo-Angular Distribution, PAD) quantities. Time is also a key quantity as ionization signals can be followed in time, leading to Time-Resolved (TR) results. We briefly describe in this section the various types of observables experimentally accessible, starting from the simplest one, that is the total ionization, to the most elaborate ones (TR-PES and PAD). In terms of cross sections, this means that we go from integrated ones to single-differential and even double-differential ones, all possibly time-resolved. Before discussing these various observables, we briefly introduce key mechanisms of ionization, again focusing the discussion on laser induced ionization.
Ionization mechanisms {#sec:mecha}
---------------------
Basic ionization mechanisms are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ioni\_mecha\].
We start from the simplest case of an atom (left panel in Fig. \[fig:ioni\_mecha\]) to introduce two basic ionization mechanisms. The first one corresponds to a vertical excitation of a bound electron by absorption of one or several ($\nu$) photons (Multi-Photon Ionization or MPI). This mechanisms may spread over several laser cycles and prevails in weak and moderate fields, usually quoted perturbative regime. It is associated to large values of the Keldysh parameter ($\gamma \gg 1$). MPI can promote electrons far above threshold into the continuum and then, it also stands for Above Threshold Ionization (ATI). It is a typical mechanism underlying PES and PAD measurements in the perturbative regime (see Sec. \[sec:pes\_pad\]), providing mostly structural information. The second mechanism illustrated in the case of atoms is known as Optical Field Ionization (OFI) in which the laser acts as a quasi stationary field. For sufficiently large fields, bound electron can tunnel through the barrier, which means that both barrier height and width (thus tunnel characteristic time) allow ionization. This typically corresponds to moderate values of the Keldysh parameter ($\gamma \lesssim 1$). The limiting case corresponds to full barrier suppression which can be associated to a critical laser intensity in atoms and which reasonably matches ion appearance intensities in atomic gases [@Aug89].
The cases of molecules and clusters mix the above considerations with structural properties of the considered systems. For example, ionization barriers are influenced by neighbouring ions. A typical example is the case of strong field ionization of diatomic molecules [@Sei95; @Zuo95] in which an appropriate internuclear separation leads to lowering or suppression of inner and outer potential barriers, thus leading to enhanced ionization. The effect was also studied in small clusters [@Ven01; @Sie02]. In the case of large clusters, one should also mention the separation between inner and outer ionization [@Las99] (see right panel in Fig. \[fig:ioni\_mecha\]), especially important in the case of strong fields. Inner ionization leads to the formation of a set of quasi free electrons constituting sort of a metallic phase. A final excitation may promote them to the continuum for final escape and then will appear as the total ionization of the system. In most of the cases, we shall discuss in the following we shall not consider strong enough fields to use this concept further. On the other hand, we shall deal with situations where another key ingredient, already mentioned previously, enters the picture. It concerns the optical response of the irradiated species. Indeed the optical response provides the eigenfrequencies with which a given system does couple to light. It is thus crucial to integrate it in the discussion of ionization mechanisms, especially in the case of metal clusters in which the plasmon plays a leading role.
The point is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ioniz\_plasmon\] in the case of a small size sodium cluster Na$_2$ in which the notion of collective plasmon is hard to disentangle from that of a molecular dipole transition. Na$_2$ possesses two valence electrons.
The mechanism actually remains the same and is thus illustrative of the role of the optical response. We shall consider plasmon effects on some examples later on (see in particular Sec. \[sec:basic\_ioniz\] and Fig. \[fig:nesc\_om\]). The dashed curve shows the optical response of the system with a well identified peak at 2.12 eV. The full curves display the total ionization as a function of laser frequency for a set various laser intensities between $10^8$ and 10$^{11}$ W/cm$^2$. One clearly observes that the ionization signal directly follows the optical response : attaching a resonance peak leads to enhanced ionization. The effect is especially visible at low intensity and vanishes with increasing intensities. We gradually leave the photon-dominated regime (low intensity) to reach the field-dominated one. In terms of the Keldysh parameter $\gamma$, it decreases. In the present test case, $\gamma$ takes values typically between 60 and 250 in the resonance region at low intensity, and reaches values between 2 and 10 in the high intensity case. The role of resonance peaks is thus crucial here and it should be noted that it does not reduce to the linear regime of excitation. The total ionization may reach rather large values (more than half of the available valence electrons) with increasing laser intensity, and still, the resonance enhancement remains very clear. This indicates that it will have to be considered whatever the dynamical regime in the following, especially in the case of metals. Although the basic enhancement mechanisms remain similar in non-metallic systems (see Sec. \[sec:basic\_ioniz\]), resonances are usually less collective and more narrow so that their impact is somewhat different. Still, in many systems such as for example C$_{60}$, one observes a wide bunch of resonances above continuum threshold which very clearly play a key role in the dynamics.
Total ionization {#sec:nesc}
----------------
Total ionization is the simplest ionization signal one can measure. Still, it already brings interesting information, although not highly detailed, on irradiation mechanisms, as we just discussed in the previous section. We here illustrate the point on two examples taken from rather original scenarios. The first case results from an irradiation with extremely large frequencies obtained from a FEL, and the second one directly addresses the dynamical evolution of the system in a time-resolved experiment.
Fig. \[fig:examp\_FEL\] shows time-of-flight (TOF) spectra of Xe clusters irradiated by a FEL of frequency around 12 eV [@Wab02].
The TOF gives access to the various charge states attained after irradiation by a laser of intensity $2\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$ and pulse length of 100 fs. The striking point of the figure is the differences observed between the various cluster sizes in terms of attained charge states. While the atomic gas, under the present laser conditions, only allows to access singly charged cations, increasing cluster size allows to progressively reach larger and larger charge states, clearly up to $8+$ in the largest system of about 3,000 atoms. The case very nicely illustrates the well known difference between energy absorption by single atoms and clusters, as discussed on many occasions in the past (see for example [@Fen10] and references therein). The mass peaks are rather broad. They are furthermore displaced with respect to the calculated flight times indicated by thin vertical lines (corresponding to the different charge states) in the top of the figure. This is an indication that ions have high kinetic energies. Not surprisingly, one can also note that the higher the charge state, the higher the ejection energy (see inset in Fig. \[fig:examp\_FEL\]) and the larger the above mentioned peak displacements.
Analysis of total electron emission (or alternatively of charge state of ionized clusters) also gives information on the dynamics of the charging process. One of the most striking early example of such an analysis can be found in a series of experiments led by the Rostock group on large size Pb clusters [@Koe99; @Sch99; @Doe00]. These experiments have shown strong enhancement of cluster ionization for optimal pulse durations. More specifically, one observed Pb ions with very large state states, much larger than those attained in an atomic gas. Moreover, the attained charge state $q$ strongly depends on the pulse duration. The shortest and most intense pulses of duration 150 fs yield ions up to charge state $q = 20$. When increasing pulse duration, both the maximum charge state and the signal intensity do grow towards a maximum attained for an optimal pulse width of 800 fs. Charge states up to $q = 28$ can then be identified. For longer pulses, both maximum $q$ and signal decrease again. Although other mechanisms can be envisioned, the efficient charging for a certain pulse duration was in most cases attributed to resonant heating (plasmon-enhanced ionization) [@Sur00; @Saa03; @Doe05b; @Saa06aR].
The above case of ionization enhancement was attained with a single laser pulse and only provides a rather indirect indication on the ionization mechanism. More detailed investigations were led with dual (or pump-and-probe) pulses, especially in the case of Ag clusters of about 20000 atoms. An example of such experiments is shown in Fig. \[fig:pulse\_length\] where one focuses on the yield of Ag$^{10+}$ and the maximum of the emitted electrons as a function of pulse separation.
One observes a strong variation of ionic signal as a function of pulse separation (delay between pump and probe) with a clear maximum around 5 ps [@Doe06]. Such a behaviour indicates that cluster activation and enhanced ionization can be clearly disentangled, which is also found in numerical simulations [@Sie05; @Doe06; @Bor07]. This again provides an interesting insight the dynamical evolution of the system. There are even clear indications that a sequence of two pulses might constitute an optimal pulse profile for the production of very high charge ions [@Zam04], provided a proper tuning of pulse parameters. And pushing again the argument, one can even envision a route for targeted control of the cluster dynamics [@Doe05b]. Finally a word on the maximal electron energy shown in Fig. \[fig:pulse\_length\] is in place. The coincidence of high ionization yield and maximal electron energy again points out the leading role of collective excitations, and this in both channels. This is compatible with other observations [@Sha96; @Spr03].
Energy- and angular-resolved ionization {#sec:pes_pad}
---------------------------------------
The next step in the analysis of electronic emission consists in characterizing the properties of the emitted electrons in terms of kinetic energy and angular distribution. This leads to Photo-Electron Spectra (PES) for the energy analysis and Photo-Angular Distribution (PAD) for angular signals. The terms come from laser irradiation but the signals themselves can as well be recorded in any ionization scenario, for example from collisions with highly charged ions (see Sec. \[sec:projectile\]). PES and PAD signals turn out to provide extremely rich information, both from a structural and from a dynamical viewpoint. We briefly discuss their properties in this section and illustrate them on a few examples covering several dynamical situations.
Kinetic energies of emitted electrons can be measured in several ways. TOF devices provide here a versatile tool, but this time applied to the electrons themselves (while they are traditionally used for ions). Because of the well defined mass to charge ratio for an electron, the arrival delay directly maps the electron kinetic energy, provided a carefully guiding of the electron flow e.g., by a magnetic mirror [@Hee93]. Another very interesting technique is provided by photo-imaging spectroscopy, also known as Velocity Map Imaging ([VMI]{}). This technique is more and more routinely used and provides a remarkable tool of investigation. It is based on a static electrical field which allows one to map the distribution of electron velocities onto definite positions on a detection screen [@Bor96]. This is a polar representation of a velocity-resolved (or a momentum one) and angular-resolved photoelectron spectrum. Two experimental examples are presented in Fig. \[fig:exampl\_vmi\], one in the metal cluster ${\mathrm{Na}_3}^-$ in the monophoton regime [@Kos07a], and another one in C$_{60}$ in the multiphoton regime [@Kje10].
![Left : Raw velocity map image of ${\mathrm{Na}_3}^-$ irradiated by a laser pulse of frequency of 4.02 eV and polarized vertically [@Kos07a]. The length of the arrow stands for the velocity of the photoelectron, and $\theta$ its angle to the laser polarization axis. Right : Inverted momentum map image of C$_{60}$ irradiated by a laser pulse of FWHM of $150\pm 5$ fs, intensity of $1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, frequency of 3.68 eV, and polarization along the vertical axis [@Kje10].[]{data-label="fig:exampl_vmi"}](exampl_vmi){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In these two examples, the vertical direction stands for the laser polarization axis. If one draws an arrow from the origin of the circle, its length represents the norm of the velocity (or the momentum), while the angle $\theta$ to the vertical direction is the angle of the photoelectron with respect to the laser polarization axis, and the lighter the extremum of the arrow, the higher the yield at this point. The observed circles correspond to peaks in the PES (not shown here). left panel of Fig. \[fig:exampl\_vmi\] is a raw image, while the right one is obtained after some inversion analysis. An approach such as VMI allows a simultaneous determination of PES together with PAD, which is extremely interesting. From the thus combined PES/PAD distribution (double differential, energy- and angle-resolved, cross section) it is then easy to recover PES or PAD separately by proper energy or angular integration. Still, mostly because of signal intensity, the double differential cross section can rarely be used as a whole. Therefore, energy or angular integration usually allow a simpler access to the data. It is also simpler and usually more quantitative to compare theory to experiments in simpler representations, where rather than the double differential cross section $\textrm d\sigma/\textrm dE d\Omega$ PES/PAD, one considers singly differential PES $\textrm d\sigma/\textrm dE$ or PAD $\textrm d\sigma/\textrm d\Omega$ cross sections. We shall thus explore now in more detail integrated PES and PAD.
### Photoelectron spectroscopy {#sec:PES}
A PES typically results from a multiphoton ionization (MPI) mechanism (see Sec. \[sec:mecha\]). Electrons absorb a certain number of photons to reach the continuum and be emitted. They can absorb more than the number of photons required to reach the continuum threshold, which leads to copies of the signal (although much reduced in intensity). The kinetic energies of the emitted electrons are then directly related to the single electron energies $\varepsilon_i$ of the initially occupied electron states $i$ inside the cluster through the simple relation : $$\varepsilon_{\rm kin}
=
\varepsilon_i
+
\nu \hbar\omega_{\rm las} \quad,
\label{eq:ekin1}$$ where $\nu$ is the number of photons involved in the process.
Fig. \[fig:pes\_mecha\] illustrates the principle of PES in terms of a scheme (left part), both in the case of mono- and multi-photons.
[![\[fig:pes\_mecha\] Left : schematic view of photoelectron spectroscopy (PES), including multiphoton ionization scenario for the most bound state. The sample system has two single electron states, $\epsilon_1<\epsilon_2<0$. The emission threshold is taken as the reference of zero energy, here the ionization potential IP$=-\epsilon_2$. The measured kinetic energies of emitted electrons are then recorded from threshold on upwards involving a varying number $\nu$ of photons which produces successive copies of the single electron energies, separated by the laser frequency. Right : experimental example of PES measurement for the ${{\rm Na}_{58}}^-$ cluster (monophoton regime), obtained with photons of energy 4.02 eV [@Kos07a].](pes_mk_new "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}]{}
A hypothetical system with two accessible valence states is considered (levels 1 and 2) whose electrons can reach the continuum via 1 or 2 photon absorption. In the multiphoton case, the resulting PES displays copies of the original PES, separated by the laser frequency. The PES is furthermore illustrated on an experimental example (right part) from ${{\rm Na}_{58}}^-$, in the monophoton case. The case of anionic clusters is emblematic of one-photon PES. Indeed, in such clusters, valence electron states are little bound so that they can easily be turned to continuum electrons according to Eq. (\[eq:ekin1\]) with one photon in the visible. These measurements basically provide a structural information on the system. In the present case, the PES exhibits well resolved peaks associated to the single electron states, as indicated in standard spectroscopic notation. One can note that the degeneracy of the $1g$ state is split into a series of sub-peaks because of symmetry breaking of the ionic configuration. Such one-photon measurements on anionic clusters were thus already performed in the early 1990’s [@Che90]. More recent measurements nowadays allow one to access PES for neutral or even cationic clusters, as those from neutral fullerenes [@Cam00; @Kje10] and from positively charged metal clusters [@Wri02].
MPI, as already indicated in Eq. (\[eq:ekin1\]) with $\nu>1$, is also possible thanks to the high coherence of laser pulses. The impact on PES will be discussed at length in Secs. \[sec:mono&multi\] and \[sec:pes\_I\]. Let us however give a few words here. For moderate laser intensities, the MPI maps in the PES further copies of the occupied electron spectrum with increasing kinetic energy, each copy separated by $\hbar
\omega_{\rm las}$. For larger intensities, the regular pattern of copies of the single electron spectrum is blurred because of large ionization affecting the spectrum itself. At even higher intensities the signal mostly becomes exponential with basically no structure left [@Fen10; @Poh04a].
Fig. \[fig:issendorf\] shows a typical example of a PES measurement, in this case performed on cationic species.
The chosen material is sodium in which it is well known that electronic shell closure leads to especially stable configurations [@Bra93]. In turn, the PES is expected to display the corresponding shell structure. The figure focuses on the region of 40 electrons (which corresponds to a shell closure). For comparison, the expected shell sequence, as computed in the Clemenger-Nilsson approach [@Hee93], is indicated in the upper panel. Note that in that case only the two least bound shells altogether containing 20 electrons were measured. The figure exhibits several interesting features. First the comparison between ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ and ${{\rm Na}_{42}}^+$ (which contains 41 electrons) very clearly points out the shell closure at 40 electrons with the appearance of one single electron in the 1g level around 5.2 eV. This also complies with the expected level sequence displayed in the upper panel. Finally, for the sake of completeness, we have also indicated the results of a DFT calculation performed with the ADSIC correction (see section \[sec:sic\_theo\] for details). The agreement obtained without any adjustment is remarkable. It should nevertheless be noted that in that case the PES mostly provides a structural information on the system by giving access to the sequence of energies of occupied single electron levels. As we shall see below, PES, especially in the MPI regime, can also provide valuable information on the dynamics of the electron cloud.
As a first example of study of electron dynamics by PES, an example on which we shall come back later (see section \[sec:dissipe\]), we consider the case of C$_{60}$ irradiated by laser pulses of various fluences, but fixed pulse duration of 150 fs [@Kje10], see Fig. \[fig:campbell1\].
![Photoelectron spectra of C$_{60}$ irradiated by a laser of frequency of 1.59 eV, pulse duration of 150 fs, and various fluences of (from top to bottom) 2.19, 1.84, 1.70, 1.56, 1.42, 1.27, and 1.13 J/cm$^2$. Adapted from [@Kje10]. \[fig:campbell1\] ](c60_fluence){width="0.8\linewidth"}
At variance with the spectroscopic character of the PES in Fig. \[fig:issendorf\], the PES presented here display an almost monotonous exponential shape with little structures on top. The latter structures are interpreted as signals from single-photon ionization of Rydberg states [@Cam00]. The exponential slope is explained as reflecting thermal electron emission [@Han03a]. In this picture, the energy deposited by the laser is concerted into thermal electron energy. Concluding on the nature of the energy conversion on the single basis of the PES is nevertheless a bit questionable as exponential PES are also naturally obtained by considering higher and higher MPI processes [@Poh04a]. On the other hand, the experiments of [@Kje10] also measured the PAD of emitted electrons and clearly identified a strong isotropic component which might indeed be associated to thermal emission. The interpretation of [@Kje10] is thus certainly to be considered very seriously. We shall come back on that point in Sec. \[sec:dissipe\] when discussing effects of dissipation on electronic observables in more detail. At present stage, it is sufficient to conclude that PES clearly opens the door to the analysis of electron dynamics. And that PAD offers for sure an invaluable complement to such studies (see next section \[sec:PADetal\]).
Finally, and before discussing PAD we would like to discuss another possible application of the PES now involving rather long time scales. Fig. \[fig:trpes\] shows an example of a time-resolved photoelectron spectrum (TRPES) measured in (H$_2$O)$_{30}^-$ [@You12].
The irradiation process is performed with a pump-and-probe setup of laser frequencies of 1 and 1.57 eV respectively, and similar intensities (50-100 $\mu$J per pulse). The PES exhibit a clear dependence on the delay between the pump and the probe. The four major structures are indicated by capital letters. The low energy structure (A) is associated to excited-state autodetachment, while direct probe detachment from the ground state (B) is observed around 0.25 eV. Structure around 0.6 eV (C) is attributed to resonant two-photon detachment from the pump , and finally transient excited-state signal (pump-probe, D) appears in the 1.00–1.50 eV kinetic energy range. Integrating the intensities of these structures provides the associated population dynamics, which is indicated in the inset of Fig. \[fig:trpes\] for structures (B) and (D). Both exhibit a similar decay time. To summarize, the above result clearly shows that a TRPES provides an extremely rich tool of investigation of details of electron dynamics. Such measurements, possibly complemented by theoretical investigations, should thus help to reveal crucial information on irradiation scenarios. Even more so PAD bring an invaluable complement to PES, as we shall see in the next section.
### Photo-Angular Distributions (PAD) and PES/PAD {#sec:PADetal}
Photo-Angular Distributions bring an invaluable complement to Photo-Electon Spectra. An example of PAD is shown in Fig. \[fig:examp\_pad\], adapted from [@Bar09].
![Top left : schematic view of various types of photoemission distributions (from left to right : oblate, isotropic, and prolate). Bottom left : ideal photoangular distributions corresponding to each case, with the respective value of the anisotropy parameter $\beta$. Right : experimental PES (top) and PES/PAD (bottom) of ${{\rm Na}_{58}}^-$ cluster, irradiated by linearly polarized pulses from a dye laser (pulse width of about 10 ns, peak intensity below 10$^5$ W/cm$^2$ and photon energy 4.02 eV). Adapted from [@Bar09]. \[fig:examp\_pad\] ](fig_pad_schem){width="\linewidth"}
The PAD are plotted as a function of electron kinetic energies, so that they in fact represent a combined PES/PAD. The mere PAD can then be obtained by integrating over kinetic energies. It should be immediately noted that the notion of PAD requires a proper definition of a reference frame. The reference direction is given by the laser polarisation axis and angular distributions are thus measured with respect to this axis. But it should also be noted that, in the gas phase, the actual orientation of clusters or molecules with respect to this polarisation axis is unknown so that one has at best access to an orientation averaged (of the molecule with respect to the laser polarisation) signal. This in particular reduces the angular distribution to a dependence on the angle between the laser polarization axis and the detection angle, because of angular averaging around the polarization axis. For then, in the case of single photon absorption, the cross section takes the simple form : $$\frac{\textrm d\sigma}{\textrm d\Omega} \propto 1 + \beta_2 P_2\left( \cos \theta \right) \quad,
\label{eq:beta2}$$ where $\theta$ is the direction of the emitted electron measured with respect to the laser polarisation, $P_2$ is the second order Legendre parameter and $\beta_2$ is known as the anisotropy parameter. In the simple case of one photon processes, the angular distribution is thus fully characterised by the anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$ which takes values between -1 and 2. Three values of $\beta_2$ are thus special, as illustrated in the left part of Fig. \[fig:examp\_pad\] : $\beta_2$=2 corresponds to a prolate-like form of the (orientation averaged) emission cloud along the laser polarisation, so that signal will gather around 0$^\circ$ and 180$^\circ$; $\beta_2$=-1 corresponds to a purely transverse emission, oblate-like shape, with signal gathering around 90$^\circ$ and 270$^\circ$; finally $\beta_2$=0 corresponds to a fully isotropic emission.
A realistic measurement is shown in the right part of Fig. \[fig:examp\_pad\] to complement the schematic part. The measurement has again been performed in ${{\rm
Na}_{58}}^-$, thus complementing the PES example of Fig. \[fig:pes\_mecha\]. We nevertheless indicate the latter PES for completeness and to ease the explanation of the features of the combined PES/PAD. As already noted in the discussion of Fig. \[fig:pes\_mecha\], the case demonstrates a clear dependence of the photoemission on the nature of the electronic wave functions (indicated with spectroscopic notations in the figure). Comparing the PES (upper right panel) to the PES/PAD (lower right panel), one can see that the $2p$ and $2d$ electrons are emitted parallel to the laser polarization. On the contrary, the emission from all the $1g$ states occurs preferentially aligned in the transverse direction. This demonstrates that PAD certainly adds further useful information on the spatial structure of the emitting states.
Another example of PES/PAD, this time in the standard VMI presentation, is shown in Fig. \[fig:lepine2004\] in the case of ${{\rm C}_{18}}^-$ [@Wil04].
![ Velocity map images (left panels) of ${{\rm C}_{18}}^-$, and corresponding photoelectron spectra (right panels), after irradiation by laser pulses with frequency of 4.025 eV and duration of a few ns. Top row : yields accumulated for $t<50$ ns. Bottow row : yields accumulated for $90<t<150$ ns. Adapted from [@Wil04]. \[fig:lepine2004\] ](lepine2004){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In this representation, the VMI provides a polar image of the directions (angle) and kinetic energies (radius) of the emitted electrons, again with a well defined reference axis provided by the laser polarization. The example of Fig. \[fig:lepine2004\] is furthermore time-resolved, or at least allows one to separate well separated time scales of emission. Irradiation is performed with photons of frequency 4.025 eV and pulse durations in the ns range. Panel (a) provides an image of photoelectrons emitted during the first 50 ns after excitation, and the corresponding PES is plotted in panel (c). The PES exhibit two maxima, also visible as rings in panel (a), one at high energy and one at low energy. The high energy signal is associated to direct emission from the photo-excitation itself. The low energy component is attributed to thermionic emission in which the original laser energy has been partly equipartitioned between vibronic degrees of freedom of the cluster, prior to electron emission. The time scale and the typical energies associated to thermoionic emission are thus much larger than the ones associated to direct emission. In the present experiment the typical time scales of thermoionic emission lie in the tens to hundreds of ns, which in that case can be identified experimentally. The scenario is confirmed in panels (b) and (d) which present the VMI and the PES recorded in a late time window, that is between 90 and 150 ns. The PES is now fully concentrated at low energies, with no sign of a high energy, direct emission, component. This confirms the thermoionic nature of this late, low energy, emission. Therefore, even at a coarse time level, such an analysis exemplifies the capabilities of PES and PES/PAD to analyse electron dynamics in detail. We shall come back on those aspects later, see in particular Secs. \[sec:pes\_dyn\], \[sec:pad\_results\] and \[sec:temper\].
Theoretical approaches {#sec:theo}
======================
Many-particle systems such as molecules or clusters, are highly correlated, and exact calculations of their properties are extremely involved, mostly beyond feasibility for finite systems without major symmetries. The main issue concerns here the treatment of electrons. Except for some specific cases, ions can be treated as classical particles. This will always be the case in the following. To deal with the electronic problem, a variety of approaches has been developed, each one being a compromise between precision and expense. In this section, we present the most widely used schemes, paying a particular attention to density-functional theory (DFT) which is one of the most efficient tools in cluster dynamics.
Before going into details of the theoretical treatment, we schematically summarize in Fig. \[fig:theo\_schemes\] the most widely used theoretical approaches and sketch the regimes of their applicability in a plane of excitation energy and particle number.
![ Schematic view of applicability of different approaches (see text for details) in a landscape of system size versus excitation energy per atom. The excitation energy can be loosely related to typical laser intensities in the optical range. This is indicated by the intensity scales on top, which are, however, also strongly dependent on the response of the particular system, i.e. resonant or non-resonant. \[fig:theo\_schemes\] ](theo_schemes){width="\linewidth"}
The boundaries of the regimes are to be understood as very soft with large zones of overlap between the models because the choice of a method also depends on several aspects (e.g., demand on precision, material, time span of simulation). The most elaborate models are the “ab-initio” methods which deal in a systematic manner with a Hamiltonian as exact as possible. The simplest example is the Hartree-Fock approximation which, however, misses the crucial electronic correlations. A typical example of the more elaborate approaches is the Configuration Interaction (CI) method which relies on an expansion of the exact many-body wave function into a superposition of Slater states [@Yam94; @Kra07a]. The limitations for CI (and other [*ab-initio*]{} methods) are purely a matter of practicability. The limitation is nevertheless even more severe for dynamical applications of such theories, which are thus presently restricted to rather small system sizes and small excitation energies. The range of applicability will slowly grow with the steadily increasing computer power. Density functional theory (DFT) describes a system effectively in terms of a set of single-electron states (see Sec. \[sec:tddft\]). It is limited in system size for practical reasons and in excitation energy for physical reasons, because of the missing dynamical correlations from electron-electron collisions. Nevertheless, DFT and even more so its time dependent extension TDDFT (especially when realized in full real time) nevertheless provide a most robust and versatile tool in the field. A semi-classical mean-field description is provided by the Vlasov equation originally designed for plasma physics [@Vla50]. This approach ignores quantum effects such as shell structure or tunneling and thus becomes questionable at low energies. It is furthermore reasonably tuned to metal electrons because of their ressemblance to a Fermi gas, but more difficult to apply in other materials, especially in covalent bound systems. On the other hand, the semi-classical treatment allows one to include dynamical correlations due to electron-electron collisions, leading to the Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) approach [@Ber88; @Dom00c; @Fen04], which extends the applicability to larger energies than those allowed by TDLDA. Even higher excitations and system sizes are the realm of electronic Molecular Dynamics approaches and rate equations which, however, are even more limited than VUU for low energies and small systems [@Sie06]. The upper limit in energy is given by the onset of the relativistic regime, where retardation effects within the coupling begin to severely influence the dynamics.
In the following, we shall use real-time TDDFT as the basic theory to describe ionization dynamics. We shall occasionally use VUU in order to discuss electronic temperature effects, as observed in some experiments. We thus briefly describe in this section basics of TDDFT and practical implementations thereof. We discuss in some detail the self-interaction correction strategy to be developed to properly account for ionization in a dynamical way within standard approximations of DFT. We next present in detail the tools developed to access PES and PAD in TDDFT. We in particular discuss the demanding inclusion of orientation effects of the irradiated clusters and molecules with respect to laser polarization. We finally remind basics of VUU for completeness.
Basic formalism
---------------
### Handling of the ionic background {#sec:ions}
The interaction between the ions in a cluster and the electrons is usually described by pseudopotentials. This allows one to eliminate the inert, deep lying electron states around each ion and to concentrate on the relevant valence electrons. For a detailed discussion of pseudopotentials see, e.g., [@Sza85]. We go here a pragmatic way and take published pseudopotentials. For simple metals, we consider the soft, local pseudopotentials of [@Kue99]. In more general cases, we employ mostly the local and non-local pseudopotentials in separable form as introduced in [@Goe96]. More precisely, for each type of atom with $Z$ valence electrons, we use the pseudopotential $V_\mathrm{PsP}$ of the following form :
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PsP}
V_\mathrm{PsP}(\mathbf r) \, \varphi_j (\mathbf r)
&=&
V_\mathrm{loc}(r) \, \varphi_j(\mathbf r)
+
\int \textrm d^3 \mathbf r'\, V_\mathrm{nloc} (\mathbf r,\mathbf r')\,
\varphi_j(\mathbf r')
\;,
\\
V_\mathrm{loc}(r)
&=&
- \frac{Z}{r} \, {\rm erf}\left( x/\sqrt{2} \right)
+ \exp \left( - x^2/2 \right) \left[ C_1 + C_2\, x^2 \right],
\;
x=\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{loc}}
\;,
\\
V_\mathrm{nloc} (\mathbf r,\mathbf r')
&=&
p(r)\, h_0\, p(r')
\;,
\\
p(r)
&=&
\frac{ \sqrt{2} } { {r_\mathrm{nloc}}^{3/2} \sqrt{\Gamma\left(3/2\right)}}
\exp\left( -\frac{r^2}{2 {r_\mathrm{nloc}}^2}\right)
\;.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\varphi_j$ denotes the wave function of state $j$, ${\rm erf}$ the error function, $\Gamma$ the Gamma function, and $x=r/r_\mathrm{loc}$. The refitted parameters are $C_1$, $C_2$, $r_\mathrm{loc}=r_\mathrm{loc}$, and $h_0$. The standard parameters are given in [@Goe96]. However, for the results presented in Section \[sec:results\], we use often refitted parameters which employ larger radii $r_\mathrm{loc}$ and $r_\mathrm{nloc}$, thus softer pseudopotentials for more robust numerical handling, see Section \[sec:num\].
There also exists a commonly used alternative to pseudopotentials for metallic systems. In particular, simple metals have valence electrons with long mean free path throughout. The fine details of the ionic background can thus be seen by the electrons only in an average manner. This motivates the jellium approximation in which the ionic background is smeared out to a constant positive background charge. This is a standard approach in bulk metals [@Ash76]. It has been generalized to finite clusters. In its simplest form, one carves from the bulk a finite, homogeneously and positively charged sphere of radius $R=r\, N_\mathrm{ion}^{1/3}$, whose total ion charge reproduces the given ionic charge $eN_\mathrm{ion}$. A more flexible approach is achieved when allowing for a finite surface width, yielding the soft jellium model $$\rho_\mathrm{jel}(\mathbf{r})
=
\frac{3}{4\pi r_s^3}
\left[1+
\exp\left(\frac{|\mathbf{r}|-R_\mathrm{jel}}
{\sigma_\mathrm{jel}}\right)
\right]^{-1}
\quad,
\label{eq:softJ}$$ with $R_\mathrm{jel}$ being defined by normalization to the total particle number $ \int \textrm d^3\mathbf{r}\, \rho_\mathrm{jel} =
N_\mathrm{ion}.$ The central density reproduces the bulk density $\rho_0={3}/({4\pi r_s^3})$. The parameter $\sigma_\mathrm{jel}$ accounts for a smooth surface transition from $\rho_0$ to zero. The surface width (transition from 90% to 10% bulk density) is about $4\sigma_\mathrm{jel}$. The model can be extended to also describe deformations which can have a considerable influence in metal cluster spectroscopy depending on the system [@Eka91; @Mon95b].
### Density Functional Theory and its Time-Dependent version {#sec:tddft}
The goal of DFT is to develop self-consistent equations which employ effective potentials for the contributions from exchange and correlation. These potentials are to be expressed in terms of the total local electron density $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ of the system. The success of DFT depends on a diligent choice of these effective potentials. For the brief review of DFT, we take here a practitioners approach and discuss the Kohn-Sham (KS) scheme from a given energy functional. We do not address the theoretical foundations of DFT in terms of the much celebrated Hohenberg-Kohn theorem [@Hoh64] and Kohn-Sham formalism [@Koh65]. The many aspects of foundation and derivation can be found, e.g., in [@Par89; @Dre90; @Gro96].
#### The energy functional
The starting point is an energy functional for the total electronic energy $E_\mathrm{total,el}$. In the Kohn-Sham (KS) scheme, one represents the $N$ (valence) electrons, by $N$ non-interacting Kohn-Sham (KS) orbitals (or s.p. states) $\varphi_i(\mathbf r)$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. The total energy is then separated into kinetic energy (which then takes a simple form) and interaction energy (associated to the above mentioned effective pseudopotentials). The total electronic density is expressed from the KS orbitals as : $$\label{eq:rho}
\rho(\mathbf r) = \sum_{i=1}^N \big| \varphi_i(\mathbf r) \big|^2 \quad.$$ Note that DFT schemes allow one to treat spin-up and spin-down density separately. For simplicity of presentation, we drop the spin dependence in the following. The total electronic energy is then composed as
\[eq:DFT\_Etot\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Etotal}
E_\mathrm{total,el}[\rho]
&=&
E_\mathrm{kin}(\{\varphi_i\})
+
E_\mathrm{H} [ \rho ]
+
E_\mathrm{xc} [ \rho ]
+
E_\mathrm{coupl}
+
E_\mathrm{ext} \quad,
\\
\label{eq:DFT_kin}
E_\mathrm{kin} \left( \{ \varphi_i \} \right)
&=&
- \frac{\hbar^2 }{2m} \ \int \textrm d^3\mathbf r
\sum_{i=1}^N \varphi_i^*(\mathbf r) \ \nabla^2 \ \varphi_i(\mathbf r)
\quad,
\\
\label{eq:hartree_nrj}
E_\mathrm{H}[\rho]
&=&
\frac{e^2}{2} \iint \textrm d^3 \mathbf r \ \textrm d^3 \mathbf r' \
\frac{\rho(\mathbf r) \rho(\mathbf r')}{|\mathbf r - \mathbf r'|}
=
\frac{1}{2} \int \textrm d^3 \mathbf r \
\rho(\mathbf r) \ U_\mathrm{H}[\rho]
\quad,
\\
\label{eq:V_coupl}
E_\mathrm{coupl}
&=&
\int \textrm d^3 \mathbf{r}\,\sum_{i=1}^N
\varphi_i^*(\mathbf r)\ \hat{V}_\mathrm{coupl}\ \varphi_i(\mathbf r)
\quad,
\\
\label{eq:Eext}
E_\mathrm{ext}
&=&
\int \textrm d^3\mathbf{r}\ \rho(\mathbf{r})\ U_\mathrm{ext}(\mathbf{r})
\quad.\end{aligned}$$
The kinetic energy is a functional of the s.p. orbitals $\varphi_i$ which serves to maintain the quantum shell structure in the KS calculations. The non-trivial correlation part of the exact kinetic energy is summarized in the interaction energy. The interacting term is mapped to the density functionals $E_\mathrm{H}[\rho] +
E_\mathrm{xc}[\rho]$. The first term $E_\mathrm{H}$ is the standard (direct) Coulomb Hartree energy, which naturally is a functional of $\rho$. We have introduced here the notation $U_\mathrm{H}$ for the corresponding Hartree potential. Conceptually simple are $E_\mathrm{coupl}$ from the coupling to the ions ($\hat{V}_\mathrm{coupl}$ is the potential operator built from the pseudopotentials) and the energy $E_\mathrm{ext}$ modeling an external electromagnetic field $U_\mathrm{ext}(\mathbf{r})$. Both these contributions couple to single electrons and are naturally well represented by an independent particle picture in terms of $\varphi_i$.
Finally, there is the exchange-correlation energy $E_\mathrm{xc}$ which accumulates all pieces of the exact energy not yet accounted for. This is the most problematic part in the scheme, since its functional expression is not exactly known. Many approximations thereof do exist, among which the simplest and most robust one is the Local Density Approximation (LDA). The construction of LDA is simple. One computes the ground state of the homogeneous electron gas as exactly as possible and obtains the exchange-correlation energy per volume $E_\mathrm{xc}/V=\rho\,\epsilon_\mathrm{xc}(\rho)$. Here this energy is still a function of the (homogeneous) density $\rho$. The crucial point is to allow now for an inhomogeneous, and time-dependent if needed, density $\rho(\mathbf{r},t)$ in that expression. It amounts to considering the energy as composed piecewise from an infinite electron gas of densities $\rho(\mathbf{r},t)$ which is a bold approximation. Nonetheless, LDA provides a robust description for a wide variety of systems. There is an enormous body of literature pondering successes and failures, for a more detailed discussion, see e.g. [@Dre90]. Note that a functional depending on $\rho(\mathbf{r},t)$ employs the instantaneous density and thus excludes any memory effect. This time-dependent generalization is often called adiabatic LDA (ALDA). Again, we use in the following the generic notation LDA.
The validity of LDA depends very much on the system under consideration. One of the major problems is the self-interaction error : the single particle state $\varphi_i$ is included in the density $\rho$, and thus contributes to the mean-field Hamiltonian $\hat{h}_\mathrm{KS}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:hamKS\]) below) which acts on $\varphi_i$. This yields a wrong asymptotics for the Coulomb mean field. For example, for a neutral system described in LDA, it decays exponentially at large distances instead of $\propto e^2/r$ as it should. An attempt to reduce the self-interaction error is the generalized-gradient approximation (GGA) which augments LDA with an additional dependence on $\nabla\rho$ [@Bec88; @Per96]. GGA yields a significant improvement in the computation of atomic and molecular binding. For example, it lifts the description of dissociation energies to a quantitative level. However, GGA does not fully remove the self-interaction error. Thus there are various attempts for further improvement as, e.g., adding kinetic terms to DFT [@Per99]. Another line of development is to explicitly implement a Self-Interaction Correction (SIC). This helps to deliver correct ionization properties, which is crucial in describing PES and PAD dynamically. We will therefore discuss this approach in more detail in Sec. \[sec:sic\_theo\].
As indicated above, time-dependent DFT, effectively using ALDA, makes also an adiabatic approximation. In order to account for dynamical effects, a Current DFT (CDFT) has been developed, which is based on LDA augmented by a dependence on electronic currents evaluated in the linear response [@Dha87a; @Vig96; @Ull12]. The response kernels in the extended functional include memory effects and allow one to describe relaxation [@Ago06a]. CDFT is rather involved and thus there exist so far only applications to symmetry restricted systems as, e.g., in solids[@Mai03a]. The underlying linear response modeling makes CDFT an extension for low excitation energies and/or amplitudes. Real electron-electron collisions become important for more energetic processes. These are often treated by a quantum generalization of the Boltzmann collision term. We will address this extension of DFT in Secs. \[sec:temperature\_theo\] and \[sec:qdissip\].
#### The Kohn-Sham equations
The stationary KS equations are derived by variation of the total energy with respect to the s.p. wave functions $\varphi_i^*$, yielding :
\[eq:KS\] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{h}_\mathrm{KS}[\rho]\ \varphi_i (\mathbf r)
&=&
\varepsilon_i \ \varphi_i(\mathbf r)
\quad,
\label{eq:statKS}
\\
\hat{h}_\mathrm{KS} [\rho]
&=&
-\frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2m}
+
U_\mathrm{KS} [\rho]
+
\hat{V}_\mathrm{coupl}
+
U_\mathrm{ext}
\quad,
\label{eq:hamKS}
\\
U_\mathrm{KS} [\rho]
&=&
U_\mathrm{H} [\rho]
+
U_\mathrm{xc} [\rho]
\quad.
\label{eq:UKS}\end{aligned}$$
The local and density-dependent Kohn-Sham potential $U_\mathrm{KS}$ consists in the direct Coulomb term $U_\mathrm{H}$ and the exchange-correlation potential, which is a standard functional derivative $U_\mathrm{xc}=\delta{E}_\mathrm{xc}/\delta \rho$. Coupling potentials to ions and to the external field are trivially given.
The time-dependent KS equations analogously read : $${\rm i} \hbar \ \partial_t\varphi_i(\mathbf r,t) = \hat{h}_\mathrm{KS}[\rho] \,
\varphi_i (\mathbf r,t) \quad,
\label{eq:TDKS}$$ where $\hat{h}_\mathrm{KS}$ is composed in the same manner as above, provided that one replaces $\rho(\mathbf{r})$ by $\rho(\mathbf{r},t)$. This assumes an instantaneous adjustment of the total electronic density, although memory effects can play in some cases an important role, especially in $E_\mathrm{xc}$ [@Gro96].
The stationary KS equations (\[eq:statKS\]) pose an eigenvalue problem. They provide the electronic ground state of a system. This is a highly non-linear problem due to the self-consistent feedback of the local density in the KS hamiltonian. It is usually solved by iterative techniques [@Cal00]. The time-dependent KS equations imply an initial value problem. The natural starting point is the ground state obtained from the stationary KS equations. The time-dependent KS system can then be solved by standard methods of first order differential equations [@Cal00]. We finally remind that we wrote spinless KS equations. One can easily include the electron spin in Eqs. (\[eq:KS\]). We refer the reader to [@Par89; @Dre90; @Gro96] for more details.
### A few words on numerical implementation {#sec:num}
A representation of the s.p. wave functions $\varphi_\alpha(\mathbf{r},t)$ and the fields $\rho(\mathbf{r},t)$ and $U_\mathrm{KS}(\mathbf{r},t)$ on a coordinate-space grid is strongly recommended if one aims at computing electronic emission properties. Conceptually straightforward is a Cartesian 3D grid with equally spaced mesh points. This leaves two choices for the description of the kinetic energy, that is finite difference schemes [@Bon78a; @Ter96b; @Cas06; @And12] or the Fourier definition exploiting the extremely efficient fast Fourier transformation (FFT) [@Cus76a; @Cal95a; @Cal00]. The Coulomb problem is solved either by iterative methods (e.g., successive over-relaxed iterations) in connection with finite-difference schemes or by Fourier techniques in case of FFT. In the latter case, one can produce an exact solution on the grid by using a double grid (in each direction) [@Eas79] or, somewhat faster, by eliminating the long-range terms by a separate analytical treatment [@Lau94]. A fast scheme for the static solution is provided by the damped gradient iteration [@Rei82]. The scheme for time evolution depends on the representation of the kinetic energy. For finite-difference schemes, one typically uses a second order predictor-corrector with a Taylor expansion of the KS time-evolution operator while for FFT schemes, the time-splitting (also called $\hat{T}$-$\hat{V}$ splitting) technique is preferable in connection with the FFT representation [@Fei82]. An extensive comparative study of the various griding and iteration techniques can be found in [@Blu92].
Let us end with a few words in the case of symmetric systems. For instance, the jellium model allows a description in higher symmetry, that is a representation on an axial 2D grid [@Dav81a]. In the case of explicit ions in simple metal clusters, they can be described by soft, local pseudopotentials. This allows an averaging over axial angle, leading to the cylindrically averaged pseudopotential scheme (CAPS) [@Mon94a] which is extremely efficient and thus has been used in many explorative studies. The CAPS allows one to treat explicit ionic structure in full 3D with pseudopotentials while keeping electrons with cylindrical symmetry [@Cal00]. This turns out to be a very good approximation for metals and it is even exact for linear molecules such as carbon chains [@Ber02]. It has even allowed to step forth to rather complex systems as, e.g., embedded clusters [@Din07b; @Din09aR]. The Fourier representation of kinetic energy cannot be applied in this geometry. Finite differences are the method of choice in axial grids. The static solutions use the same iterative schemes as in 3D. A particularly suitable time-stepping scheme for axial 2D is the Peaceman-Rachford step, which is a separable version of the well known Crank-Nicholson step [@Var62; @Pre92].
The self-interaction problem in DFT and TDDFT {#sec:sic_theo}
---------------------------------------------
As outlined above, LDA is plagued by the self-interaction error which is particularly harmful for ionization properties. The safest way to deal with that is to introduce an explicit Self-Interaction Correction (SIC). A conceptually simple and robust SIC was introduced by J. Perdew and A. Zunger in which all single-particle self-interactions are subtracted from the DFT energy [@Per81] : $$E_\mathrm{SIC}[\rho]
=
E_\mathrm{LDA}[\rho]
-
\sum_{\alpha=1}^N
E_\mathrm{LDA}[\rho_\alpha]
\quad,\quad
\rho_\alpha(\mathbf{r})
=
\left|\psi_\alpha(\mathbf{r})\right|^2
\quad,
\label{eq:PZSIC_Etot}$$ where $E_\mathrm{LDA}=E_\mathrm{H}+E_\mathrm{xc}$ is the LDA functional for the Coulomb-Hartree term as well as exchange and correlations. Note that we have changed here our standard notation for the single electron KS orbitals from $\varphi_i$ to $\psi_\alpha$. This is done on purpose as will become clear below in Eq. (\[eq:ut\]). The self-interaction corrected KS equations are then derived again by variation. A problem is that the emerging SIC-KS hamiltonian $\hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC}$ then becomes state-dependent because $\delta{E}_\mathrm{LDA}[\rho_\alpha]/\delta\psi_\beta^*\propto\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is state selective. We formulate this in terms of a projector and obtain : $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC}
&=&
\hat{h}_\mathrm{LDA}
-
\sum_\alpha U_{\alpha}|\psi_\alpha\rangle\langle\psi_\alpha|
\quad,\quad
U_{\alpha}
=
\frac{\delta{E}_\mathrm{LDA}[\rho_\alpha]}{\delta\rho_\alpha}
\quad.
\label{eq:SICmf}\end{aligned}$$ It becomes apparent that the state dependence leads to a non-Hermitian SIC hamiltonian. This leads to a violation of orthonormality of the $\psi_\alpha$. To restore it, we have to add a constraint $\sum_{\alpha\beta}\lambda_{\alpha\beta}\langle\psi_\beta|\psi_\alpha\rangle$ to the SIC energy with the (hermitian) Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}$. The SIC mean-field equations thus become : $$\hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC} |\psi_\alpha \rangle
=
\sum_\beta \lambda_{\beta \alpha}|\psi_\beta \rangle$$ for the static case and $$\left ( \hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC} - \mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_t \right )
|\psi_\alpha \rangle
=
\sum_\beta \lambda_{\beta \alpha}|\psi_\beta \rangle$$ for the dynamic case. In both cases, these equations have to be complemented by the “symmetry condition” $$\langle\psi_\beta|U_\mathrm{\beta}-U_{\rm\alpha}|\psi_\alpha\rangle=0
\label{eq:sym}$$ which is the crucial ingredient in the scheme stemming from the orthonormality constraint [@Mes09; @Ped84]. These SIC equations are hard to solve directly in the static case and near to impossible in dynamics. The key to success is to introduce a second s.p. basis set $\{\varphi_l,l=1, \ldots, N\}$ which is connected to the set $\{\psi_\alpha,\alpha=1, \ldots, N\}$ by a unitary transformation [@Mes08a] $$|\varphi_j \rangle
=
\sum_{\alpha=1}^N u_{j\alpha} \, | \psi_\alpha \rangle
\label{eq:ut}$$ tuned to diagonalize the matrix of $\lambda_{\beta\alpha}$. This simplifies the static and dynamic SIC-KS equations to $$\hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC} |\varphi_j\rangle
=
\varepsilon_j|\varphi_j\rangle
\;,\;
\left ( \hat{h}_\mathrm{SIC} - \mathrm{i} \hbar \partial_t \right )
|\varphi_j\rangle
=
0
\;.
\label{eq:SICeqs}$$ Eqs. (\[eq:SICmf\]–\[eq:SICeqs\]) formulate the SIC problem in the “2setSIC” scheme. They are solved by interlaced iterations. One performs a step of static or dynamics mean-field problem (\[eq:SICeqs\]) and then adjusts the unitary transformation (\[eq:ut\]) to accomodate the symmetry condition (\[eq:sym\]). A detailed representation of the scheme can be found in [@Mes08a; @Mes09].
Although we dispose with 2setSIC of a powerful technique to solve the static and dynamical equations with SIC, it remains a tedious task. There are several interesting simplifications around. With the help of the optimized effective potential method (OEP) [@Kue08], one has developed implementations of SIC in terms of state-independent local potentials, which lead to the Krieger-Li-Iafrate (KLI) method [@Kri92a] and, one step simpler, to the Slater approximation to SIC [@Sha53] (for a detailed discussion in connection with clusters, see [@Leg02]). Metal clusters are special in the sense that their valence electrons have all very similar spatial extension and stay close in energy (see for instance the s.p. energies of ${\mathrm{Na}_{41}}^+$ in Fig. \[fig:systems\]). This allows one to replace the detailed $N$ s.p. densities $\rho_\alpha$ in SIC by a single averaged representative $\bar\rho_{1e}=\rho/N$ which then defines the energy functional for Average-Density SIC (ADSIC) as : $$E_\mathrm{ADSIC}(\rho)
=
E_\mathrm{LDA}^{\mbox{}}(\rho)
-
N\, E_\mathrm{LDA}^{\mbox{}}(\rho/N)
\;.$$ ADSIC is simple, robust, and reliable. It provides the correct asymptotics of the KS field while it is formally as simple to handle as LDA. The correct asymptotics and simplicity renders ADSIC very useful in calculating electron emission and its observables. Most examples in this article were computed with ADSIC. Although motivated by metal electrons, ADSIC also performs surprisingly well for covalent molecules, see [@Cio05; @Klu13] and Fig. \[fig:adsic\_mol\]. Within ADSIC, the concept of s.p. densities is not needed anymore such that ADSIC is also applicable to semi-classical schemes [@Leg02]. In fact, it was first proposed by Fermi [@Fer34] in a semi-classical context.
![Ionization potentials calculated from the energy of the HOMO, for a selection of conjugated molecules. Compared are results from LDA and ADSIC with experimental data. Adapted from [@Cio05]. \[fig:adsic\_mol\] ](adsic_mol){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:adsic\_mol\] demonstrates the effect of ADSIC for a couple of basic organic molecules. Ionization potentials (IP) presented in this figure have been computed using the energy of the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) obtained from the ground state configuration of each system. The wrong asymptotic Coulomb Kohn-Sham potential of pure LDA leads to less binding and thus to much reduced IP. The deviation is uncomfortably large. Correcting the self-interaction error even with the simple ADSIC suffices to obtain a very satisfying reproduction of the experimental IP.
Fig. \[fig:K7m-SIC\] demonstrates the effect of SIC in more detail.
![Kohn-Sham potential and single particles energies for ${{\rm K}_7}^{-}$ described with spherical jellium background. Compared are results from LDA (left) with those from ADSIC (right). \[fig:K7m-SIC\] ](K7m-SIC){width="0.8\linewidth"}
As test case, we consider the cluster anion ${{\rm K}_7}^-$ where the failure of LDA is particularly apparent. We use here a spherical soft jellium ionic background, see Eq.(\[eq:softJ\]), with a Wigner-Seitz radius $r_s=5$ a$_0$ and surface parameter $\sigma=1.4$ a$_0$. The cluster as a whole has a negative charge. Consequently, the total Coulomb potential as it is used in LDA has an asymptotics $\propto+{e}^2/r$ and produces a Coulomb barrier between inside and outside. ADSIC, on the other hand, sees asymptotically the Coulomb potential of all electrons minus the one which is departing. This is the potential of a neutral system which converges exponentially to zero from below. The different asymptotic potentials mostly lead to a global shift of the s.p. energies, while the energy differences between the occupied states are less affected. This global shift is particurlarly disastrous for this anion. The system is hardly bound with LDA, while ADSIC produces comfortable and realistic binding, although weak.
Finally, we consider an example of time-dependent SIC (TDSIC) solved in the 2setSIC framework and directly analyze the ionization dynamics of a molecule. To that end, we use a simple 1D model for a H$_2$ dimer molecule with a smoothed Coulomb potential [@Hen98]. It is well adapted for a consistent test of SIC [@Mes08a]. The two electrons have aligned spins (triplet state) to make a non-trivial test of SIC. We work at the level of “exchange only”, so that the benchmark becomes time-dependent Hartree-Fock (computed with exact exchange). To test LDA consistently, a density functional for exchange has been developed for this 1D model within LDA. This density functional is also used as a basis for SIC [@Mes08a]. As SIC has a large impact on the IP, we take the time evolution of ionization as a critical test. A result for an instantaneous boost is shown in Fig. \[fig:TD\_2setSIC\_1D\].
![Time evolution of total ionization after an instantaneous boost for a 1D model of H$_2$ in triplet state, calculated in LDA (blue dots), Hartree-Fock (red dashes) and 2setSIC (black full curve). Adapted from [@Mes08a]. \[fig:TD\_2setSIC\_1D\] ](tdsic){width="0.65\linewidth"}
The failure of TDLDA (blue dots) for this observable becomes obvious. The IP is grossly underestimated and consequently, the ionization is too high. The 2setSIC (full line) cures the problem almost perfectly, as is visible in the excellent agreement with the Hartree-Fock calculation (red dashes).
Total ionization, PES and PAD in TDDFT {#sec:observ_theo}
--------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss detailed observables from direct electron emission. By direct emission, we mean those processes which are caused without delay by the electronic excitation process. They dominate at moderate excitations and short laser pulses with duration of some tens of fs where the competing process, that is thermalization and subsequent thermal emission, is less important. At this short time scale, we can also often neglect explicit ionic motion.
### An example of PES and PAD as preview {#sec:example_pespad}
As a preview, we show in Fig. \[fig:example\] PES and PAD for a simple example, Na$_8$ with spherical jellium background. This system has only two occupied levels $1s$ (twice degenerate) and $1p$ (six-fold degenerate) which simplifies the analysis.
![ Photoelectron spectrum (left), photoangular distributions (bottom middle and right) and combined PES/PAD (top middle and right) from Na$_8$ with spherical jellium background, see Eq. (\[eq:softJ\]), using $r_s=3.65$ a$_0$ and $\sigma=1$ a$_0$ after excitation with a linearly polarized laser pulse, see Eq. (\[eq:Elaser\]), of intensity $I=6.9\times10^{13}$W/cm$^2$, frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}=12.24$ eV, and pulse duration $T_\mathrm{pulse}=90$ fs. The two occupied s.p. states lie at $\varepsilon_{1s}=-5.5$ eV and $\varepsilon_{1p}=-4.07$ eV. The total ionization is $N_\mathrm{esc}=0.003$ electron. The angle $\vartheta$ is measured with respect to the laser polarization. \[fig:example\] ](na8jel-pespad){width="\linewidth"}
The left panel shows the PES, that is the distribution of kinetic energies of emitted electrons. Left of the vertical axis, the two originally occupied s.p. states are indicated. One photon adds 0.9 Ry energy and so places a peak at $-5.5+12.24$ eV, or $-4.07+12.24$ eV respectively. The energy shift by the photon is indicated by horizontal arrows. The peaks in the PES directly map the occupied states. Further 12.24 eV higher, one sees another two peaks. These are due to two-photon processes moving the electrons $2\hbar\omega_\mathrm{las}$ up in energy. The two upper right panels of Fig. \[fig:example\] show combined PES/PAD with an energy window around the first (middle) and second (right) peaks of the PES. The lower panels show the corresponding PAD for emission from the $1s$ states (middle) and $1p$ states (right). The PAD have a very simple structure. This test case with closed electron shells and spherical jellium background is spherical throughout. The laser defines a preferred direction thus leaving axial symmetry for the process. Therefore the PAD depend only on the angle $\vartheta$ relative to the laser polarization axis. Moreover, they consist out of a constant contribution plus a cos$^2$ profile. We will see later on that this is the only possible structure for PAD from one-photon processes. The figure also indicates the anisotropy $\beta_2$, as defined later in Eq. (\[eq:anisotropy\]), for each case. The PAD from a perfectly spherical $1s$ state has the maximal possible value $\beta_2=2$, which corresponds to strong alignment with the laser polarization and vanishing emission perpendicular to it. The less symmetrical $1p$ states yield a somewhat lower anisotropy. This simple example already demonstrates the richness of PES and PAD. It also shows that one needs get acqaueinted with technical details to better understand the content and behavior of both PES and PAD.
### Absorbing boundary conditions {#sec:abso}
A grid representation naturally leads to reflecting or periodic boundary conditions. Reflection emerges for finite difference schemes. A representation of the kinetic energy by complex Fourier transformation is associated with periodic boundary conditions where flow leaving the box at one side is re-fed at the opposite side. Both can lead to artifacts if a sizable fraction of electronic flow hits the boundaries. There are several ways to solve the problem. The conceptually simplest approach is to enhance the size of the numerical box. However, this is not a realistic option as the expense grows cubically with the box length in 3D and quadratically in 2D. Very recently, a multi-grid method has been proposed [@deGio12] which renders the use of enlarged boxes feasible (although still at the edge of present days computer capabilities). Perfect removal of escaping particles is achieved by or exact boundary conditions [@Bou97; @Man98a] which, again, are not yet practicable in 3D calculations. Robust and efficient are absorbing boundary conditions by an especially tailored imaginary potential [@Nak05a] or by applying a mask function during time evolution [@Kra92a]. The latter technique is particularly easy to implement and has been widely used in the past. Its robustness and efficiency allow one to develop advanced analyzing techniques on the grid as, e.g., the computation of PES and PAD [@Rei06f]. A detailed description and discussion of this approach and its proper choice of numerical parameters is found in [@Rei06c]. In the following, we will only address the mask technique for absorbing bounds.
Fig. \[fig:mask\] sketches the implementation of absorbing boundary conditions with computation of PES and PAD on a coordinate space grid.
![Schematic view of a coordinate-space grid with absorbing bounds (ring zone), a sampling direction for accumulating PAD, and measuring points $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$ for the PES. \[fig:mask\]](schem_abso){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Proper handling of electron emission requires absorbing boundary conditions. These are indicated by the ring area in the figure covering here 3 grid points in each direction (actual calculations typically use 6–8 points.) The absorption is performed in each time step as :
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(\mathbf{r},t)
&\longrightarrow&
\tilde\varphi(\mathbf{r},t\!+\!\delta t)
=
\hat{\mathcal{U}}_\mathrm{KS}(t\!+\!\delta t,t)\, \varphi(\mathbf{r},t)
\quad,
\label{eq:KSpart}\\
\varphi(\mathbf{r},t\!+\!\delta t)
&=&
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{r})\, \tilde\varphi(\mathbf{r},t\!+\!\delta t)
\quad,
\label{eq:maskact}
\\
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf r)
&=&
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
1 & \mbox{for} &|\mathbf{r}|<R_\mathrm{in}
\quad,
\\
\displaystyle
\cos\left(
\frac{|\mathbf{r}|-R_\mathrm{in}}{R_\mathrm{out}-R_\mathrm{in}}\frac{\pi}{2}
\right)^{\gamma_\mathcal{M}}
&\mbox{for}&
R_\mathrm{in}<|\mathbf{r}|<R_\mathrm{out}
\quad,
\\
0
&\mbox{for}&
R_\mathrm{out}<|\mathbf{r}|
\quad.
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:mask}\end{aligned}$$
First comes the standard step (\[eq:KSpart\]) in terms of the TDLDA (or TDSIC) propagator $\hat{\mathcal{U}}_\mathrm{KS}$, which yields the intermediate wave function $\tilde\varphi(\mathbf{r},t\!+\!\delta{t})$. This is followed by the action in Eq. (\[eq:maskact\]) of the mask function $\mathcal{M}$ defined in Eq.(\[eq:mask\]), which removes gradually any amplitude towards the bounds. We use here a spherically symmetric mask. The spherical profile is helpful to minimize griding artifacts when computing angular distributions [@Poh04b]. The absorbing bounds steadily reduce the norm of the wave functions from the inner mask radius $R_\mathrm{in}$ to the outer one $R_\mathrm{out}$. The mask technique is however not perfect. One will always encounter a small amount of reflected flow, particularly for electrons with low kinetic energy. One can minimize the back-flow by proper choice of the exponent $\gamma_\mathcal{M}$ entering the mask profile, see Eq. (\[eq:mask\]). This depends, however, on the actual numerics (number of absorbing points, size of time step), for a detailed discussion see [@Rei06c]. Typical values of $\gamma_\mathcal{M}$ are of order $1/8$.
### Ionization {#sec:ionization}
The first observable which can be computed using working absorbing boundaries is the total ionization, i.e. the number of escaping electrons $N_\mathrm{esc}$. This can be computed simply from the, now decreasing, single-particle norms as : $$N_\mathrm{esc}(t)
=
\sum_{i=1}^N N_{\mathrm{esc},i}(t)
\quad,\quad
N_{\mathrm{esc},i}(t)
=
1- \langle \varphi_i(t)|\varphi_i(t)\rangle
\quad.
\label{eq:nesc}$$ This shows that we have access to even more than the mere net ionization. Indeed each $N_{\mathrm{esc},i}$ yields the depletion of s.p. state $i$ separately. Both, total ionization and detailed level depletion are very instructive observables, see e.g. Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\].
### Photoemission angular distributions (PAD) {#sec:pad}
The angular distributions $\textrm d\sigma/\textrm d\Omega
(\vartheta,\phi)$ are evaluated in angular segments labeled by the azimuthal angle $\vartheta $ and the polar angle $\phi$. The reference frame for these two angles is usually one axis, called the $z$ axis, of the Cartesian 3D grid designed to be identical with the laser polarization axis, for details see Sec. \[sec:orientaver\]. We collect all probability which was removed by the absorption step (\[eq:maskact\]) and accumulate it. A straightforward collection of grid points in a segment tends to produce noisy results because the number of grid points per segment fluctuates. We therefore associate with each grid point a smoothing function $\mathcal{W}(\mathbf{r})$ which distributes the strength over a vicinity of order of grid spacing. This suffices to produce acceptable smooth distributions. The PAD is thus computed as :
\[eq:PADfixed\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(\vartheta,\phi)
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^N\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta,\phi)
\quad,
\\
\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta,\phi)
&=&
\sum_{\mathbf{n}\in\mbox{abs.b.c.}}
\int \textrm dr\,r^2\,\mathcal{W}(r\mathbf{e}_r-\mathbf{r}_\mathbf{n})
\, n_{\mathrm{esc},i}(\mathbf{r}_\mathbf{n})
\quad,
\\
\mathcal{W}(\mathbf{r})
&=&
\frac{\mbox{max}(\Delta x-|x|,0)}{\Delta x} \,
\frac{\mbox{max}(\Delta y-|y|,0)}{\Delta y} \,
\frac{\mbox{max}(\Delta z-|z|,0)}{\Delta z}
\quad,
\\
n_{\mathrm{esc},i}(\mathbf{r}_\mathbf{n})
&=&
\int \textrm dt\,\left|\tilde{\varphi}_i(\mathbf{r}_\mathbf{n},t)\right|^2
\left[1-\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{r}_\mathbf{n},t)\right]
\quad,\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{e}_r=\left(\sin\vartheta\cos\phi,
\sin\vartheta\sin\phi,\cos\vartheta\right)$ is the unit vector in the direction of the wanted angles. The smoothing is done by simple tent functions which comply with the integration rule used in the normalization. The angular segments in Fig. \[fig:mask\] try to symbolize this smoothing which collects (weighted) information in the vicinity of a ray. The above recipe applies to state specific PAD $\mathcal{A}_i$ as well as the total PAD $\mathcal{A}$. Alternatively, one uses a cross-section-like notation $\textrm
d\sigma/\textrm d\Omega$ for PAD. The present choice is more flexible for the presentation of orientation averaging, see Sec. \[sec:orientaver\].
### Photoemission spectra (PES) {#sec:pes}
The PES can be deduced from the temporal phase oscillations of the wave functions at measuring points $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$ close to the absorbing bounds. This technique had been introduced in [@Poh00; @Poh03a]. A detailed discussion of the method and extension to strong laser fields is found in [@Din13a]. We summarize it here briefly. To explain the computation of PES, we first confine the considerations to 1D in order to keep things simple and extend it finally to the general 3D case. The measuring point is thus denoted for a while $z_\mathcal{M}$. Starting point is the solution of the Schrödinger equation for [one]{} electron in a laser field in velocity-gauge, see Eq. (\[eq:lasfield-v\]) in section \[sec:las\_pulse\]. In this gauge, the electronic wave function $\varphi^{(v)}$ at the sampling point $z_\mathcal{M}$ reads
\[eq:solve-wfall\] $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)
&=&
\int\frac{\textrm dk}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,
e^{\mathrm{i}k z_\mathcal{M}} \, \widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(k) \,
e^{-\mathrm{i}\omega_kt+\mathrm{i}k\delta q-\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega}
\quad,
\label{eq:solve-wf}
\\
\omega_k
&=&
\frac{k^2}{2}
\quad\longleftrightarrow\quad
k
=\sqrt{2\omega_k}
\quad,
\label{eq:solve-k-w}
\\
\delta q(t)
&=&
E_0 \int_{0}^t\mathrm dt'\,F(t')
\quad,
\label{eq:delq}\\
\delta\Omega(t)
&=&
\frac{E_0^2}{2}\int_{0}^t\mathrm dt'\,F(t')^2
\quad,
\label{eq:delOmega}\end{aligned}$$
where $F(t)$ is the time integrated laser pulse introduced in Eq. (\[eq:gaugeF\]). It should also be noted that Eq. (\[eq:solve-k-w\]) exploits the fact that $z_\mathcal{M}$ is near the absorbing bounds, such that only outgoing waves with $k>0$ pass through this point. The aim is to deduce the momentum distribution $\left|\widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(k)\right|$ from the sampled $\varphi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)$. This is straightforward for weak laser fields where we can neglect $\delta q$ and $\delta\Omega$. For then, a time to frequency Fourier transformation of $\varphi^{(v)}$, namely $\int\mathrm{dt}\,e^{\mathrm{i}\omega{t}}\varphi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)$, produces in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:solve-wf\]) a $\delta(\omega-\omega_k)$ which, in turn, reduces the $k$ integration to the point $k=\sqrt{2\omega}$ thus delivering the wanted $\widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(\sqrt{2\omega})$. Trying to directly apply this time-frequency transformation when the field strength is not small runs into trouble due to the non-trivial time dependencies induced by the factors $\delta q(t)$ and $\delta\Omega(t)$ in Eqs. (\[eq:solve-wfall\]). A simple solution is to counter-weight the disturbing phase factors by a phase-correction factor $e^{\mathrm{i}\Phi}$ before the transformation. We thus consider $$\begin{aligned}
\int\frac{\textrm dt}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t
-\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2\omega}\delta q
+\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega}\varphi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)
&=&
\int\frac{\textrm dk}{2\pi}\int \textrm dt\,
e^{\mathrm{i}k z_\mathcal{M}} \, \widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(k) \,
e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega-\omega_k)t-\mathrm{i}(\sqrt{2\omega}-k)\delta q}
\\
&\approx&
\int{\textrm dk}\,\delta(\omega-\omega_k)
e^{\mathrm{i}k z_\mathcal{M}} \, \widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(k)
\\
&=&
e^{\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2\omega}z_\mathcal{M}} \,
\widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(\sqrt{2\omega})
\quad.\end{aligned}$$ We finally evaluate the PES yield $\mathcal{Y}_\mathcal{M}$ at measuring point $z_\mathcal{M}$ by : $$\mathcal{Y}_\mathcal{M}(E_\mathrm{kin})
\propto
\left|\widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0(\sqrt{2\omega})\right|^2
=
\left|
\int\frac{dt}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t
-\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2\omega}\delta q
+\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega}\varphi^{(v)}(z_\mathcal{M},t)
\right|^2
\quad,\quad
\omega\equiv E_\mathrm{kin}
\quad.
$$ The approximation here consists in assuming that the time integration, although complicated by the time profile in $\delta q(t)$, will still deliver $\omega\approx k^2/2$ and thus $e^{-\mathrm{i}(\sqrt{2\omega}-k)\delta q}\approx 1$. This approximation is valid anyway for weak fields. It extends the applicability of the time-frequency transformation to stronger fields. Fourier transformation of a phase-augmented wave function thus allows one to deduce the wanted momentum amplitude $\widetilde{\varphi}^{(v)}_0$ for a wide range of field strengths. The recipe may fail, however, for very strong fields where the temporal variation of $(\sqrt{2\omega}-k)\delta q$ dominates over $(\omega-\omega_k)t$.
For the extension to 3D, we have to take into account that there is a whole vector of $\mathbf{k}$ rather than just two directions $k=\pm\sqrt{2\omega}$. We exploit the fact that the 3D analyzing point $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$ is close to the absorbing bounds (no reflection) and sufficiently far from the emitting zone. Thus the prevailing outgoing momentum $\mathbf{k}$ at this point has the direction of $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$, i.e. $$\mathbf{e}_k
=
\frac{\mathbf{k}}{k}
=
\frac{\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}}{r_\mathcal{M}}
=
\mathbf{e}_\mathcal{M}
\quad.$$ The frequency-momentum relation Eq. (\[eq:solve-k-w\]) is then generalized to $\mathbf{k}=+\mathbf{e}_\mathcal{M}\sqrt{2\omega}$ and the PES yield at $\mathbf{r}_\mathcal{M}$ is identified as $$\mathcal{Y}_\mathcal{M}(E_\mathrm{kin})
\propto
\left|
\int\frac{\textrm dt}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t
-\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2\omega}\delta q
+\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega}\varphi^{(v)}(\mathbf r_\mathcal{M},t)
\right|^2
\quad.
\label{Eqn:PA3D}$$ This is the straightforward 3D generalization of the 1D formula above. The phase $\Phi(t)=-\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2\omega}\delta{q}(t)+\mathrm{i}\delta\Omega(t)$ is negligible in case of weak fields $E_0\ll\sqrt{\omega/2}$. It extends the applicability of the method to stronger fields.
A word is in order about the choice of gauge. The above evaluation of PES is formulated in velocity gauge because the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation in the laser field is much simpler in this gauge, see Eq. (\[eq:solve-wfall\]). If one prefers to perform numerical calculations in space gauge, one just has to apply the transformations Eq. (\[eq:gaugeF\]) and Eq. (\[eq:gaugepsi\]) before using Eq. (\[Eqn:PA3D\]).
The effect of the phase correction in the recipe Eq. (\[Eqn:PA3D\]) is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:gauge\].
![Ionization properties for ${{\rm Na}_9}^+$ with jellium background under the influence of a laser pulse having frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.4$ eV, pulse length $T_\mathrm{pulse}=12$ fs, and intensity as indicated in each panel. Spherical absorbing bounds were used covering at least 16 grid points. The “phase-augmented" results (brown lines) are obtained from Eq. (\[Eqn:PA3D\]), while the “raw” results (light green lines) only use the time-frequency Fourier transform of $\varphi^{(v)}(\mathbf r_\mathcal{M},t)$, see Eq. (\[eq:solve-wf\]) in the 1D case. \[fig:gauge\] ](na9p-PES-augmented){width="0.99\linewidth"}
The field strength for $I=3\times 10^{12}$W/cm$^2$ is obviously sufficiently small such that there is practically no effect from the phase correction. The stronger field with $I=3\times10^{13}$W/cm$^2$ clearly needs the phase correction and including it yields still a reliable PES. Results for significantly larger field strengths cannot be trusted.
### Alternative routes to compute PES/PAD
An alternative theoretical approach to evaluate PES/PAD has been proposed very recently in [@deGio12]. The principle is schematically explained in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:deGio\].
![Example of calculated combined PES/PAD. Left : 1D view of the mask function applied in region $A$ where time-dependent Kohn-Sham equations are solved numerically in real-space, while wave functions are propagated analytically in region $B$. Region $C$ serves a a buffer region where wave functions, evaluated in $A$, overlap with those evaluated in $B$ [@deGio12]. Right : Experimental (top) combined PES/PAD [@Gaz11] and theoretical ones (bottom) [@deGio12] in logarithmic scale for N$_2$ molecules in a 6 cycle infrared laser pulse ($\lambda_{\rm
las}=750$ nm, $I = 4.3 \times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$). The theoretical PES/PAD is averaged over four orientations of the N$_2$ molecule.[]{data-label="fig:deGio"}](deGio){width="\linewidth"}
This method is very similar to ours in the sense that in region $A$, the TDDFT equations are solved in a real-coordinate space grid, with the application of a mask function $\mathcal{M}(\mathbf r)$ in region $C$. The new feature comes with region $B$ where Volkov states are analytically propagated in momentum space to account for the interaction with the laser field. More precisely, state $i$ is described by the following wave functions $\varphi_i$ :
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{A,i}(\mathbf r, t)
&=&
\eta_{A,i}(\mathbf r, t) + \eta_{B,i}(\mathbf r, t)\quad,
\\
\tilde{\varphi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t)
&=&
\tilde{\xi}_{A,i}(\mathbf p, t) + \tilde{\xi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t)
\quad,\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{A,i}(\mathbf r, t)
&=&
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf r)\, U(t, t')\, \varphi_{A,i}(\mathbf r, t')
\quad,
\label{eq:etaA}\\
\eta_{B,i}(\mathbf r, t)
&=&
\mathcal{M}(\mathbf r) \int \frac{\textrm d\mathbf p}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}
\, e^{i \mathbf p \cdot \mathbf r}
\, U_V (t, t') \, \tilde{\varphi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t)
\quad,
\label{eq:etaB}\\
\tilde{\eta}_{A,i}(\mathbf p, t)
&=&
\int \frac{\textrm d\mathbf r}{(2\pi)^{d/2}}, e^{-i \mathbf p \cdot \mathbf r}
\, \left[1 - \mathcal{M}(\mathbf r)\right] \, U(t, t')\,
\varphi_{A,i}(r, t')
\quad,
\label{eq:tilde_etaA}\\
\tilde{\xi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t)
&=&
U_V (t, t') \, \tilde{\varphi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t')
−
\int \frac{\textrm d\mathbf r}{(2\pi)^{d/2}} \,
e^{-i \mathbf p \cdot \mathbf r} \, \eta_{B,i}(\mathbf r, t)
\quad.
\label{eq:tilde_etaB}\end{aligned}$$
In Eqs. (\[eq:etaA\]) and (\[eq:tilde\_etaA\]), $U(t,t')$ stands for the propagator from time $t'$ to $t$ with the full Hamiltonian including external fields, while in Eqs. (\[eq:tilde\_etaA\]) and (\[eq:tilde\_etaB\]), only the laser field enters the Volkov time propagator $U_V(t,t')$. Finally the momentum distribution of the photoelectrons is approximated to : $$\frac{\textrm d \sigma}{\textrm d\Omega_\textrm p} \simeq \sum_i
\tilde{\varphi}_{B,i}(\mathbf p, t\rightarrow \infty) \quad .
\label{eq:deGio_distrib}$$ This procedure has been applied to N$_2$ irradiated by a 6 cycle laser pulse of wavelength 750 nm and intensity of $4.3 \times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, with an averaging over 4 orientations ($0^\circ$, $30^\circ$, $60^\circ$, $90^\circ$, see right bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:deGio\]. The grid spacing in region $A$ of radius $R_A=35$ a$_0$ is 0.38 a$_0$, and the buffer region has a radius $R_C=25$ a$_0$. These results are compared with experimental measurements [@Gaz11] (see top right panel). The latter show that photoelectrons are preferentially emitted parallel to the laser polarization axis (0 and 180$^\circ$). Note that the signal at $0^\circ$ is slightly different from that at $180^\circ$. This can be explained by the fact that the laser pulse is so short that the symmetry along the laser polarization axis is broken [@deGio12; @Mil06]. The comparison with the theoretical PES/PAD is fairly good, especially at high kinetic energies. More discrepancies are observed at low kinetic energies, probably because of the limited size of the numerical box.
Orientation Averaging PAD (OAPAD) {#sec:orientaver}
---------------------------------
The PAD obtained by Eqs. (\[eq:PADfixed\]) determine the distribution for a fixed orientation of the molecule/cluster relative to the laser polarization axis. However measurements of free clusters are usually done in the gas phase covering an isotropic distribution of cluster orientations. There are techniques for aligning molecules by strong laser pulses, for a review see [@Sta03aR] and for proposals using chains of pulses see [@Pab10a; @Pab10b; @Rei05f]. Nonetheless, these have not yet been used in connection with measuring PAD on clusters. Thus we have to perform orientation averaging of the TDDFT results to establish contact with existing measurements. Efficient techniques for orientation averaging of clusters have been developed in [@Wop10a; @Wop10b]. We summarize them here briefly.
### Direct averaging scheme {#sec:direct_oapad}
The cross-section detailed in Eqs. (\[eq:PADfixed\]) stems from a TDDFT calculation with one fixed configuration in which the cluster orientation relative to laser polarization is known. What we are looking for is the average of the cross-section over all possible cluster orientations with equal weight. For its evaluation, we distinguish the laboratory frame and the cluster frame (in which all quantities are primed). The laboratory frame is defined by the laser polarization axis, such that the polarization vector points along the $z$-axis of the 3D Cartesian coordinate system, i.e. $\mathbf{e}_\mathrm{pol}=\mathbf{e}_z$. The observed emission angles $(\vartheta,\phi)$ are defined with respect to this laboratory frame, where $\vartheta$ is the angle with respect to the $z$-axis and $\phi$ the angle in the $x$-$y$-plane. A cluster has three principle axes. The cluster orientation is defined by the Euler angles $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ of these three axes with respect to the laboratory frame [@Edm57]. Thus we deal, in fact, with an ensemble of PAD $\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta,\phi;\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ of the same cluster with different orientations. The orientation averaged one-photon PAD for emission from the s.p. state $\varphi_i$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\mathcal{A}^{(i)}}(\vartheta,\phi)
&=&
\!\int\! \frac{\rm d\alpha \, \rm d\!\cos\beta \, \mathrm{d}\gamma}{8\pi^2}
\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta,\phi;\alpha,\beta,\gamma)
\approx
\!\sum_{m=1}^M\lambda_m \,
\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta,\phi;\alpha_m,\beta_m,\gamma_m)
\;.
\label{eq:aver-orient}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum from 1 to $M$ runs over a discrete set of points on which the integral will be discretized (see below). Since spherical absorbing boundaries are used, the rotation by $\alpha$ about the laser axis can be done a posteriori and does not require any additional TDDFT calculation. This leaves averaging over $\beta$ and $\gamma$ which is approximated by a finite-element representation of the integral, see rightmost part of Eq. (\[eq:aver-orient\]). The chosen values for $\beta_m$ and $\gamma_m$ can be illustrated on a unit sphere. Figure \[fig:orient\_av\] shows a sampling over 34 orientation points.
![Example of a set of orientation points (black dots) used in direct orientation averaging. The cluster is first rotated by $\gamma$ about the $z$-axis (laser polarization) and then by $\beta$ about the $y$-axis of the laboratory frame. \[fig:orient\_av\] ](sampling){width="0.35\linewidth"}
The weight factors $\lambda_m$ are determined by cutting the surface of the unit sphere into segments $\mathcal{S}_m$ around unit direction $\mathbf{e}_m$ of element $m$. The $\mathcal{S}_m$ is defined as the collection of points on the unit sphere which are closer to $\mathbf{e}_m$ than to any other $\mathbf{e}_{m'}$. The summation weights are then simply the areas of $\mathcal{S}_m$ divided by the area of the whole sphere, i.e. $\lambda_m=\mbox{Area}(\mathcal{S}_m)/(4\pi)$.
### OAPAD from one-photon processes in the perturbative regime {#sec:perturbative_oapad}
The direct averaging scheme is conceptually simple and can be applied in any situation. However, it requires a considerable amount of reference orientations (segments) to achieve sufficiently reliable results. A great simplification can be worked out for one-photon processes in the perturbative regime. In that case, one can deduce, using perturbation theory formally, that the rotated PAD can be represented as : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^{(i)}(\vartheta\phi,\alpha\beta\gamma)
=
\sum\limits_{\mu\mu',lmm'}
D_{\mu'0}^{(1)*}(\alpha\beta\gamma)\,
D_{\mu 0}^{(1)}(\alpha\beta\gamma)\,
D_{m'm}^{(l)}(\alpha\beta\gamma) \,
a_{\mu\mu',lm'}^{(i)} Y_{lm}(\vartheta\phi)
\;.
\label{eq:Arepresent}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of a couple of expansion coefficients $a_{\mu\mu',lm'}^{(i)}$, rotation functions $D_{\mu\mu'}^{(l)}$ [@Edm57], and spherical harmonics. In this form, the integration over Euler angles $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ can be worked out analytically (for details, see [@Wop10a; @Wop10b]), yielding finally the Orientation Averaged PAD as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\frac{{\rm d}\sigma_{i}}{{\rm d}\Omega}}
\equiv
\overline{\mathcal{A}^{(i)}}(\vartheta\phi)
&=&
C_{0}^{(i)}Y_{00}(\vartheta\phi)
+
C_{2}^{(i)}Y_{20}(\vartheta\phi)
\quad,
\label{eq:fincrosssect-i}
\\
C_{0}^{(i)}
&=&
\frac{1}{3}\sum_\mu a_{\mu\mu,00}^{(i)}
\quad,
\label{eq:fincrosssect-i2}
\\
C_{2}^{(i)}
&=&
\sum_\mu a_{\mu\mu',2\,\mu-\mu'}^{(i)}(-1)^\mu
\times\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 2 \\ -\mu & \mu' & \mu\!-\!\mu'
\end{array}\right)
\quad.
\label{eq:fincrosssect-i3}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding total PAD is obtained by summing over the s.p. PAD, i.e. $\overline{\mathcal{A}}=\sum_i\overline{\mathcal{A}^{(i)}}$. It remains to determine the expansion coefficients $a_{\mu\mu',lm'}^{(i)}$. Fortunately, there are only very few, that is three for $l=0$ and six for $l=2$. They can be determined from the PAD in only six properly chosen orientations because the different $l$ can be produced from one PAD, see Eqs. (\[eq:Arepresent\]). The six reference orientations should be chosen such that Eqs. (\[eq:Arepresent\]) can be solved in a stable manner as a linear equation for the $a_{\mu\mu',lm'}^{(i)}$. A recommended set is $\mathbf{e}^{(1)}=\mathbf{e}_x$, $\mathbf{e}^{(2)}=\mathbf{e}_y$, $\mathbf{e}^{(3)}=\mathbf{e}_z$, $\mathbf{e}^{(4)}=(\mathbf{e}_x\!+\!\mathbf{e}_y)/\sqrt{2}$, $\mathbf{e}^{(5)}=(\mathbf{e}_x\!+\!\mathbf{e}_z)/\sqrt{2}$, and $\mathbf{e}^{(6)}=(\mathbf{e}_y\!+\!\mathbf{e}_z)/\sqrt{2}$.
The effect of orientation averaging on PAD is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:orient\_av2\].
![Total PAD $\mathcal{A}(\vartheta,\phi)$ for Na$_8$ with explicit ionic background for one fixed orientation (left panel) and orientation-averaged (right panel), after laser excitation with frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}=7.5$ eV, intensity $I=10^{11}$W/cm$^2$, and pulse length with $T_{\rm pulse}=60$ fs. The emission angles $\vartheta$ and $\phi$ are measured with respect to the laser polarization. \[fig:orient\_av2\] ](na8-angdist){width="\linewidth"}
Test case is Na$_8$ with detailed ionic structure which is, unlike the jellium case, not rotational invariant. The laser frequency is sufficiently high such that one-photon emission dominates. The left panel shows the PAD for a fixed cluster orientation where the cluster symmetry axis is aligned with the laser polarization axis. One sees a pronounced pattern, in particular the four-fold structure of the ionic rings and the rotation of the upper ring by 45$^\circ$ relative to the lower ring. The emission maxima are located at $\vartheta\approx
45^\circ$ and $\vartheta\approx 135^\circ$, i.e. sidewards to the laser polarization. The orientation averaged PAD becomes independent of $\phi$, as it should be, and the emission is forward/backward dominated with maxima at $\vartheta=0$ and $\vartheta=180^\circ$. Altogether, the effect of orientation averaging is dramatic. Calculations for a single orientation have thus little predictive value.
As already pointed out, the OAPAD only depend on the angle $\vartheta$, and not on $\phi$ anymore. Moreover, they are symmetric with respect to the transformation $\vartheta\leftrightarrow-\vartheta$. Thus they can be expanded in a standard manner in terms of even Legendre polynomials $P_l(\cos\vartheta)$ as $$\overline{\frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}\Omega}}
\propto
1+\beta_2 P_2(\cos\vartheta)
+\beta_4 P_4(\cos\vartheta)
+\beta_6 P_6(\cos\vartheta)
+...
\label{eq:anisotropy}$$ Most important is $\beta_2$, called the anisotropy parameter. It is the only remaining parameter in the perturbative regime where all $\beta_{>2}=0$. Note that we had already recognized the simple $1+\beta_2P_2 (\cos \vartheta)$ structure in Fig. \[fig:example\].
Thermal effects {#sec:temperature_theo}
---------------
The previous discussions were led assuming that electrons remain at zero temperature. Introducing an ionic temperature in the formalism raises no difficulty as the ions are treated classically. An ionic temperature can thus either naturally build up in the course of time, or be initially introduced by giving the proper velocities to ions. The system, of course, remains globally microcanonical, and the temperature is thus subject to the corresponding fluctuations. The electronic temperature, in turn, is explicitly set to zero by construction. TDLDA does not allow occupation numbers of KS orbitals to vary in time, which prevents an account of thermal effects at the side of the electrons. This is certainly a major formal limitation of the formalism. We have seen that (possibly sizable) electronic temperatures have been observed experimentally (see for example Figure \[fig:campbell1\]). These effects may play a significant role in the understanding of the dynamics of the system, and on the analysis of experimental results. A theoretical account of such thermal effects is thus to be developed.
A standard path to accommodate thermal effects in dynamical systems is to recur to kinetic theory. This theory was originally formulated in the framework of classical mechanics with the Boltzmann equation as a prototypical example [@Hua63]. Quantum systems add two more complications. The Pauli principle prevents collisions into occupied states. The uncertainty principle, in turn, raises difficulties when trying to treat collisions locally (as done in the Boltzmann equation). Fully quantal kinetic equations are nevertheless conceivable but much more involved than the classical ones [@Kad62; @Bal75] and very hard to apply in finite quantum systems with their discrete spectra. In practice, there is thus no practical quantum theory of such collisional correlations available yet. In turn, semi-classical approaches were developed over the years and allow to cover some situations. The basics is then a version of the Boltzman equation, adapted to account for Pauli principle and known as the Boltzmann-Uehling-Ulhenbeck or Vlasov-Uehling-Ulhenbeck (VUU) equation. It was formally introduced in the early 1930’s [@Ueh33], then widely used in nuclear dynamics [@Ber88; @Dur00], and explored more recently in simple metal clusters [@Dom98b; @Dom00a; @Fen04]. By construction, the VUU equation is semi-classical, which means that details of quantum shell effects are washed out. It is thus applicable, at best, only in highly dissipative situations where the latter shell effects do indeed disappear, or in homogeneous fermionic systems such as electrons in solids [@Che05aB] or nucleons in a neutron star [@Uec88aB]. In finite fermion systems like clusters and molecules, they are thus bound to high excitation energies, which certainly strongly limits their range of application.
Another point is worth being mentioned here. In realistic calculations, and in spite of the semi-classical treatment, one wants to recover an acceptable description of ground state properties of the studied systems. Experience shows that in electronic systems, this is practically viable only in metal clusters such as sodium clusters [@Dom00a; @Fen04]. This again strongly restricts the range of applicability of such methods. In particular, it does not allow to attack such widely studied systems as C$_{60}$ in a fully realistic manner. Still, results obtained in simple metals are interesting and demonstrate the importance of this inclusion of collisional correlations. We will thus briefly present VUU and discuss some of these results here.
There are various ways of introducing VUU but in the case of finite fermionic systems, the simplest and probably best founded presentation is to recur to a semi-classical approximation on top of TDLDA. To perform such a semi-classical limit, we first recast the time-dependent KS (TDKS) equations in a matrix form, by introducing the one-body density matrix ${\hat \rho}_\mathrm{KS}$ associated to KS states, which reads in real space representation : $${\hat \rho}_\mathrm{KS}({\bf r},{\bf r}')
=
\sum_{i=1}^N \varphi_i^*({\bf r}') \, \varphi_i({\bf r}) \quad.
\label{eq:roks}$$ This one-body density matrix fulfills the TDKS equations which, in a matrix form, read : $$\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial {\hat \rho}_\mathrm{KS}}{\partial t}
=
[{\hat h}_\mathrm{KS},{\hat \rho}_\mathrm{KS}]
\quad,
\label{eq:rotdks}$$ with $\hat{h}_\mathrm{KS}$ given by Eq. (\[eq:hamKS\]). The semi-classical limit can then be attained by performing a Wigner transform (or, even better, an Husimi transform [@Hus40]) of Eqs. (\[eq:roks\]) and (\[eq:rotdks\]). This leads to the introduction of the phase space distribution $f({\bf r},{\bf p},t)$ which then fulfills, at lowest order in $\hbar$, the Vlasov equation : $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}
=
\{h_\mathrm{KS}({\bf r},{\bf p},t),f({\bf r},{\bf p},t)\} \quad,
\label{eq:vlasov}$$ where we have introduced Poisson brackets. At the LDA level, for which the xc functional is local in density, and for simple metals, for which the pseudopotential is local as well, the semi-classical KS hamiltonian takes the following simple form : $${h}_\mathrm{KS}({\bf r},{\bf p},t)
=
\frac{{\bf p}^2}{2m} + U_\mathrm{KS}[\rho] + V_\mathrm{coupl}({\bf r})
+ U_\mathrm{ext}({\bf r},t)
\quad,
\label{eq:schamKS}$$ where the local density is now obtained from momentum space integration of $f({\bf r},{\bf p},t)$: $$\rho({\bf r})
=
\int \frac{\textrm d{\bf p}}{(2\pi\hbar)^3} f({\bf r},{\bf p},t) \quad.
\label{eq:rovlasov}$$
The Vlasov(-LDA) equation can now be complemented by the effect of “two-body” collisions as usually done in kinetic theory. This leads to the Vlasov-Uehling-Ulhenbeck (VUU) equation : $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}
=
\{h_\mathrm{KS}({\bf r},{\bf p},t),f({\bf r},{\bf p},t)\}
+
I_\mathrm{UU}[{\bf r},{\bf p}]
\quad,
\label{eq:vuu}$$ obtained as the Vlasov-LDA equation complemented by a UU collision term : $$I_\mathrm{UU}[{\bf r},{\bf p}]
=
\int \textrm d\Omega \, \textrm d{\bf p}_1 \frac{|{\bf p}-{\bf p}_1|}{m}
\frac{\textrm d\sigma}{\textrm d\Omega}
\left[f_{\bf p'}f_{\bf p'_1}(1-{\tilde f}_{\bf p})(1-{\tilde f}_{\bf p_1})-
f_{\bf p}f_{\bf p_1}(1-{\tilde f}_{\bf p'})(1-{\tilde f}_{\bf p'_1})
\right]
\;.
\label{eq:UU}$$ which exhibits a local gain-loss balance for elastic electron scattering $({\bf p},{\bf p}_1) \leftrightarrow ({\bf p}',{\bf
p}'_1)$. The associated cross-section for electron-electron “two-body” collisions is $\textrm d \sigma/\textrm d\Omega$ and depends on the relative momentum $|{\bf p}-{\bf p}_1|$ and possibly on the scattering angle. We have furthermore used the shorthand notations ${\tilde f}_{\bf p}= 2\pi \hbar^3 f_{\bf p}/2$ and $f_{\bf p}= f({\bf
r},{\bf p},t)$, the collision term being local in space and time. To avoid a double counting with the mean field $h_\mathrm{KS}$ the differential cross-section can be evaluated with a screened Coulomb interaction following standard scattering theory [@Dom98b; @Dom00a; @Fen04; @Koe08].
The Vlasov and VUU equations are best solved using test particle methods rather than grid methods. Practically, this amounts to represent the phase space distribution $f({\bf r},{\bf p},t)$ by a swarm of numerical classical particles $\{({\bf r}_i,{\bf p}_i), i =1,
...\}$, each one with a given weight $\omega$ and following classical equations of motion with forces derived from the mean field hamiltonian $h_\mathrm{KS}({\bf r},{\bf p},t)$ [@Rei95a]. Finally, the coupling to classical ionic motion, similarly as in quantal TDLDA, is performed, leading altogether to a Vlasov/VUU-LDA-MD approach. The theory was introduced in cluster physics in the late 1990’s [@Dom98b] and further used since then [@Fen04], but, as already mentioned, only applied to simple metal clusters.
The analysis of Vlasov or VUU dynamics proceeds in a rather simple manner as the elementary degrees of freedom are classical test particles. The total ionization is directly given by the number of test particles ($\times \omega$) outside a large given box in which the Coulomb field is computed. It is equivalently obtained as the integral of the semi-classical density Eq. (\[eq:rovlasov\]) over this computational box. The latter density also enters the expression of the dipole moment (see Eq. (\[eq:dipole\]) in the next section) to provide an analysis of optical response. The distribution of kinetic energies and the angular distribution are directly extracted from the velocities of the “emitted” test particles. Note that the semi-classical nature of the approach makes the PES always exponentially decreasing, whatever the excitation, at variance with the quantum case which exhibits the electronic single particles energies. The quantum/classical comparison is then meaningful only at sufficiently large excitations for which the quantum PES is also exponentially decreasing with no more shell structure. The PAD, in turn, can be compared in a meaningful way whatever the excitation energy. For a detailed discussion, see Sec. \[sec:dissipe\].
Illustrative results {#sec:results}
====================
The coordinate-space and real-time technique to solve TDDFT as presented in Sec. \[sec:theo\] offers a powerful tool to describe a broad range of scenarios for the dynamics of clusters and molecules. We present in this section a few illustrative examples of such theoretical studies thereby concentrating on electron ionization and related observables. As a starter, Fig. \[fig:c60-vmi\_xuv\] shows a calculated combined PES/PAD (left column) for C$_{60}$, compared with an experimental one (right column).
![ Top : Combined PES/PAD of C$_{60}$ obtained at $\omega_{\rm las}=20$ eV given by (a) TDLDA-ADSIC calculations ($I=7.8\times 10^9$ W/cm$^2$ and duration of 60 fs,[ C$_{60}$ radius of 6.44 a$_0$)]{} and (b) experimental measurements using synchrotron radiation with duration of about 1 ps. Bottom : the corresponding velocity map image of (a) is presented in panel (c), and that of (b) in panel (d). []{data-label="fig:c60-vmi_xuv"}](c60-vmi_xuv){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The experimental spectrum was recorded at the Maxlab Synchrotron facility, using an oven to produce the C$_{60}$ molecular beam [@Epp97]. Experiments and calculations are both performed at a photon energy of 20 eV. The top panels present the angle- and energy-resolved distributions of photoelectrons for three selected energies close to the HOMO level in a way similar to Fig. \[fig:example\], while the bottom panels show the distribution in a polar representation called velocity map images (VMI), see introductory discussion in Sec. \[sec:PADetal\] and Fig. \[fig:exampl\_vmi\]. The upper panel shows nice agreement between experimental and theoretical results. The VMI in the lower panels also nicely agree for larger energies near the IP (outer part of the circle). But they differ in the low-energy region because it is filled with electrons from thermal emission not accounted for in TDDFT, see also Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\] later on. However, although the physical content of such VMI is very rich, one cannot easily read off a quantitative comparison from such a figure. Therefore, we will in the following sections preferably discuss integrated VMI : PES obtained by integrating over the angle, PAD obtained by integrating over the kinetic energy, and total ionization obtained by integrating over both, energy and angle.
As already mentioned in our first example in Sec. \[sec:observ\_theo\] and Fig. \[fig:example\], the peaks observed in a PES are fingerprints of the single particle (s.p.) energies of the electrons before they had been ejected by the photon. However, s.p. energies are usually not well described by LDA. It has to be complemented by a self-interaction correction (SIC) to attain realistic ionization potentials (IP) and thus ionization properties (see Sec. \[sec:sic\_theo\]). Before presenting detailed results on PAD and PES, we first illustrate in Sec. \[sec:sic\_stat\] the capabilities of SIC to properly describe ionization dynamics. We remind again that we describe the processes fully dynamically (see the methodology of Sec. \[sec:pes\]). This means, e.g., that discussing PES does not amount to a mere comparison of a computed static s.p. spectrum with a measured PES. Since our access to PES, PAD, and ionization is fully dynamical, it is thus applicable to any dynamical regime and free of any adjustable parameter. This is why having a proper IP is a crucial step in our dynamical description, especially at low energy where ionization occurs mostly close to threshold, whence the importance of a SIC. [Even when dealing with appropriate IP, a word of caution is to be added concerning the interpretation of PES as map of s.p. spectra. There are cases where one finds slight deviations for deep lying s.p. states. These can be understood as correction from final state interaction [@Mun06b]. They should be considered for a high precision analysis of data. We will ignore the effect in the more principle considerations of this section.]{}
This section is thus organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:sic\_results\], we will first demonstrate the impact of SIC on structural properties as single-electron energies and optical response. In Sec. \[sec:ioniz\], we will discuss ionization as a signal from laser-induced dynamics. Then, in Sec. \[sec:pes\_dyn\], we will address PES, and in Sec. \[sec:pad\_results\] PAD, both in the one-photon and in the multi-photon regime. [We finally discuss the impact of temperature, either ionic or electronic, on PES and PAD in Sec. \[sec:temper\].]{}
Impact of the self-interaction correction on electronic emission {#sec:sic_results}
----------------------------------------------------------------
As just mentioned, ionization properties are very sensitive to the s.p. energies, whence the importance of SIC. We will here demonstrate the impact of SIC on electronic properties, such as s.p. spectrum or optical response, and finally discuss a typical example of PES.
### Ionization potentials and single electron spectra {#sec:sic_stat}
Before starting a discussion of the ionization potential (IP), we have to specify that in more detail. For a system with $N$ electrons, the IP is defined by the difference $I_\mathrm{adia}=E(N-1)-E(N)$. This is, in fact, called the “adiabatic IP” if the final values of $E(N-1)$ is taken after waiting for full ionic rearrangement. However, this adiabatic IP is a rather involved observable as it mixes electronic and ionic properties. Much easier to handle and to interpret is the “vertical IP” $I_\Delta=E_\mathrm{fix}(N-1)-E(N)$ which is obtained from the energy $E_\mathrm{fix}$ of the ionized system while still maintaining the ions in their original configuration. This vertical IP is a purely electronic observable which renders it very instructive. In practice, induced ionization processes (laser pulse, ion collision) are so fast that the ionic configuration is almost inert during the emission process. This motivates the use of the vertical IP, henceforth called simply “the IP”.
As already discussed in Sec. \[sec:sic\_theo\], correct s.p. energies are strongly related to the correct asymptotic behavior of the KS potential, see the example of ${{\rm
K}_7}^-$ in Fig. \[fig:K7m-SIC\]. And as just explained above, the IP is defined as difference of two stationary energies. However, this definition is not well suited to dynamical calculations where one aims at tracking ionization “on the fly”. For then, it becomes crucial to fulfill Koopmans’ theorem [@Koo34] which states that the vertical IP should be identical with the s.p. energy of the last bound electron (HOMO level), i.e. $I_\varepsilon=-\varepsilon_\mathrm{HOMO}$. Koopmans’ theorem is violated in LDA and usually recovered when invoking SIC. This rules out LDA for a fully dynamical approach to ionization and calls for some SIC. It is thus crucial to test the performance of TDDFT in this respect. As discussed in section \[sec:sic\_theo\], we have basically a full SIC (practically implemented via the 2setSIC scheme [and simply denoted in the following by SIC]{}) and ADSIC at our disposal. ADSIC is orders of magnitude simpler than SIC and thus certainly worth being considered very seriously. As a first step, we shall thus check the capabilities of both approaches with respect to reproducing IP’s along the lines of a large systematic study in [@Klu13].
Fig. \[fig:sic\_molecules\] depicts the difference between the calculated IP and the experimental one, for a selection of molecules.
![Calculated ionization potentials (IP) of a selection of molecules with different bonding types for various level of SIC (see text for details). Top : difference $\Delta I_\varepsilon=I_\varepsilon-I_\mathrm{exp}$ of the IP $I_\varepsilon$ deduced from the energy of the HOMO with the experimental (vertical) IP $I_\mathrm{exp}$. Middle : difference $\Delta
I_\Delta= I_\Delta-I_\mathrm{exp}$ for the IP $I_\Delta$ calculated as the difference of binding energies. Lower : non-Koopmans’ error $I_\Delta-I_\varepsilon$. Adapted from [@Klu13]. \[fig:sic\_molecules\] ](IP_molecules_errors_LDA){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Both ways are used for the calculations : from the HOMO level as $-\varepsilon_\mathrm{HOMO}$ (upper panel, open symbols) or from the difference of binding energies $I_\Delta$ (middle panel and filled symbols). The upper panel shows that, as expected, LDA performs badly when one considers the IP $I_\epsilon$ from the energy of the HOMO. SIC and even more so ADSIC come much closer to the experimental IP. The middle panel compares the IP $I_\Delta$ from energy differences. Here we see better agreement for all three methods, demonstrating that the $I_\Delta$ is the more robust definition. To emphasize the discrepancy between both estimates of IP’s, we plot their difference in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:sic\_molecules\]. Vanishing difference signifies fulfillment of Koopmans’ theorem. LDA produces large errors while SIC and ADSIC do well. It is a bit of a surprise that the simpler ADSIC often performs better than the more elaborate SIC. By construction, ADSIC is a priori well suited to systems with metallic binding [@Leg02]. It was nevertheless soon realized that it also performs well in covalent systems [@Cio05]. The very systematic study of [@Klu13] led to the unexpected result that for an enormous range of atoms, molecules, carbon chains, and fullerenes ADSIC leads very often to smaller non-Koopmans errors than SIC. It was also shown that, when comparing theoretical IP’s to experimental ones, again ADSIC was providing the best results for a huge range of molecules. That however does not mean that ADSIC is the ultimate solution to the self-interaction problem. We have already mentioned its intrinsic limitations (essentially due to the fact that the functional explicitly depends on the number of electrons) in Sec. \[sec:sic\_theo\] and we should add here that the scaling properties of ADSIC with increasing system size are also raising some problems [@Klu13]. Furthermore, there are a few specific cases which raise difficulties. These are molecules where very different types of bonding coexist, such as covalent and metallic bonding. The point is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:nah2o\_sic\] which presents the s.p. energies of the two complexes NaH$_2$O and Na(H$_2$O)$_2$, calculated in LDA, ADSIC and SIC. The right part of the figure complements the picture by showing the corresponding non-Koopmans errors.
Not surprisingly the water molecule with one prevailing bonding type is well described in ADSIC, while SIC yields a small but somewhat larger non-Koopmans’ error. The situation becomes different in the mixed complexes Na(H$_2$O)$_n$, where both ADSIC and LDA exhibit similarly large errors (although with opposite signs), while the Koopmans’ theorem is perfectly fulfilled in SIC. Thus ADSIC should not be used for Na(H$_{2}$O)$_{n}$. This may not be a total surprise if one reminds that ADSIC applies the same correction to every orbital while, in such a mix of bonding types, one encounters both highly delocalized metallic orbitals and much more localized covalent orbitals. As visible in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:nah2o\_sic\], the HOMO in NaH$_{2}$O at 5.14 eV arises from the Na atom whereas the deeper orbitals mostly come from the H$_{2}$O molecule, which has an IP of 12.6 eV (see Fig. \[fig:systems\]). The electronic density of the HOMO is thus clearly different from that of the other orbitals, so that self-interaction for different electronic states becomes very different. The example of a metal-covalent complex shows that ADSIC is not a safe fire solution to the self-interaction problem. It is likely to fail whenever the s.p. states cover grossly different regions of space. This also occurs in the fragmentation of a molecule and in processes with high ionization. Nonetheless, ADSIC provides very often a remarkably accurate and simple approximation to SIC. It is always worthchecking whether a given problem allows one to employ ADSIC. In the following examples, we will often recur to ADSIC.
### Optical response {#sec:sic_optresp}
One of the most prominent observables of electronic dynamics is the optical response measured in terms of the photo-absorption strength. It gives insight into the spectrum of dipole transitions and provides useful information on the collective modes and the particle-hole excitations of the system. Note that the word “optical” is generic in the sense that it covers also the spectrum outside the optical range of frequencies. Consider, for instance, covalent systems where the dominant peaks rather lie in the UV domain. Here, we want to explore the impact of SIC on the optical response.
The optical response can be calculated in various ways. It is often evaluated by computing the response function directly in linearized TDLDA. Having a fully fledged TDLDA code at hand, it is technically and conceptually simpler to employ spectral analysis for that purpose [@Cal95a; @Yab96; @Cal97b]. To that end, we initialize the electronic dynamics by applying an instantaneous dipole boost to the electronic wave functions. We then record the time-dependent dipole momentum : $$\label{eq:dipole}
\mathcal{D}(t)
=
\int \textrm{d}^3 \mathbf r\,
(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}_\mathrm{cm,ion})\,\rho(\mathbf{r},t) \quad,$$ where $\mathbf{R}_\mathrm{cm,ion}$ denotes the center of mass of the ions. The dipole strength $S_D(\omega)$ is obtained by Fourier transforming $\mathcal{D}(t)\longrightarrow\tilde{\mathcal{D}}(\omega)$ yielding finally $S_D(\omega)\propto\Im\{\tilde{\mathcal{D}}(\omega)\}$. [One can alternatively look at the power spectrum $|\tilde{\mathcal D}(\omega)|^2$ which basically contains the same information as the dipole strength.]{}
[We already presented in the bottom right part of Fig. \[fig:systems\] the optical response calculated in ADSIC of H$_2$O in the three spatial directions.]{} Fig. \[fig:sic\_optresp\] now displays the power strength averaged over the three spatial directions, and compares the calculations done in LDA with those in ADSIC.
![Optical response of H$_2$O calculated in LDA (bottom) and ADSIC (top). The dashes indicate the ionization potential (IP) calculated as the opposite of the HOMO energy. The vertical full lines stand for the possible static dipole transitions. \[fig:sic\_optresp\] ](h2o_optresp_sic2){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Each photo-absorption spectrum is complemented by the sequence of one-particle-one-hole ($1ph$) states with dipole character calculated from the static s.p. energies of occupied and empty states. First, we notice that the distribution of $1ph$ states in LDA is very different to that in ADSIC. This reflects the different s.p. spectra of LDA and ADSIC. ADSIC tends to localize the wave functions more than LDA which results in a more compact electron cloud (associated to a larger IP) and a wider span of dipole transitions. It is also interesting to note that most LDA dipole transitions lie in the continuum (IP$\simeq
9.1$ eV). In spite of these large differences in $1ph$ spectra, the dipole spectra look very similar. The reason is that the recoupling of the pure $1ph$ states to the true excited states is dominated by the Coulomb Hartree term [@Rei92a; @Rei96c] which is the same in LDA and SIC. This defines the overall position of dominant dipole strength which is more or less robust. The underlying $1ph$ structure has an impact on the detailed fragmentation pattern which can depend more sensitively on the level of SIC treatment. The payoff between Coulomb interaction and $1ph$ structure depends, of course, on the system. Metal clusters have the pronounced Mie plasmon mode which is dominated by the Coulomb interaction, thus very robust against SIC. On the other hand, systems with fuzzy dipole spectra are more critical. The example H$_2$O is somehow in between.
### SIC-revisited photoelectron spectra {#sec:sic_dyn}
Since the early days of DFT, the interpretation of Kohn-Sham (KS) orbitals has been a matter of debate. A direct comparison of experimental PES spectra to s.p. spectra or even better so to our dynamically computed PES (see Sec. \[sec:pes\]) is an a posteriori proof of the meaning to be given to KS s.p. energies, following the basic multiphoton ionization (MPI) relation (\[eq:ekin1\]). The point is rather easy to accept at the LDA or ADSIC level to the extent that the KS hamiltonian ${\hat h}_{\rm KS}$ (see Eq.(\[eq:hamKS\])) is well defined and common to all KS orbitals. The situation is more involved in the case of SIC where the KS hamiltonian (\[eq:SICmf\]) becomes state-dependent. The "2setSIC” solution scheme (\[eq:SICmf\]–\[eq:SICeqs\]) allows, nonetheless, to define unambiguously s.p. energies. It is thus interesting to see how SIC performs for computing PES, to see to which extent the SIC s.p. energies have a similar meaning as in LDA or ADSIC. Rather than making a comparison to experiment, which will not test the internal capabilities of the theory, it is here more interesting to check the evolution of the PES peaks within varying the laser frequency and see whether they follow the MPI rule (\[eq:ekin1\]). This would give an indication on their possible interpretation. The point is illustrated for the case of the planar metal cluster Na$_5$. Two different laser pulses have been used with frequencies 8.16 and 10.9 eV. The laser intensities have been adjusted in each case to obtain about the same low total ionization around 0.006, thus well in the perturbative regime where PES signals are not yet blurred by Coulomb shift (see Secs. \[sec:pes\_I\] and [\[sec:TRPES\]]{}). The laser polarization is taken normal to the cluster’s plane. Fig. \[fig:sic\_pes\] displays both PES.
![Photoelectron spectra for Na$_5$ (ionic configuration in the inset) irradiated by two different laser pulses with pulse duration of 60 fs, intensity $I$ and frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ as indicated, and polarized along the direction normal to the Na$_5$ plane. The static Kohn-Sham orbital energies, shifted by $n\omega_\mathrm{las}$ where $\nu$ is the number of involved photons, see Eq. (\[eq:ekin1\]), are also indicated as vertical dashed lines in both cases. Adapted from [@Vin13]. \[fig:sic\_pes\] ](na5-pes_sic){width="0.7\linewidth"}
For a given laser frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}$, one clearly observes copies of the same pattern which are separated by $\omega_\mathrm{las}$. Each pattern exhibits peaks which are positioned at values of the kinetic energy $E_\mathrm{kin}$ following the standard MPI relation Eq.(\[eq:ekin1\]), i.e. $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{kin},j}=\varepsilon_j+\nu\,\hbar\omega_\mathrm{las}$. The $\varepsilon_j$ entering this equation are the eigenvalues of the stationary equation $h_\mathrm{SIC} |\varphi_j\rangle = \varepsilon_j
|\varphi_j\rangle$, see Eq. (\[eq:SICeqs\]), while $\nu$ corresponds to the number of photons involved. The remarkable fact that the peaks of the PES, obtained from the calculation of a time propagation of the 2 sets $\{\varphi_j\}$ and $\{\psi_\alpha\}$, coincide with the static $\varepsilon_j$ validates the interpretation (and the definition) of these energies as sound s.p. energies. This also supports the identification of the $\varphi_j$’s as the physical wave functions of the associated s.p. states whose characteristics are measurable via the PES.
Using ionization as an observable {#sec:ioniz}
---------------------------------
In this section, we discuss basic mechanisms in the laser irradiation of an electronic system leading to significant electronic emission and their analysis in terms of total ionization as an observable. For moderate laser intensities, a major issue is the relation of the laser frequency with the optical response peaks, especially collective ones. We will present here two generic scenarios for this resonance effect. We will first explore laser irradiation of a water molecule demonstrating off- and on-resonant ionization. In Sec. \[sec:P&P\_ion\], we will take advantage of resonant enhancement of ionization to explore the ionic dynamics via the use of a pump-and-probe (P&P) setup. In Sec. \[sec:P&P\_ele\], we will finally consider again a P&P setup, but this time within using a train of attosecond pulses.
### Off- and on-resonant ionization {#sec:basic_ioniz}
As already discussed in Sec. \[sec:lasers\], the great versatility of lasers through the choice of frequency, intensity, pulse duration and shape, offers experimentalists and theoreticians a world of dynamical scenarios. To gather orientation in this huge landscape of options, we first explore the impact of laser frequency. To that end, we consider the dynamics of laser excitation of a H$_2$O molecule, [with techniques similar to those used in [@Ndo10]]{}. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\].
![Resonant and off-resonant irradiation of H$_2$O by laser pulses polarized along the symmetry axis of H$_2$O, denoted by $y$, and of various intensities ($I_1=10^{12}$, $I_2=I_3=10^{11}$, $I_4=10^{9}$ W/cm$^2$) and various frequencies ($\omega_1=12.5$, $\omega_2=13.6$, $\omega_3=15.5$, $\omega_4=16.5$ eV). Calculations had been done with ADSIC and pseudopotentials to leave core electrons inert. Top : time evolution of the electronic dipole in $y$ direction. Bottom : time evolution of the total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$. Inset : optical strength of H$_2$O in $y$ direction with horizontal energy axis in eV. The vertical full lines indicate the chosen laser frequencies, and the dotted one corresponds to the IP, here at 15.1 eV. []{data-label="fig:h2o_irrad"}](h2o_onoff){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The duration of the laser pulses is in all cases 20 fs. Four frequencies have been explored, namely $\omega_1=12.5$, $\omega_2=13.6$, $\omega_3=15.5$ and $\omega_4=16.5$ eV. The corresponding intensities are $I_1=10^{12}$, $I_2=I_3=10^{11}$ and $I_4=10^{9}$ W/cm$^2$ to keep the maximal dipole amplitude similar. The laser polarization is along the symmetry axis of the water molecule, denoted here by $y$.
Let us start with $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$. Both frequencies are below the IP of H$_2$O (15.1 eV). The optical response of H$_2$O in $y$ direction is shown in the inset in the bottom panel : $\omega_2$ lies on a double peak and, as we will see, corresponds to a resonant frequency, whereas $\omega_1$ does not match any dipole transition and is thus off-resonant. The top panel of Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\] shows the time evolution of the electronic dipoles. As expected [@Cal00], the red curve for the off-resonant $\omega_\mathrm{las}=\omega_1$ nicely follows the laser pulse profile and dies out with the laser signal at 20 fs. The total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ shown in the bottom panel (red line) stays very close to zero for this low frequency case. [The resonant $\omega_{\rm
las}=\omega_2$ proceeds differently :]{} [During the first 15 fs, the dipole signal (light green curve in top panel) still follows the laser profile, but then continues to oscillate with large amplitude]{} long after the laser pulse is switched off. Such [resonant oscillations come along with]{} a larger deposit of energy in the molecule and [thus stronger ionization]{}. This is clearly demonstrated in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\], where $N_\mathrm{esc}$ (green line) steadily increases with visible steps perfectly correlated to the maxima in the dipole oscillations. The total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ in the resonant case is orders of magnitude larger than in the off-resonant one, although the laser intensity in the resonant case is 10 times smaller. This can be understood in terms of the Keldysh parameter (\[eq:Keldysh\]) which is, in both cases, much larger than 1. This indicates that we are in the frequency-dominated regime where such differences matter, see Sec. \[sec:las\_charac\].
[[ Note also the initial profile of the ionization is determined by the laser pulse such that the maximum slope coincides with the laser peak amplitude. But this profile is delayed by the time it takes for the escaping electrons to reach the box bounds. The final non-vanishing slope is related to the non-vanishing dipole oscillations. ]{}]{}
The next two cases consider an off-resonant frequency ($\omega_3$) and a resonant one ($\omega_4$), now both above the IP. For the sake of clarity, the corresponding dipole signals are not displayed. They show again the same typical pattern of resonant (long standing after-oscillations) and off-resonant (signal dies out with the laser) response. We only show the associated total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\] (black thick line for $\omega_3$ and blue thin line for $\omega_4$). The off-resonant case increases with a slope following the amplitude of the dipole oscillations and levels off to a plateau after the laser pulse is over. The case $\omega_3$ yields much higher ionization than the case $\omega_1$, even if its intensity $I_3$ is an order of magnitude smaller than $I_1$. This happens because $\omega_3$ stays above the IP and can ionize directly with one-photon processes. Finally we compare the two resonant cases $\omega_2<$IP with $\omega_4>$IP. Although $I_2/I_4=100$, both $N_{\rm esc}$ are very similar. Two effects cooperate here : [*i)*]{} $\omega_4>$IP and [*ii)*]{} the strength of the mode excited at $\omega_4$ is at least 3 times stronger than that at $\omega_2$. This demonstrates, once again, the importance of the laser frequency in relation to the optical spectrum in order to drive large ionization.
The point is again illustrated, this time in a more systematic manner, in Fig. \[fig:nesc\_om\] which displays the dependence on laser frequency of the total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ of irradiated C$_{60}$ (left) and ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ (right).
The figure is a continuation to the pedagogical Fig. \[fig:ioniz\_plasmon\] discussed in Sec. \[sec:mecha\], this time for two more complex systems though. For C$_{60}$, with the chosen laser parameters ($I = 7.8\times
10^9$ W/cm$^2$ and $\omega_\mathrm{las}=$14–28 eV), we are again in the frequency-dominated regime. The ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$ (light green curve) exhibits strong oscillations with $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ which match remarkably well the optical response of C$_{60}$ (black dashed line). This shows that the signal of photoemission $N_\mathrm{esc}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$ is close to the signal of photo-absorption, at least above the emission threshold.
The situation is similar in ${\mathrm{Na}_{41}}^+$ at the lowest laser intensity (light green curve in right panel) where $N_\mathrm{esc}$ exhibits strong oscillations with $\omega_\mathrm{las}$, once again fitting fairly well those of the optical spectrum. However, if the laser intensity is increased, we progressively leave the frequency-dominated regime to enter the field- (intensity-)dominated domain (see Sec. \[sec:las\_charac\]). And indeed, the fragmented structure of $N_{\rm esc}$ steadily broadens to be finally washed out at the highest intensity (see top black curve). At the same time, the values of $N_\mathrm{esc}$ for a given $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ also increase, since there are more and more photons pulling on the valence electrons of the cluster.
### Pump and probe (P&P) analysis of ionic dynamics {#sec:P&P_ion}
The emergence of fs lasers allowed the development of time-resolved studies of molecular reactions through pump-and-probe (P&P) experiments. The typical strategy of such a fs spectroscopy is simple. An initial short laser pulse (pump) excites the electronic system which leads to subsequent ionic motion. This motion in turn changes the electronic response according to the actual ionic configuration. This change is explored by the response (e.g., ionization) of the system to a second laser pulse, the probe, sent after a certain time delay. Scanning the reaction strength as a function of delay time allows one to map the time evolution of the molecular system. There are, of course, many variants of this generic strategy according to the variety of molecules and flexibility of laser pulses. Altogether, fs spectroscopy has become an extremely powerful analyzing tool in physics and chemistry, for early reviews, see [@Zew94; @Gar95].
Of course, P&P analysis is also an extremely interesting tool in cluster physics. Very small clusters allow scenarios very similar to those in simple molecules, see e.g. experiments on trimers [@Lei99; @Hei00] and associated theory [@Har98b]. Larger clusters are too complex for the very subtle and detailed pathways followed in small molecules. One better looks for global properties of the ionic background as, e.g., radius or deformation, and one needs prominent signal in the dense electronic spectrum. Metal clusters are distinguished by the dominant Mie surface plasmon resonance [@Kre93], whose peak frequency is predominantly determined by cluster radius and deformation. Thus there are many P&P studies on metal clusters, either free, deposited on a surface, or embedded in a substrate, see e.g. Sec. 5.3.4 of [@Rei03a].
As P&P experiments on clusters are rather demanding, early studies achieved a comparable, although coarser, effect by varying the temporal width of a single laser pulse. For an early example on Pt clusters, see [@Koe99]. We exemplify this type of analysis here for the case of Ag clusters embedded in a He droplet for better handling [@Doe07a].
![Yields for selected Ag$^{q+}$ ions after irradiation of a Ag cluster with a laser pulse of wavelength 800 nm, drawn as a function of the width $\tau$ of the the laser pulse. For the shortest pulse of 130 fs, the peak intensity is $I_0 = 1.2 \times 10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$. For other $\tau$, the fluence $\propto \tau\,I_0$ has been kept constant. The data are normalized for better comparison, and the fit curves serve as a guide to the eye. From [@Doe07a]. \[fig:pulse\_length2\] ](ion_agN){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The clusters are irradiated with laser pulses of fluence $\tau\, I_0=156$ Wfs/cm$^2$ (where $\tau$ is the pulse width and $I_0$ the peak intensity). This strong pulse leads to a disintegration of clusters producing all sorts of fragments and highly ionized Ag atoms. The charge state $q$ of the emerging Ag$^{q+}$ ions is an indicator for the violence of the reaction and thus for the strength of the laser-cluster coupling. Fig. \[fig:pulse\_length2\] shows the ion yield as a function of pulse width. All ionization stages $q$ show a strong dependence on $\tau$ with a distinct maximum for a certain $\tau$. This optimum pulse width, which was already observed in [@Koe99], results from an interplay of (ongoing) laser pulse, ionic expansion, and plasmon frequency. The IR laser pulse first triggers ionization. The Coulomb pressure thus generated leads to a slow expansion of the cluster. And the plasmon frequency (originally in the visible range) decreases with increasing radius, until the laser comes into resonance with the plasmon with subsequently strong energy absorption and violent reaction. If the laser pulse is too short, it is over before resonant conditions are reached. If it is too long, it becomes too weak (remind the constant fluence thus implying decreasing intensity with increasing pulse duration) to trigger sufficient expansion. Such a maximum is seen in Fig. \[fig:pulse\_length2\] for each charge state, however at different delay times $\tau$. The interpretation given in [@Doe07a], furthermore, addresses a subtle point in laser experiments. The laser intensity is not constant over the spatial width of the beam. It decreases when going away from the focus. Thus clusters outside the focus receive a weaker signal than those right in the focus of the beam. It is assumed that these lower charge states are related to lower intensities out of focus. Therefore, the experiment so to say produces at once results for different laser fluences.
The rather involved P&P analysis is easier for clusters in/on a substrate because this allows a higher density of reactive centers. Therefore, most P&P studies on clusters are performed in/on substrate. The typical setup is that of a chromophore in an inert substrate. The latter thus serves mainly as a support for the cluster. The principles and the richness of P&P analysis remain unaffected by the inert substrate. There is a couple of measurements of an electronic property, the electronic relaxation time, for clusters on surfaces in a variety of material combinations [@Kle97; @Kle99; @Mer00]. More typical for P&P analysis is the study of ionic oscillations which has been performed, e.g., for Ag clusters embedded in glass matrix [@Per00a; @Sei00]. A much more gentle support is provided by liquid He clusters, which were already used as useful laboratory for studying molecular properties under well controlled conditions [@Sti01]. The He environment couples such softly to any other material that one can consider the embedded system as being practically free. There are then several instructive P&P experiments of Ag clusters in He droplets, e.g. [@Doe05b; @Doe05a] (called “dual pulse” experiments in these publications). A detailed description of the large scale dynamics of Ag clusters is very expensive. Theoretical investigations are thus often performed for Na clusters as practicable model systems for metal clusters [@And02; @And04; @Doe05a].
The dominance of the Mie plasmon peak in metal clusters allows a particular P&P strategy which does not rely on directly hitting the resonance but uses just the distance of the Mie plasmon frequency to the laser frequency to map the underlying ionic dynamics. This strategy has been studied in detail for the global breathing (radius oscillations) of Na clusters in [@And02] and for the dynamics of cluster deformation in [@And04]. We illustrate the scheme here for the case of breathing. Fig. \[fig:na41p-PP\] shows the result of a theoretical exploration for the cluster ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ using TDLDA for electronic dynamics coupled to molecular dynamics for the ionic motion [@Cal98d; @Cal00; @Rei03a].
![ Pump and probe spectroscopy of ionic breathing vibrations of ${\mathrm{Na}_{41}}^+$ using the Mie plasmon resonance as indicator. Panel (a): time evolution of the ionic r.m.s. radius, $\sqrt{\sum_I {\bf R}_I^2}$, after the pump pulse. Panel (b): time evolution of the Mie plasmon frequency after the pump pulse. The laser frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}=2.2\,\mathrm{eV}$ is indicated as horizontal dashed line for comparison. Panel (c): maximum amplitude of the dipole response to the probe pulse as a function of time delay. Panel (d): additional ionization $\Delta N_\mathrm{esc}$ induced by the probe pulses as a function of time delay. Pump and probe pulses have the same properties: photon frequency $\omega_{\rm las}=2.2\,\mathrm{eV}$, intensity $I=1.1\!\times\!10^{12}$ $\,\mathrm{W/cm}^2$, and a sin$^2$ shape with FWHM$=24\,\mathrm{fs}$. The pump laser produces very quickly an initial emission of $N_\mathrm{esc}=3$ electrons, thus [delivering a total]{} charge state $q=4^+$. After [@And02]. \[fig:na41p-PP\] ](na41p-PP2){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The cluster ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ is nearly spherical. The pump pulse ionizes it quickly to charge state ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^{4+}$. This produces a Coulomb pressure which triggers slow breathing oscillations of the whole cluster, while deformation is negligible along the whole dynamics. The radius oscillations after the mere pump pulse are shown in panel (a) of the figure. The Mie plasmon resonance depends on charge state and cluster radius. An estimate is shown in panel (b). One sees the fast initial blue-shift due to the fast initial ionization to $q=4^+$. After that, one finds oscillations which perfectly follow the radius oscillations according to $\omega(t)\propto R(t)^{-3/2}$ [@Rei96c]. The laser frequency for the probe pulse is also indicated. It was chosen safely below the Mie resonance such that the actual Mie frequencies never cross. The electronic response to the probe pulse is small if the Mie frequency is far from the laser, and large if it comes close. This can be seen in panel (c) from the maximum amplitude of the dipole signal during the probe pulse. The strong dipole response leads to further ionization shown as additional number of escaped electrons $\Delta N_\mathrm{esc}$ in panel (d). It is, of course strongly correlated with the dipole amplitude. Tracing the chain of correlations back to panel (d), we can conclude that the extra ionization directly maps the global ionic radius using the scheme with the remote laser frequency as an “observer”. Net ionization thus provides a direct (time resolved) analysis of ionic motion, in that case dominated, on the rather short times considered, by radial oscillations. The actual long term evolution of the system is, in fact, Coulomb explosion. The interesting aspect is that the long path to explosion is accompanied by monopole (radial) oscillations which are directly visible in the ionization signal (actually via the plasmon peak).
Almost all P&P studies on clusters have used the ionization yield as an observable. One expects that one could learn more from more detailed observables, particularly from time-resolved PES and PAD. Such experiments are, of course, much more complex and still more demanding than the, already intricate, traditional P&P measurements. Nonetheless, first studies in that direction have been published [@Fen07; @Pas12a] so far in the regime of hefty excitations. The field is widely open for further studies in more moderate excitation regimes.
All the P&P studies, including the above example, show that the ionization yield can depend sensitively on the choice of the laser pulse characteristics. As the temporal profile and all other laser parameters can be tuned in an extremely flexible manner, the question naturally arises whether one could tune laser pulses for maximum yield (or other desired reaction properties). This is the idea of ”optimal control” which is of particular importance in chemistry and molecular physics, see e.g. [@Dam02; @Kou05a]. Again, the application to large clusters is more involved and allows more strategies to be tracked. An interesting study using optimal control, e.g., to trigger the yield of highly charged Ag atoms from Ag clusters can, nevertheless, be found in [@Tru10a].
While addressing promising future developments of P&P studies, we ought to mention the upcoming availability of attosecond pulses. These allow P&P studies which resolve features of electronic dynamics. We will discuss that in the next section \[sec:P&P\_ele\].
### Towards P&P experiments with attosecond pulses {#sec:P&P_ele}
Electron dynamics can also be analyzed at its own pace if one is able to handle pulses much shorter than typical electronic time scales in the fs regime. This is nowadays experimentally accessible down to some hundreds of attoseconds, at least in the form of a train of attosecond pulses. This yields access to details of electronic dynamics subject to electromagnetic perturbations. Early convincing tests were performed in simple atoms such as He and Ar [@Joh07] on the basis of a P&P setup involving a UV atto-train on top of an IR field. It was shown that the total ionization may exhibit marked oscillations as a function of the delay between UV train and IR signals, once the repetition rate of seven attopulses per train is chosen to be half the IR period. The analysis of these experiments was supported by simple simulations using the Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation (TDSE) with a single active electron. The TDSE also served as a basis for further theoretical investigations, either directly [@Ton10a; @Ton10b; @Mur13] or in perturbation theory [@Riv09]. These approaches gave convincing clues on the origin of the modulation of the ionization but so far, no robust many-electron theory is available to explain the observations.
More recently, experiments were generalized to simple molecules with qualitatively similar results as in the atomic case, although with a slightly different combination of IR and UV pulses [@San10; @Kel11; @Siu11]. The first fully microscopic calculations were performed on this occasion and led to results remarkably compatible with experiments [@Nei13]. The actual interpretation of the underlying mechanism is nevertheless, again, to be understood in more detail. Still, the remarkable agreement between theory and experiments is worth being presented and discussed in one test case.
We consider here the N$_2$ molecule as a test case [@Nei13]. The laser pulse consists in an IR component : $$V_{\rm IR}(t) = E_{\rm IR} f_{\Delta T}(t) \sin(\omega_{\rm IR} t) \quad,
\label{eq:ir}$$ with a frequency $\omega_{\rm IR}=1.58$ eV and with a sin$^2$ pulse profile $f_{\Delta T}$ of FWHM$=\Delta T/2 \simeq 29$ fs (see Eq.(\[eq:cos2\])). At the same time is superimposed a train of $n$ attopulses, each of them labeled by $i$, which reads :
\[eq:atto\] $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\rm atto} (t)
&=&
\sum_{i=1}^n E_{\rm atto}(\tilde{t}) \, f_{\delta t}(\tilde{t}-t_i)
\sin\left[\omega_{\rm UV}(\tilde{t}-t_i) \right] \, e^{-4\tilde{t}^2/\Delta T^2}
\;,
\\
t_i
&=&
\Delta t +(i-1) [\delta t + \delta t']
\;,
\\
\tilde{t}
&=&
t- \Delta t
\;,\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta t \simeq 0.29$ fs is the actual duration of each individual attopulse, and $\delta t'$ the time separation between two successive attopulses. The attopulse train (APT) is delayed by a variable delay $\Delta t$ with respect to the IR pulse (starting at t=0). Both the IR pulse and the APT are linearly polarized. The individual attopulse shape is again a sin$^2$ profile (see Eq. (\[eq:cos2\])) of FWHM$=\delta t/2$. A key point of the setup is to fix the time interval between two successive attosecond signals. We choose here $\delta t +
\delta t' = T_{IR}/2 \simeq 1.30 fs$, which is exactly half the IR period. The amplitude of the APT is further modulated by a Gaussian envelop of width such that the total APT duration is about half (29 fs) the total duration of the IR pulse. This fixes the number $n$ of attopulses which is, in this case, 22. The peak intensity of the IR pulse is chosen to be $I_{\rm IR} = 10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$, while that of the attopulses is, at maximum of the Gaussian envelope, $I_{\rm atto,0} = 10^{10}$ W/cm$^2$. Finally, the frequency of the APT lies in the UV domain, $\omega_{\rm UV} = 20.4$ eV, so that each individual attopulse contains about 1.5 UV oscillation. The laser parameters are such that the pure IR pulse does not lead to ionization, while a pure UV train does lead to some ionization through one-photon processes because the IP of N$_2$ is around 16.3 eV $< \omega_{\rm UV}$. The remarkable result of the experiments is that combining the IR and the attopulses leads to a significant enhancement of ionization (while it only adds 1.58 eV on top of the UV photons already above the continuum). Moreover, this enhanced ionization is strongly modulated by the delay $\Delta
t$. Ionization actually exhibits marked oscillations as a function of delay with a period equal to half the IR period. Maxima of oscillations are attained for delays such that the attopulses are in phase with maxima or minima of the IR pulse, which explains the doubled frequency of ionization maxima as compared to the IR frequency.
The case is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:atto\_n2\] where we have plotted the total ionization, the average kinetic energy of emitted electrons and the anisotropy $\beta_2$ characterizing the PAD (see Eq. (\[eq:anisotropy\]) and Sec. \[sec:pad\_results\]).
![N$_2$ ionization properties irradiated by an IR pump and an attopulse train (see text for details) as a function of delay time between attopulse train and IR pulse. Bottom : total ionization. Middle : average kinetic energy per emitted electron, see Eq. (\[eq:avekin1\]). Top : anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$, see Eq. (\[eq:anisotropy\]). The faint dashed lines indicate the sequence of maxima and minima regularly separated by half the IR period. [Adapted from [@Nei13].]{} \[fig:atto\_n2\] ](correl_ang){width="0.7\linewidth"}
As one UV photon suffices for ionization, $\beta_2$ provides a complete characterization of the PAD. The average kinetic energy is defined as $$\langle E_{\rm kin}\rangle
=
\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \int \textrm d \mathbf r \, \frac{{\bf j}^2({\bf r})}{\rho({\bf r})} \,
\left[ 1-{\cal M}^2({\bf r}) \right] \quad,
\label{eq:avekin1}$$ where [$m$ is the electron mass]{}, ${\bf j}({\bf r})$ is the local current, $\rho({\bf r})$ the local density and ${\cal M}({\bf r})$ the mask function used to evaluate emitted electrons (see Eq. (\[eq:mask\])). It provides a simple measure of the PES in terms of one number. All three signals in Fig. \[fig:atto\_n2\] display remarkable oscillations as a function of delay time $\Delta t$ with a period equal to half the IR period. Both $\langle E_{\rm kin}\rangle$ and $\beta_2$ oscillate in phase and in opposite phase with the total ionization respectively. Indeed, if the deposited energy content is about the same, the higher the ionization, the lower their average kinetic energy. And not surprisingly, the more energetic the emitted electrons, the more aligned the emission along the laser polarization axis and the larger the $\beta_2$. These oscillations of the total ionization perfectly match those observed experimentally. A comparison with PES and PAD has to wait until these quantities are experimentally available.
We finally end this discussion by mentioning recent experimental P&P dynamics which use XUV pulses for both the pump and the probe. This is at variance with the example discussed above, where the pump is an IR pulse and the XUV probe is constructed from some of its high order harmonics using the so-called RABITT (Reconstruction of Attosecond Beating by Interference of Two-photon Transitions) technique [@Pau01; @Mul02]. To distinguish the two kinds of P&P, one sometimes quotes them as IR-pump-XUV-probe and XUV-pump-XUV-probe experiments respectively. One type of setup uses a coherent splitting of a XUV light produced by a FEL. For instance, this technique has been successfully applied to small molecules as N$_2$ and O$_2$ [@Mag12], or C$_2$H$_2$ [@Jia13]. In these latter examples, the XUV frequency is 38 eV, the photon intensity between $10^{11}$ and $10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, and the XUV pulse duration of 30 fs. The delay time resolution is 1 fs, and the whole delay time can vary over the $\pm 350$ fs range. The advantage of using XUV light for the pump and the probe is to ionize the species under study by absorption of a few photons, at variance with an IR pulse. Therefore, this P&P setup can follow the induced Coulomb explosion at a time scale of a few fs. Very recently, some experiments went even further by taking advantage of high harmonic generation from an IR pulse irradiating an atomic gas jet : the produced XUV attopulses are then separated from the IR pulse, filtered to keep only one pulse which is at the end split into two coherent XUV as pulses. This brand new technology has been applied in the irradiation of Xe atoms [@Tza11] and the H$_2$ dimer [@Car14]. The XUV intensities are about $10^{13-14}$ W/cm$^2$, their duration about 600 as, their frequency is 14 eV, and the delay time is well below 1 fs. Such an experimental apparatus thus enables to track the Coulomb explosion dynamics over the whole reaction path and on a time scale never attained before. In both XUV-XUV P&P experiments, fragment or ion yields are measured as a function of delay time. To the best of our knowledge, no electronic observable has been measured so far. There are also very few real-time calculations of such a dynamics [@Car14; @Pal14]. They employ a time-dependent Schrödinger equation of the full electronic and nuclear wave function (note however that only vibronic modes – no rotational mode – are considered in these calculations). For light atoms as those in H$_2$, a quantal description of the nuclei is probably compulsory. The necessity of such a fully quantal treatment is more questionable for heavier atoms, as in N$_2$. Anyway, the computational cost of such calculations becoming too prohibitive for larger covalent systems, this probably calls for a classical treatment of the ions, even if H$^+$ nuclei come into play.
Dynamical aspects in photoelectron spectra {#sec:pes_dyn}
------------------------------------------
We have discussed above how (static) s.p. spectra can be extracted from the peaks observed in PES using Eq. (\[eq:ekin1\]), see for instance Fig. \[fig:sic\_pes\]. This identification can be worked out by perturbation theory and requires a laser with moderate intensity and high frequency resolution. True dynamical processes exploit more of the versatility of lasers. The aim of this section is thus to discuss the impact of the laser parameters frequency, intensity, and pulse duration on PES, and find out how dynamical aspects can be analyzed through PES.
### Impact of pulse duration {#sec:pes_fwhm}
Any laser pulse of finite duration delivers a distribution of frequencies about its mean frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}$. The longer the pulse, the sharper this distribution. One can evaluate the width of this distribution by calculating $\sigma_\mathrm{las} = \int_0^\infty
(\omega-\omega_\mathrm{las})^2 \, | \tilde{I}(\omega) | \, \textrm
d\omega$ where $\tilde{I}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of the time-dependent laser intensity $I(t)$. As an illustration, we give in the following table some widths related to pulse duration at $\omega_\mathrm{las}=20$ eV[@WopPhD].
$T_\mathrm{pulse}$ (fs) 10 30 60 75 200 1000
---------------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------
$\sigma_\mathrm{las}$ (eV) 0.44 0.16 0.083 0.068 0.027 0.0058
: Width of frequency distribution for different laser pulse durations, around a mean value of $\omega_\mathrm{las}=20$ eV.
\[tab:sigma\_las\]
One consequence of the finite frequency width of the laser pulse is that a PES (in the perturbative regime) does not display a sharp spike exactly at $E_\mathrm{kin}=\varepsilon_i + n\omega_\mathrm{las}$, but a more or less soft peak around this $E_\mathrm{kin}$. Finite pulse duration thus produces a broadening of the PES peaks, the larger the shorter the pulse. To exemplify this effect, Fig. \[fig:na2\_fwhm\] displays PES of Na$_2$ irradiated by laser pulses of intensity $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$, frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}=6.8$ eV, and a couple of different pulse durations from 50 to 400 fs.
![Photoelectron spectra of Na$_2$ after irradiation by laser pulses of indicated characteristics. Some PES have been up-shifted for the sake of clarity.[]{data-label="fig:na2_fwhm"}](na2-pes-fwhm){width="0.65\linewidth"}
We clearly observe an increasing resolution of the PES peaks with increasing pulse duration. This holds as long as the intensity of the laser pulse remains sufficiently low. Higher intensities can blur this picture because ongoing ionization induces a drift of the peaks due to a Coulomb shift of the levels. This will be addressed in [Secs. \[sec:pes\_I\] and \[sec:TRPES\]]{}.
### Impact of laser polarization {#sec:polariz}
In section \[sec:PADetal\], we have seen that a combined PES/PAD, that is an energy- and angle-resolved photoelectron spectrum, can deliver a lot of information on the dynamics of the photoemission. In the perturbative regime, it reveals the angular distribution for emission from specific s.p. states. A simplified view can be obtained by restricting the analysis to two specific directions : one parallel to the laser polarization axis ($\theta=0,180^\circ$) and one perpendicular to it ($\theta=90^\circ,270^\circ$). The point is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:na7m-pes\_para\_perp\] where calculated parallel and perpendicular PES of ${{\rm Na}_7}^-$ are plotted.
![Photoelectron spectra of ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$ for a given orientation, irradiated by a laser with parameters as indicated. Black full curve: PES along the laser polarization axis. Red dashes: PES in the direction perpendicular to it. Calculations were done in cylindrical approximation for the electronic potentials.[]{data-label="fig:na7m-pes_para_perp"}](na7m-pes_para_perp){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The sodium cluster has a fixed orientation here (orientation averaging will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:pad\_results\]). The calculated s.p. energies are $\varepsilon_1=-2.82$ eV, $\varepsilon_2 = -1.72$ eV, and a pair of almost degenerate $\varepsilon_{3,4} = -1.43$ eV. As in the case of Na$_5$ (see Fig. \[fig:sic\_pes\]), the peaks of the PES perfectly fulfill the relation $E_\mathrm{kin}=\varepsilon_i+\nu
\omega_\mathrm{las}$ with $\nu=1,2$. The first group of peaks between 1 and 3 eV corresponds to $\nu=1$. States 1 and 2 predominantly emit along the laser polarization axis, while states 3 and 4 show a clear preference of emission in perpendicular direction. The 2-photon process (between 5 and 7 eV) suppresses even more strongly the perpendicular direction, and thus the parallel photoemission dominates. This indicates a general feature of multiphoton emission : the higher the photon number $\nu$, the larger the anisotropy $\beta_2$ corresponding to an increasing dominance of emission parallel to the laser polarization axis.
### Impact of laser frequency {#sec:mono&multi}
The estimate (\[eq:ekin1\]), i.e. $E_\mathrm{kin}=\varepsilon_i + \nu\omega_\mathrm{las}$, of PES peaks establishes correctly the relation between peaks at $E_\mathrm{kin}$ and corresponding s.p. energies $\varepsilon_i$. However, it does not tell anything about the strength with which the peaks appear. And here, we can have dramatic differences between one-photon processes and multiphoton ones. As an illustration, we show in Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\] ionization pattern of C$_{60}$ in the one-photon (left panels) and in the multi-photon (right panels) regimes [@Bar14].
![Top : Theoretical and experimental photoelectron spectra of C$_{60}$ [with radius of 6.763 a$_0$ and orientation averaging]{}. Bottom : Calculated single particle depletion (blue full lines) compared with static occupation numbers (green dots). Left : one-photon regime ($\omega_\mathrm{las}=20$ eV), laser pulse length of 60 fs and intensity of $7.8\times 10^9$ W/cm$^2$ (theory) or a synchrotron irradiation of duration of about 1 ps. Right : multi-photon regime with $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.55$ eV, laser pulse length of 60 fs and intensity of $1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, both in theory and experiment. In the bottom left panel, the single particle depletions are multiplied by 100 for a better comparison. Adapted from [@Bar14].[]{data-label="fig:pes-deple_c60"}](pes-deple_c60_xuv "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"} ![Top : Theoretical and experimental photoelectron spectra of C$_{60}$ [with radius of 6.763 a$_0$ and orientation averaging]{}. Bottom : Calculated single particle depletion (blue full lines) compared with static occupation numbers (green dots). Left : one-photon regime ($\omega_\mathrm{las}=20$ eV), laser pulse length of 60 fs and intensity of $7.8\times 10^9$ W/cm$^2$ (theory) or a synchrotron irradiation of duration of about 1 ps. Right : multi-photon regime with $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.55$ eV, laser pulse length of 60 fs and intensity of $1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, both in theory and experiment. In the bottom left panel, the single particle depletions are multiplied by 100 for a better comparison. Adapted from [@Bar14].[]{data-label="fig:pes-deple_c60"}](pes-deple_c60_ati "fig:"){width="0.5\linewidth"}
[Orientation averaging presented in Sec. \[sec:orientaver\] has been applied in the theoretical calculations, to allow a comparison with experimental measurements.]{} The upper panels compare theoretical and experimental PES, and the lower panels show as complementing information the depletion (blue full lines) and the occupancy (green dotted lines) of the corresponding s.p. levels. [The one-photon case was already presented in Fig. \[fig:c60-vmi\_xuv\] which compares theoretical and experimental combined PES/PAD and VMI.]{} The laser pulse in this case experimentally stems from synchrotron radiation at 20 eV with a pulse duration of about 1 ps. Theoretical calculations were done for the same frequency, intensity $I=7.8\times
10^9$ W/cm$^2$, but shorter pulse $T_\mathrm{pulse}=60$ fs for practical reasons. In the one-photon regime ($\omega_\mathrm{las}
\gg$ IP), we do not expect that the pulse duration is essential. Calculations yield a total ionization of about 0.006. In the multi-photon case, the theoretical parameters are chosen as in the experiment, that is $T_\mathrm{pulse}=60$ fs, $I=7.8\times
10^9$ W/cm$^2$, and $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.55$ eV. Here, the calculated total ionization is about 0.07. Comparing both cases (one- and multi-photon), PES and depletion pattern are completely different. The one-photon case also shows a marked difference between experiment and theory. This has to be discussed in detail.
The bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\] display the s.p. levels (with occupation weight) and their depletion. For $\omega_\mathrm{las}=20$ eV (lower left panel), all states can emit by a one-photon process. And indeed, we observe that most states contribute to the total ionization. As expected, the theoretical PES resembles the s.p. depletion pattern very much [@Din12].
We now turn to the multi-photon case (right panels of Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\]). With the laser frequency chosen here, at least 6 photons are needed to bring electrons from the HOMO into the continuum. Since the probability of ejection decreases with the number of photons required, only the least bound states can be significantly depleted. And this is what is observed in the right bottom panel : the states which emit the most are the HOMO, HOMO$-1$ and HOMO$-3$, precisely separated by about $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.55$ eV. Therefore, we cannot expect that the PES maps the whole s.p. energy spectrum. Indeed, the theoretical PES exhibits oscillations consisting in a broad peak repeated several times, separated by $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ from one copy to the other. These oscillations constitute the typical multiphoton ionization (MPI) pattern (see Sec. \[sec:mecha\]). Each one of these MPI peaks is rather well bundled due to the fact that the few emitting states line up rather well with the photon frequency.
In both cases (one- and multi-photon), the experimental PES differ from the theoretical ones. The difference looks particularly large for the one-photon case (upper left panel). Here, the PES are still fairly comparable at higher energies (7–13 eV). While theoretical calculations were done at the ground state configuration (zero temperature), the experimental peaks are broadened due to ionic vibrations of C$_{60}$ which are rather large at the experimental temperature of 900 K. A huge discrepancy between theory and experiment is observed at low electron kinetic energy. The experimental PES grows almost an order of magnitude above the theoretical one. We think that these low-energy electrons stem from electron-electron collisions which hinder part of the electrons from being directly emitted, but rather lead to auto-ionization mechanisms or thermal electron emission. Such dynamical electron-electron correlations are not included in TDLDA. So we are missing here most of the low-energy electrons. This could be cured with theories beyond TDLDA which will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:dissipe\]. For the time being, the comparison between experiment and theory is relevant only for the highest photoelectron energies dominated by direct electron emission. And there, the agreement is very satisfying.
A difference between experimental and theoretical PES is also seen in the multi-photon regime (upper right panel). We first note a shift between the position of the theoretical peaks and that of the experimental ones. This might be due to a slight uncertainty in the determination of the experimental intensity and/or pulse duration, which can then produce a different ionization stage. And we will see that this can cause a sizeable (Coulomb) redshift, see Secs. \[sec:pes\_I\] and \[sec:TRPES\] below. Moreover, the amplitude of oscillations of PES decreases with increasing kinetic energy in the measurements, while it remains more or less constant in the theoretical calculations. Once again, the dynamical correlations, which are missing in the theory, are most probably the mechanism responsible for the damping of the oscillations in the experimental data.
### Impact of laser intensity {#sec:pes_I}
A couple of [experimental]{} PES had already been shown in Fig. \[fig:campbell1\] for the case of C$_{60}$ irradiated by laser pulses of various intensities. The results seemed to be all in the same regime marked by smooth, exponentially decreasing PES throughout. Another example was just given above in Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\] where the top right panel shows typical MPI pattern of repeated peaks which have at least an exponentially decreasing envelope. For a more systematic survey, we now discuss computed PES for two different clusters. As a first example, we discuss a set of PES of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ (see left panel of Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\]) obtained with the same laser frequency (3.8 eV) and pulse duration (300 fs) but with varying intensities (from bottom to top) starting from $I_0=10^9$ W/cm$^2$ and up to $300\, I_0$.
![Calculated photoelectron spectra for various intensities. Left : case of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ irradiated by laser pulses of duration of 300 fs, frequency of 3.8 eV, and $I_0=10^9$ W/cm$^2$ [(calculations done with CAPS)]{}. Right : case of C$_{60}$ [(calculated in full 3D with radius of 6.44 a$_0$ and with orientation averaging)]{} irradiated by laser pulses of duration of 75 fs, frequency of 1.5 eV, and $I_1=1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$. The inset zooms in the 10–14 eV range with the 13-photon ionization of the HOMO and the 14-photon one of the HOMO$-1$.[]{data-label="fig:pes_I"}](na41p_pes_I "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Calculated photoelectron spectra for various intensities. Left : case of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ irradiated by laser pulses of duration of 300 fs, frequency of 3.8 eV, and $I_0=10^9$ W/cm$^2$ [(calculations done with CAPS)]{}. Right : case of C$_{60}$ [(calculated in full 3D with radius of 6.44 a$_0$ and with orientation averaging)]{} irradiated by laser pulses of duration of 75 fs, frequency of 1.5 eV, and $I_1=1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$. The inset zooms in the 10–14 eV range with the 13-photon ionization of the HOMO and the 14-photon one of the HOMO$-1$.[]{data-label="fig:pes_I"}](c60-pes_ati "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
The chosen frequency of 3.8 eV is basically off-resonant, as the dominant plasmon response of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ lies in the spectral range between 2.5 and 3.1 eV. Since the IP of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ is 5.3 eV, the first peaks at low kinetic energies in Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\] stem from two-photon processes. The pulse duration is 300 fs to allow a high spectral resolution of the PES peaks, as is observed in the lowest PES (black curve). The laser intensity is also small enough to stay in the perturbative regime, since the total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ is 0.004 in this case. When the laser intensity is increased by a factor 30 (light green curve), one can spot a slight broadening of the peaks, although the PES still shows clear signatures of the underlying s.p. spectrum. The broadening develops to the side of lower kinetic energies, in total yielding a weak red-shift of the peaks. It is to be noted that the total ionization amounts to $N_\mathrm{esc}=0.1$ now. This ionization enhances the Coulomb binding in the course of the electron emission which, in turn, leads to a down-shift of the s.p. energies, called henceforth “Coulomb shift” [@Poh00] : electrons which are emitted later in the process see a deeper binding and thus escape with lower kinetic energy. [A time-resolved PES would allow one to observe more clearly how the Coulomb shift builds in the course of time. This will be discussed in more detail in Sec. \[sec:TRPES\] and Fig. \[fig:na8\_trpes\].]{} Note also the appearance of multi-photon peaks with this larger intensity. Two-photon processes grow $\propto I^2$ and so the absorption of more photons becomes more probable.
At the next stage, $I=100\,I_0$, the PES is already smeared to broad steps. Here, $N_\mathrm{esc}=0.54$ and the Coulomb shift significantly blurs the PES. But still, we can distinguish blocks of one-, two-, and three-photon processes. Finally, the highest intensity of $I=300\,I_0$ produces an ionization of $N_\mathrm{esc}=4.1$ and the PES are fully smoothed to an exponential decrease with almost no structure left, resembling a “thermal” PES. But an exponential PES alone is not a sufficient indicator of thermalization. More information contained in PAD can help in that respect, as was briefly mentioned in Sec. \[sec:PADetal\]. We will address this point in detail in Secs. \[sec:pad\_results\] and particularly \[sec:dissipe\].
We finally discuss the case of PES in a highly multi-photon regime, shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\]. The studied system is here C$_{60}$ and the laser has a pulse duration of 75 fs and a frequency of 1.5 eV. Five laser intensities $I$ have been considered : $I_0=1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$, $1.2\,I_0$, $1.4\,I_0$, $1.92\,I_0$, and $2.4\,I_0$. The total ionization of course increases with $I$ : $N_\mathrm{esc}=0.03$, 0.06, 0.12, 0.31, and 0.60. With the chosen frequency, we need at least 6 photons to extract electrons (the IP is here 8 eV). At the lowest intensities, we clearly observe the typical MPI patterns of repeated copies of the peak. The peaks are gradually red-shifted when we increase the laser intensity which is, again, the Coulomb shift. Moreover, the red-shift increases with laser intensity due to increasing ionization and finally washes out all structures at the highest $I$. The disappearance of the MPI peaks is illustrated in the inset zooming into the 13-photon ionization of the HOMO and the 14-photon ionization of the HOMO$-1$. The net conclusions from that case are the same as those from ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$. But here, it becomes even more obvious that the envelope of MPI follows in any regime an exponential decrease. Taking this together with the smoothing due to high ionization delivers then the purely exponential profile resembling thermal emission.
### More on the role of plasmon
#### Competition between laser and plasmon frequencies {#sec:las_vs_plasm}
Thus far, we have discussed PES emerging from the interplay between s.p. energies and the pulse frequency. This simple view has to be modified in the vicinity of strong excitation modes of the system. In particular, the dominant Mie surface plasmon in metal clusters can also have a large impact on the PES. To illustrate this point, we discuss the irradiation of ${{\rm Na}_9}^+$ by laser pulses with duration of 48 fs, intensity of $10^9$ W/cm$^2$, and six different laser frequencies $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ in the vicinity of the Mie plasmon frequency of ${{\rm Na}_9}^+$, $\omega_\mathrm{pl}=2.7$ eV. The resulting PES are depicted in Fig. \[fig:na9p-pes-plasm\].
![Photoelectron spectra in the energy range of the 4-photon process (red vertical dots at $\varepsilon_{1s} +4
\omega_\mathrm{las}$) of the $1s$ state of ${\mathrm{Na}_9}^+$, after irradiation by laser pulses with duration of 48 fs, intensity of $10^9$ W/cm$^2$, and six different frequencies $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ as indicated. The blue solid vertical line indicates the the 4-plasmon process located at $\varepsilon_{1s} + 4
\omega_\mathrm{pl}$, with $\omega_\mathrm{pl}=2.7$ eV. Adapted from [@Poh01].[]{data-label="fig:na9p-pes-plasm"}](na9p-pes-plasm){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The peak of the pure four-photon process, located at $\varepsilon_{1s}
+4 \omega_{\rm las}$, is indicated for each laser frequency by vertical dots. The position of this peak moves to the blue with increasing $\omega_\mathrm{las}$. Additionally, one observes a peak whose position does not depend on the laser frequency, indicated by the solid vertical line. Its position matches the energy of a 4-plasmon process, i.e. $\varepsilon_{1s} +4 \omega_\mathrm{pl}$. When $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ is sufficiently separated from $\omega_\mathrm{pl}$ (see the two lowest and the two uppermost curves), one can easily disentangle the four-photon process from the four-plasmon one. The four-plasmon peak actually dominates the PES in most of the cases, a further indication of the already discussed resonant ionization mechanism (see Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\] and \[fig:nesc\_om\] in Sec. \[sec:basic\_ioniz\]). In most cases, one can even conceive a coexistence of plasmon and photon excitations. For instance, the uppermost curve shows three prominent peaks, that is the four-plasmon peak, the four-photon peak, and in between a two-plasmon–two-photon peak. For reasons not yet well understood, we cannot find significant signals of a mix of one-plasmon–three-photon or three-plasmon–one-photon processes.
#### Towards time-resolved PES {#sec:TRPES}
The above example dealt with the excitation of a resonance mode through a close, although not exactly matching, laser frequency. Resonant modes may also be excited by laser pulse whose frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ is far away from the resonance, but where a multiple of $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ coincides with the mode. Such a situation should also [leave]{} traces in the PES. We exemplify that for the case of Na$_8$ irradiated by a laser polarized along the symmetry axis of the cluster, denoted by $z$, a pulse duration of 120 fs, a frequency of 1.1 eV and an intensity of $3.1\times 10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$. The Na$_8$ cluster consists in two squares parallel to a plane (denoted by $x$ and $y$) and which are twisted by $45^\circ$ around the $z$ axis. It possesses three states of energies $\varepsilon_{1s}=-5.75$ eV, $\varepsilon_{1p_{xy}}=-4.5$ eV and $\varepsilon_{1p_z}=-4.2$ eV. The optical response is dominated by the Mie plasmon at 2.5 eV. But there are also further strong peaks [[ in the optical response]{}]{}, especially one located at $\omega_{\rm sat}=3.2$ eV. With $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.1$ eV, the laser pulse is clearly off-resonant. One thus expects a time evolution of the electronic dipole in phase with the laser pulse, as it was the case in the off-resonant irradiation of a water molecule, see Fig. \[fig:h2o\_irrad\]. This is indeed the case during almost the whole pulse duration, as is visible in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:na8\_trpes\].
![Electronic dynamics of Na$_8$ after irradiation by a laser with polarization along $z$, duration of 120 fs, frequency of $\omega_\mathrm{las}=1.1$ eV and intensity of $3.1\times
10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$ [(calculations with pseudopotentials and in full 3D)]{}. Left : Time evolution of electronic dipole along the symmetry axis of Na$_8$, denoted by $z$, and of ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$. The horizontal bars emphasize time spans dominated by the indicated frequencies, that is by $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ below 90 fs and by a satellite frequency $\omega_\mathrm{sat}=3.2$ eV. Right : corresponding PES evaluated in different time windows : during the first 120 fs (green or light curve), after 120 fs (blue or dark curve), and for the full time span (black curve). The various PES have been augmented with scale factors to separate them in the plot. The vertical lines indicate the $1s$, the degenerate $1p_{xy}$ and the $1p_z$ energies shifted by multiples of $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ (lower lines) or of $\omega_\mathrm{sat}$ (upper lines). All single electron energies have been down-shifted by 0.18 eV to account for the Coulomb shift due to the total ionization of 0.06 at the end of the simulation time. Adapted from [@Wop13].[]{data-label="fig:na8_trpes"}](na8_trpes){width="\linewidth"}
A higher frequency however appears from 100 fs on, precisely at $\omega_\mathrm{sat}$. It persists even after 120 fs when the laser is switched off, since sizable oscillations remain at this higher frequency. One should moreover notice that $\omega_\mathrm{sat}\simeq{3}\, \omega_\mathrm{las}$, which indicates that absorption of three photons from the laser pulse triggers this excitation. It is a typical example for higher harmonic generation. The persistence of dipole oscillations provokes a continuous electronic emission. Thus the total ionization $N_{\rm
esc}$, also plotted in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:na8\_trpes\] as a red curve, does not level off after 120 fs but rather increases with a constant slope, reaching the value of 0.06 at the end of the simulation time.
It is interesting to observe how the PES builds up in time in such a case. To this end, we plot in the right panel of the PES calculated for the full time span, and compare it to that calculated for the first 120 fs (green lower curve) and that after 120 fs (blue upper curve). One observes a slight down-shift of the peaks from the early to the late time windows. This provides a time-resolved illustration of the Coulomb shift (discussed in Sec. \[sec:pes\_I\]). Due to the final $N_{\rm esc}=0.06$, an average Coulomb shift of the s.p. energies of $\delta\epsilon=-0.18$ eV emerges. Hence the latter energies, indicated by vertical lines, have been shifted by $\delta\epsilon=-0.18$ eV to achieve a better matching with the PES peaks. The full PES (black middle curve) shows patterns repeated with equal spacing which are, at first glance, MPI peaks, as seen before for C$_{60}$ (see right panel of Fig. \[fig:pes-deple\_c60\]). The first peak near zero kinetic energy is related to a four-photon process emitting out of the $1p_z$ state. Most of the peaks in this full PES can be identified with $E_\mathrm{kin}=\varepsilon_i+\nu \omega_\mathrm{las}$, as indicated by the bottom vertical lines. There are, however, further peaks not explained in terms of photon frequency. To disentangle the peaks, we have also evaluated the PES in two time windows, an early one during the laser pulse, i.e. 0-120 fs, and a late one after the pulse is over. The PES for the early window (lower green curve) is fully explained by MPI with the laser frequency. The PES from the late window (upper blue curve) shows sharp peaks which can be identified as multi-resonance peaks located at $\varepsilon_i+\mu\omega_\mathrm{sat}$, with $\mu=2,3$ (we have also applied here the same red-shift $\delta\epsilon$). No MPI peak from the laser shows up in the late window. Note also that the multi-resonance peaks already slightly develop during the laser pulse (see vertical lines from above).
In this example, we have thus demonstrated that a dynamical competition between various frequencies, here that from the laser pulse and that from a higher resonance matching the third harmonics of the laser, can provide mixed mappings of the PES and can thus give rise to a complex structure of the PES. A time-resolved PES analysis can be a way to disentangle the different contributions. To that end, even a coarse time resolution [as performed here]{} may be sufficient.
Photoelectron angular distributions (PAD): a sensitive tool {#sec:pad_results}
-----------------------------------------------------------
This section is devoted to PAD. We are using free clusters as examples. Thus we consider orientation averaged PAD throughout, see Sec. \[sec:orientaver\]. Remind that these can be expanded in terms of Legendre polynomials $P_{2k}(\cos\theta)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:anisotropy\]). The expansion parameters $\beta_{2k}$ carry all information about the orientation averaged PAD. The largest non-vanishing $\beta_{2\nu}$ is related to the number $\nu$ of photons involved in the process. The most important parameter is the anisotropy $\beta_{2}$ which is also the only relevant parameter for one-photon processes. Therefore, $\beta_{2}$ will play a key role in the following presentations.
### One-photon regime {#sec:pad_mono}
#### Stationary state picture and Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula
The study of PAD has a long standing history, especially in atoms. Early works by Bethe [@Bet33aB] and Cooper and Zare [@Coo68a; @Coo68b] are still routinely used in today’s cluster literature [@Bar09; @Mau09]. The Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula delivers a compact expression for the evaluation of $\beta_2$ in spherical potentials. At variance with our standard way of evaluating PAD (see Sec. \[sec:pad\]), it provides a stationary state picture which thus requires evaluation of both bound [*and*]{} continuum electronic states to describe initial and final electronic states. By construction, it does not include possible electronic rearrangement effects following electronic emission, as was demonstrated in [@Wop13]. This limits the applicability to cases where electronic rearrangement (through Coulomb residual interaction) can be neglected. Furthermore, being developed for atomic physics, the Bethe-Cooper-Zare is strictly limited to spherical external potentials. Nonetheless, it may be useful as zeroth order estimate and reference.
The Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula was first derived [*in first-order perturbation theory*]{} for one-electron atoms in [@Bet33aB]. But it can also be applied to many-electron systems in an independent-state picture where the many-body wave function is a simple anti-symmetrized product of s.p. orbitals [@Coo68a; @Coo68b]. For a given electronic level $i$, the total cross-section $\sigma^{(i)}$ for emission and its anisotropy $\beta_2^{(i)}$ are given by [@Coo69; @Buc70]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{(i)} &= \frac{(4\pi)^2\mathcal{N}}{3}\cdot\frac{L\mathcal{R}_-^2+(L+1)\mathcal{R}_+^2}{(2L+1)}\:, \label{eq:bczyield} \\
\beta_2^{(i)} &= \frac{L(L\!-\!1)\mathcal{R}_-^2+(L\!+\!1)(L\!+\!2)\mathcal{R}_+^2-6L(L\!+\!1)\mathcal{R}_-\mathcal{R}_+\cos\Delta}
{(2L+1)[L\mathcal{R}_-^2+(L+1)\mathcal{R}_+^2]}\:, \label{eq:bczbeta}
\intertext{with}
\mathcal{R}_\pm &= \int_0^\infty \textrm dr\,r^3 R_{L\pm 1}^{(f)}(r)R_L^{(i)}(r)\quad\text{and}\quad\Delta=\Delta_{L+1}-\Delta_{L-1}\:, \label{eq:bczrpm}\\
\mathcal{N} &= \frac{4\pi^2e^2\omega_\mathrm{las}}{\hbar c}\:.\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the angular momentum of the initial state. Once given the (spherical) potential, the radial wave functions of bound state $R_L^{(i)}$ and continuum state $R_{L\pm 1}^{(f)}$ can be calculated by solving the associated radial Schrödinger equation. The phases $\Delta_{L\pm 1}$ entering the continuum states can be obtained in a standard manner from the asymptotic behavior of the outgoing wave $R_{l}^{(f)}$ [@Sch68aB].
Note that in the particular case of a spherical wave function ($L=0$), the Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula exactly delivers $\beta_2^{(s)}=2$ (maximum possible value of $\beta_2$ in the one-photon domain). In this case, the angular distribution of $s$ states is not influenced by the radial form of the outgoing wave, so that the potential does not affect the angular distribution; it only impacts the cross-section .
In spite (or maybe because) of its simple compact form, the Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula has thus to be taken with a grain of caution in realistic cases, because of its strong dependence on the shape of bound and unbound electronic wave functions (see Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\] below). Furthermore, it remains a stationary state picture thus well inside the perturbative regime, when applicable (spherical potential). Its range of application is thus limited.
#### On the sensitivity of $\beta_2$ to model assumptions {#sec:modelassum}
There are several approximations around in the description of clusters and molecules. The above mentioned Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula for instance forces spherical symmetry and neglects electronic rearrangement. Fully dynamical calculations often employ reduced symmetries as, e.g., in CAPS or by using a jellium model for the ionic background. Many of these approximations are validated for describing spectra and global emission properties. However, PAD is very sensitive [to this kind of theoretical details]{}, and one has to check carefully the impact of approximations.
We test the sensitivity for the simplest case of one-photon processes which are fully characterized by the anisotropy $\beta_2$. To have a systematic test, we study variations of $\beta_2$ as a function of laser frequency. We take as a test case Na$_8$ and consider $\beta_2^{(1p)}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$, that is, the anisotropy parameter for emission out of the $1p$ state [@Wop12]. To explore the impact of dynamical rearrangement effects in the PAD, the left panel of Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\] compares results of a fully dynamical TDLDA-ADSIC calculation (full blue line) with the result of the Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula [or, alternatively, with]{} a TDLDA calculation in which the electrons are propagated in the frozen ground-state Kohn-Sham potential (dashed red line).
![Anisotropy parameters $\beta_2^{(i)}$ of single particle states $i$ in Na$_8$, as a function of laser frequency $\omega_\mathrm{las}$. Left : $\beta_2$ of the $1p$ shell in Na$_8$ described by a spherical jellium ionic background (Wigner-Seitz radius $r_s = 3.65$ a$_0$, surface thickness $\sigma = 1$ a$_0$), calculated in TDLDA-ADSIC (full blue line), and in [a Bethe-Cooper-Zare approach, see Eq. (\[eq:bczbeta\])]{} (pink dotted curve). For the $1s$ level, $\beta_2^{(1s)}=2$ at any $\omega_\mathrm{las}$. Right : $\beta_2$ of the $1s$, $1p_{x,y}$, and $1p_z$ shells in Na$_8$ described by explicit ions and pseudopotentials, and averaged over six orientations. For a better comparison, $\beta_2^{(1p)}$ from the jellium calculation is superimposed. Adapted from [@Wop12].[]{data-label="fig:na8-beta2_om"}](na8-beta2_om){width="\linewidth"}
[Note that the result of the Bethe-Cooper-Zare formula is basically identical to a dynamical calculation with the KS potential kept fixed at its static form and driven at very low laser intensity to stay safely in the one-photon regime.]{} The laser pulse duration is of 60 fs and its intensity is scaled with the frequency ($I =
10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$ $\times \omega_\mathrm{las}$) to keep the total ionization in the range between $10^{-4}$ and 0.1, and thus to stay in a perturbative regime. The laser frequency is varied between 4.1 and 29 eV, so that only one photon is needed to promote the electron from the $1p$ state into the continuum ($\varepsilon_{1p} =-4.08$ eV). The ionic background of Na$_8$ is treated by a spherical jellium (Wigner-Seitz radius $r_s = 3.65$ a$_0$, surface thickness $\sigma =
1$ a$_0$) which provides exactly the atomic situation for which the Bethe-Cooper-Zare was developed. Remind that $\beta_2^{(1p)}$ can vary between $-1$ and 2 for the one-photon processes considered here. Within both approaches, $\beta_2^{(1p)}$ is close to 2 for most frequencies. That means that the photoelectrons are mostly emitted along the polarization axis of the laser. There are however frequencies $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ at which we find pronounced dips down to negative values. Qualitatively, the pattern of the two cases are similar. However, the deep dips in $\beta_2^{(1p)}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$ occur at very different places. This shows that dynamical effects, as the interaction of the photoelectrons with the residual cluster, strongly impact the PAD. A purely perturbative formula is therefore dangerous for molecules which develop remarked rearrangement effects, as e.g. metal clusters.
Moreover, the anisotropy parameter is very sensitive to the ionic background itself. This is demonstrated in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\] where the jellium results are compared to calculations with explicit ions and pseudopotentials (see Sec. \[sec:ions\]). The jellium model was tuned such that both models for the ionic background provide about the same IP (4.08 eV for the jellium and 4.28 eV for the pseudopotentials). The spherical jellium delivers two occupied states, a $1s$ states with two occupancies and a degenerate $1p$ state holding six electrons. The non-spherical ionic structure breaks the degeneracy into a $1p_z$ state and two still degenerated $1p_{xy}$ states, and delivers a $1s$ which is not perfectly spherical anymore. To extract a sound $\beta_2$ from the PAD, we apply orientation averaging with the six reference orientations appropriate for one-photon processes (see Sec. \[sec:orientaver\]). The $\beta_2$ of these three states exhibit only faint dependence on $\omega_\mathrm{las}$, and stay close to 1.7. The jellium model, on the contrary, systematically delivers higher values of $\beta_2$, with the exception of a few marked dips. It seems that the marked structures from the highly symmetric jellium model are averaged out to a nearly constant anisotropy. This can be explained by the rescattering of the photoelectrons on the ionic structure before leaving the cluster.
#### More on the dependence of $\beta_2$ on laser frequency
The results discussed in Sec. \[sec:modelassum\] suggest that the ionic structure washes out strong variations in the frequency dependence of the anisotropy. We will address here two exceptions from this general observation.
As a first example, we consider ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$ for which experimental PAD exist [@Bar08]. We should mention that this case is numerically extremely demanding, because of the negative charge and subsequently low IP (1.43 eV). We had to use a huge numerical box ($160^3$ mesh points and an overall box length of 280 $a_0$). The left panel of Fig. \[fig:na7m-beta2\] compares the calculated anisotropy for emission out of the group of $1p$ states, $\beta_2^{(1p)}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$, with the experimental data.
![Top right : comparison of calculated $\beta_2^{(1p)}$ of ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$ with a jellium background and an explicit ionic one, after irradiation by a laser with $I=10^9$ W/cm$^2$ and $T_\mathrm{pulse}=60$ fs. Bottom right : experimental PES of ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$ irradiated by a laser of intensity $<10^5$ W/cm$^2$ and duration of about 10 ns [@Bar08]. Left : Experimental (open symbols, [@Bar08]) and theoretical (full curve, [@Wop10a]) anisotropy parameter of the $1p$ states of ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$, as a function of laser frequency. $1p_\alpha$, $1p_\beta$ and $1p_\gamma$ correspond to state assignments of peaks observed in the experimental PES (bottom right).[]{data-label="fig:na7m-beta2"}](na7m-beta2-pes){width="0.9\linewidth"}
All laser frequencies shown in the figure correspond to emission from the $1p$ states in the one-photon regime. The experimental data show three curves. These are associated with the three sub-peaks of the $1p$ states found in the experimental PES, see lower right panel. The theoretical calculations did not disentangle these sub-peaks and show the $\beta_2^{(1p)}$ from the PAD averaged over the whole $1p$ group. The theoretical and (averaged) experimental curves nicely agree with each other. For higher frequencies, we see again the smooth trend as was already observed in the example of Na$_8$ in Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\]. The data stay systematically a bit below the theoretical $\beta_2^{(1p)}$. This is probably due to electronic collisions not accounted for in TDLDA. The great surprise is the deep dip at low frequencies which is not an artifact because it is also clearly seen in the experimental results. It is due to a very special situation for this loosely bound anion. Indeed, we are near threshold, and the electron cloud is thus emitted with near zero momentum. The KS potential seen by the escaping electron is extremely shallow and the outgoing electronic wave function has an extremely long wavelength throughout. Thus it cannot resolve the ionic structure and the rescattering mechanism which wipes out the dips (see discussion of Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\]) becomes obsolete. This is demonstrated in the upper right panel of Fig. \[fig:na7m-beta2\] where we compare $\beta_2^{(1p)}(\omega_\mathrm{las})$ for jellium and explicit ionic background over a larger frequency span. As in the case of Na$_8$, the jellium model produces values near 2 and a pronounced dip around 11 eV, while ionic structure delivers a generally smoother curve with a maximum around 1.5. But both, jellium and ionic background, deliver the same deep dip towards threshold. This confirms nicely that the extremely long wavelength of the outgoing electron state reduces the spatial resolution such that the soft jellium and detailed ions cannot be distinguished anymore. This is also the reason why an older calculation of $\beta_2$ for ${\mathrm{Na}_7}^-$ at low frequencies using a jellium model and linear response could provide realistic results [@Sol10].
In contrast to the PES which exhibits a strong dependence on laser intensity, an orientation-averaged PAD seems to be not very sensitive to it. Indeed, when irradiated by laser pulses of duration of 30 fs and frequency of 34 eV but with two different intensities ($10^{10}$ and $10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$), the obtained PAD both delivers the same $\beta_2=0.38$, while the PES at the highest intensity is blurred and red shifted [@WopPhD]. Note that the anisotropy parameter is here much smaller than for small Na clusters, see Fig. \[fig:NaN-anisotrop\]. This is again due to the influence of the ionic structure : for sodium clusters, $\beta_2$ decreases by about 25 % when going from jellium to ionic background. This effect should be even stronger in C$_{60}$, since the number of ions is much higher than for the considered Na$_N$ with $N =
3-19$. Additionally, the coupling of the electrons to the ions in carbon atoms is stronger than in simple metal clusters.
More interesting is the frequency dependence of the PAD and $\beta_2$. An orientation averaging procedure is applied here (see Sec. \[sec:direct\_oapad\]). We focus on the photo-emission from HOMO and HOMO$-1$ because experimentally, these are the only states which clearly emerge above the background[ [@Bar14a; @Bar14]. Various calculated PAD are presented in the left column of Fig. \[fig:c60-beta2\_om\], and the extracted $\beta_2$ are plotted in the right panel.]{}
![[Left : Calculated orientation-averaged PAD from C$_{60}$ with radius of 6.763 a$_0$ irradiated by a laser pulse of intensity $I=7.8\times 10^9$ W/cm$^2$, duration of 60 fs, and frequency $\omega_{\rm las}$ of 14 eV (top) or 26 eV (bottom). Right : anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$ as a function of $\omega_{\rm las}$. Red curves: total PAD and $\beta_2$ from all single particle states ; light green curves : the same but from the HOMO only ; blue curves : the same but from the HOMO$-1$ only. ]{}[]{data-label="fig:c60-beta2_om"}](c60-pad_xuv){width="\linewidth"}
The total $\beta_2$ (black curve) does not depend on $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ very much. The anisotropy parameter of the HOMO and HOMO$-1$ exhibit by contrast larger variations and both states deliver different behaviors. The $\beta_2$ of the HOMO$-1$ (blue curve) is always positive [with a minimum value at 0.18 around 22 eV. On the contrary, the $\beta_2$ of the HOMO (green curve) steadily decreases with $\omega_{\rm las}$ and changes of sign a bit before 24 eV. Below 22 eV,]{} the $\beta_2$ of the HOMO is also higher than the one of the HOMO$-1$. The case once more demonstrates the extreme sensitivity of the $\beta_2$ as an observable characterizing a dynamical scenario. Mind that, in this monophoton domain, the anisotropy parameter is bound between $-1$ and $+2$, so that the variations in Fig. \[fig:c60-beta2\_om\] are quite significant. Together with its strong model sensitivity (see for example the discussion on Fig. \[fig:na8-beta2\_om\]), this points out that $\beta_2$ is certainly a very rich quantity to be measured and computed in a highly refined manner.
#### Dependence of $\beta_2$ on cluster deformation
To explore the impact of cluster deformation on the PAD, we now turn to a series of small neutral and cationic metal clusters which cover planar (${\mathrm{Na}_3}^+$), prolate (Na$_{10}$, ${\mathrm{Na}_{11}}^+$), oblate (${\mathrm{Na}_{13}}^+$ and Na$_{18}$), and triaxial (Na$_{12}$, ${\mathrm{Na}_{19}}^+$) systems. We consider detailed ionic background as well as a deformed jellium approach to it. The jellium deformation is tuned in each case to reproduce the global deformation of the ionic configuration. The shape can be quantified by the quadrupole deformation $\alpha$ defined by $\alpha=\sqrt{\sum_{m=-2}^2\alpha_{2m}^2}$ with $\alpha_{2m} =
4\pi\overline{r^2Y_{2m}}/{5N R_\mathrm{rms}^2}$, $R_\mathrm{rms}$ the ionic root mean square radius, $N$ the total number of ions, and $Y_{2m}$ the spherical harmonics for $l=2$. In Fig. \[fig:NaN-anisotrop\], we compare $\alpha$ with the total anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$.
![Comparison of quadrupole deformation $\alpha$ (top) and total anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$ (bottom) for small neutral (circles) and cationic (squares) clusters, obtained in a jellium description of the ionic background (open symbols) or with an explicit ionic structure (closed symbols). Adapted from [@Wop10a]. \[fig:NaN-anisotrop\]](NaN-anisotrop){width="0.6\linewidth"}
As in the case of Na$_8$ previously discussed, $\beta_2$ is extracted from orientation averaged PAD, each PAD obtained after irradiation by a laser in the mono-photon regime, that is $\omega_\mathrm{las}=7.5$ eV for neutral species and 10 eV for cationic ones (due to a stronger binding there) with $I=10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$. The total ionization always remains between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-3}$. We first note that $\beta_2$ shows only small variations, particularly for the jellium model. We cannot spot any correlation of the anisotropy $\beta_2$ with the deformation $\alpha$. The difference between neutral clusters and cations is also very small. However, as observed previously, there can be a large sensitivity to the structure of the ionic background. The $\beta_2$ is systematically smaller (more isotropic) when detailed ions are considered. It is particularly interesting to note that the discrepancy grows systematically with increasing cluster size $N$. This trend is corroborated by results from larger clusters. For example, the total anisotropy for C$_{60}$ comes close to zero, see Fig. \[fig:c60-multi\_I\] for low intensities. The trend complies with the interpretation that rescattering with ions enhances the isotropic background: the more scatterers, the closer to isotropy.
### PAD in the multiphoton regime {#sec:pad_multi}
[The orientation averaged PAD in the multiphoton regime develops more detailed angular dependence as indicated by Eq. (\[eq:anisotropy\]). For clarity, we recall it here :]{} $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}\Omega}
\propto
1+\beta_2 P_2(\cos\vartheta)
+\beta_4 P_4(\cos\vartheta)
+ \ldots
$$ In a strictly perturbative regime (low laser intensity), the series terminates at $P_{2\nu}(\cos\vartheta)$ where $\nu$ is the order of the multiphoton process which is determined by the relation of IP to photon frequency. This changes with increasing intensity where always all amounts of photons could be possible. Thus the series is, in principle, unterminated and we expect that the contributions of higher $\beta_{2n}$ increase with increasing intensity $I$. We thus briefly analyze the impact of intensity on the PAD in two emblematic cases, C$_{60}$ and Na$_8$. As we are going beyond the perturbative regime, we will consider higher $\beta_{2n}$ beyond the anisotropy $\beta_2$. It is to be noted that orientation averaging in the multiphoton regime has to be done explicitly by integration over orientations. Due to the high symmetry of the two test cases, only 18 integration points need to be computed.
We start with the case of C$_{60}$ irradiated by a laser of frequency of 1.55 eV and pulse duration of 75 fs, with the same set of increasing intensities as in use for the systematics of PES in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\]. The IP of C$_{60}$ being 8 eV, it requires at least 6 photons to extract electrons from occupied states. The PAD obtained in C$_{60}$ with different laser intensities are shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:c60-multi\_I\], while the first anisotropy parameters $\beta_{n}$ extracted from these PAD are plotted in the right panel.
![Anisotropy parameters of high orders (right) extracted from PAD (left) of orientation-averaged C$_{60}$ irradiated by laser pulses of frequency of 1.55 eV, duration of 75 fs, for different laser intensities. For the sake of completeness, the total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ is plotted in the right panel. Adapted from [@WopPhD].[]{data-label="fig:c60-multi_I"}](c60-pad_multi_I "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Anisotropy parameters of high orders (right) extracted from PAD (left) of orientation-averaged C$_{60}$ irradiated by laser pulses of frequency of 1.55 eV, duration of 75 fs, for different laser intensities. For the sake of completeness, the total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ is plotted in the right panel. Adapted from [@WopPhD].[]{data-label="fig:c60-multi_I"}](c60-beta_multi "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
The total ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ (red boxes and dashed line in the right panel) increases rapidly with $I$ as expected. The PAD shown in the left panel become more and more aligned along the laser polarization with increasing $I$. Accordingly, all $\beta_{2l}$, shown in the right panel, increase with $I$. Note that $\beta_2>2$ becomes possible in this non-linear regime. The limitation $-1\leq
\beta_2\leq 2$ applies only to strict one-photon processes.
The next test case is the Na$_8$ cluster. Differently as in previous sections, we now run it for laser frequencies below ionization threshold, namely $\omega_\mathrm{las}=3.7$ and 3.9 eV while the IP is 4.4 eV. At least two-photon processes are required for ionization, probably higher ones with increasing intensity $I$. Fig. \[fig:na8-beta\_I\] shows the intensity dependence of $\beta_2$ (left panel) and $\beta_4$ (right panel).
![Anisotropy parameters $\beta_2$ (left) and $\beta_4$ (right) of Na$_8$ extracted from PAD with an averaging procedure over 18 orientations, after irradiation of laser pulses of duration of 60 fs and frequencies of 3.7 (red full curves) or 3.9 eV (blue dashes). Adapted from [@Wop10a].[]{data-label="fig:na8-beta_I"}](na8-beta_I){width="\linewidth"}
The total ionization ranges from 0.001 to 0.1, which means that all cases constitute rather moderate excitation dynamics. We see again generally an increase of total anisotropy $\beta_2$ with intensity. Still, the growth of $\beta_2$ is slower than in the previous example C$_{60}$ because we deal here only with two-photon processes. The next coefficient $\beta_4$ also shows a marked trend to larger negative values with increasing intensity. It is interesting to note that both coefficients, $\beta_2$ and $\beta_4$, are very sensitive to the laser frequency. This is also a feature of MPI while frequency dependences are more moderate for one-photon processes, see e.g. Sec. \[sec:modelassum\].
Impact of temperature in PES and PAD {#sec:temper}
------------------------------------
### Effect of ionic motion on PES and PAD {#sec:ionicT}
So far, the presented calculations of PES and PAD were performed at ionic ground-state configuration, i.e. at a temperature of 0 K. This ideal situation is hardly ever feasible in an experiment. Depending on the production conditions, cluster beams have temperatures in the range of several 100 K. This means that we encounter usually an ensemble of ionic configurations fluctuating around the ground-state configuration. In the following, we will discuss the impact of thermal shape fluctuations on PES/PAD.
Experimentalists are well aware of the temperature problem and have developed several techniques for dedicated cooling of cluster beams. Ion traps are particularly powerful devices for a clean handling of cluster beams [@Sch99c]. We show here results from recent experiments which used a trap and cooling with a He buffer gas to produce beams of Na anionic clusters with well defined temperatures between 6 and 265 K [@Bar08]. The upper temperature is above the melting point of $\approx 250$ K for small Na clusters [@Hab05]. The test case ${\mathrm{Na}_{33}}^-$ is a cluster anion which has naturally a low IP. Thus one can easily realize one-photon processes with standard laser pulses. A selection of combined PES/PAD for ${\mathrm{Na}_{33}}^-$ is shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:na33m\_pespad\]. The upper right panel shows the PES at different temperatures $T$ and the lower right panel the anisotropy $\beta_2$ as a function of $T$.
![Left : Combined PES/PAD of ${\mathrm{Na}_{33}}^-$ obtained by fit of five Gaussian peaks to the raw distributions at three different ionic temperatures as indicated. Right top : extracted PES for temperatures ranging from 6 K to 265 K. Right bottom : extracted anisotropy parameter $\beta_2$ as a function of ionic temperature. Adapted from [@Bar08].[]{data-label="fig:na33m_pespad"}](na33m_pespad){width="\linewidth"}
The PES/PAD in the left panels and the PES in the upper right panel (both analyzed at low temperature) allow one to identify five emitting states, labeled A, B, C, D, and E. The structures produced by these states in the PES (and PES/PAD) are gradually blurred with increasing temperature. This is easily understood from the fact that single-electron energies can be very sensitive to changes in the cluster shape. The thermal ensemble thus represents a more or less broadened distribution of s.p. energies which, in turn, is mapped into PES and PES/PAD. On the other hand, the anisotropies $\beta_2$ exhibit only a weak dependence on $T$. This probably reflects the fact that the angular momentum characteristics (stemming from their wave functions) of the s.p. states are more robust than their energies.
The numerical simulation of a thermal ensemble is conceptually straightforward, although somewhat cumbersome. One starts an ionic dynamics from the ground-state configuration by initializing ionic velocities stochastically according to a Maxwellian distribution for the given temperature $T$. This state is then propagated by TDLDA-MD for a few ps. About each 100 fs, a snapshot of the actual configuration is taken. The set of all snapshots constitutes the thermal ensemble of cluster configurations. Now, in a laser-induced dynamics propagated for each sample, the wanted observables (e.g., PES and PAD) are evaluated and incoherently superimposed. This altogether yields the observable for the ensemble. We have performed such a study for ${\mathrm{Na}_9}^+$ irradiated by laser pulses of intensity of $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$, and FWHM of 232 fs. This pulse duration allows a high resolution of the PES peaks (see the effect of pulse duration in Fig. \[fig:na2\_fwhm\]) such that line broadening comes predominantly from thermal effects. The pulse duration lies within the time scale of ionic motion. Thus the dynamical propagation is done at the level of TDLDA-MD to include properly ionic motion. For reasons of simplicity, we are not performing orientation averaging such that we see exclusively the thermal effects. The laser polarization is chosen along the symmetry axis of the $T=0$ configuration. For a first test, we use a laser frequency at 6.8 eV just below the IP. The $1s$ state ($\varepsilon_{1s}=-8.5$ eV) and degenerate $1p$ states ($\varepsilon_{1p}=-7.2$ eV) then emit through a two-photon process. We compare in Fig. \[fig:na9p\_w6.8\_tempion\] the PES and the PAD calculated at $T=0$ and at three increasing temperatures $T=158$, 315 and 473 K.
![Left column : Photoelectron spectra of ${\mathrm{Na}_9}^+$ of fixed orientation, irradiated by laser pulses polarized along the symmetry axis of the cluster, with FWHM of 232 fs, intensity of $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$, and frequency of 6.8 eV, at an ionic temperature $T$ of 158 K (top), 315 K (middle) or 473 K (bottom). The blue curve shows the PES at $T=0$ K. Right column : corresponding PAD.[]{data-label="fig:na9p_w6.8_tempion"}](na9p-om5_t){width="0.85\linewidth"}
As expected, the higher $T$, the broader the PES peaks. There is also a faint red shift of the peaks with increasing temperature. Nonetheless, it is surprising how well the structures survive in the PES even high above melting temperature (about 250 K). What the PAD is concerned, remind that it is computed without orientation averaging. It thus shows more structure and is asymmetric (reflecting the asymmetry of ${\mathrm{Na}_9}^+$). The thermal effects on the PAD are a bit larger than for the PES, but remain still small, in accordance with the experimental results for ${\mathrm{Na}_{33}}^-$ in Fig. \[fig:na33m\_pespad\]. Fig. \[fig:na9p\_w6.8\_tempion\] also shows through the error bars the uncertainty associated with thermal fluctuations. These are computed in standard manner as the variance of PAD and of the logarithm of the PES yield from the statistical ensemble. The uncertainties grow with temperature. They stay rather small for the PES, showing once more that these structures are rather robust. The error bars are larger for the PAD in forward (0$^\circ$) and backward (180$^\circ$) direction. Fortunately, these forward and backwards cones have a small integration weight, such that global measures as, e.g., the anisotropy $\beta_2$ are again robust.
We now concentrate on the case of $T=315$ K and complement the $\omega_\mathrm{las}=6.8$ eV by two other frequencies : one smaller with 3.4 eV well below IP and one larger with 13.6 eV well above IP. The laser polarization and duration are the same as before. The intensity is $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$ for the two lower $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ and $10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$ for $\omega_\mathrm{las}=13.6$ eV to deliver comparable ionization for all cases. Fig. \[fig:na9p\_tempion\_om\] shows the resulting PES and PAD (again compared with the $T=0$ case).
![Top row : Photoelectron spectra of ${\mathrm{Na}_9}^+$ with initial ionic temperature of 315 K, irradiated by laser pulses of FWHM of 232 fs, intensity of $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$, and frequency of 3.4 eV (left), 6.8 eV (middle), and 13.6 eV (right). The blue curve shows the PES at $T=0$ K. Bottom row : corresponding PAD.[]{data-label="fig:na9p_tempion_om"}](na9p-t2_om){width="\linewidth"}
For the highest frequency (right panels), the impact of temperature is quite weak: we still observe a slight broadening of the peaks in the PES. However, the effect on the PAD is negligible. This result is intuitive because for such a high laser frequency, the photoelectrons are extracted by absorption of a single photon and basically follow the laser field, as is visible from the fact that the PAD is peaked along $\vartheta=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$. On the contrary, the lowest frequency (left panels) lies deeply in the multi-photon regime. And the uncertainties produced by the ionic motion at this temperature are extremely large. Apart from that, MPI peaks are still visible in the PES, although much broadened. At the side of the PAD, the uncertainties are larger than the signal. This means that in the multi-photon regime, the PAD is very sensitive to ionic temperature. The intermediate frequency (middle panels) lies in between in all respects. Temperature effects are already well visible, but not as disastrous as for low frequency. This example shows that the [ionic]{} temperature should better be well controlled and kept at a sufficiently low value to allow a quantitative analysis of PAD.
### Impact of electronic dissipation on PES and PAD {#sec:dissipe}
In Sec. \[sec:pes\_I\], we found that a smooth exponential PES develops for sufficiently high intensities, see Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\]. Figure \[fig:campbell1\] did also show a series of exponential PES from a measurement with high intensities (fluences) and a long pulse. The question is to what extent this could be a signature of thermal emission after full thermalization of the cluster.
We start the discussion with looking back at Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\]. From the inverse slope of the exponential, we would read off an apparent temperature of $T_{\rm app}=1.4$ eV. From the TDLDA calculations, we also find that the energy deposited by the laser pulse in the cluster is about $E^*\simeq{1.8}$ eV. Assuming that all this energy is converted into thermal energy would lead to an intrinsic temperature of about $E^*/160\simeq{0.01}$ eV which is two orders of magnitude smaller than $T_\mathrm{app}$. This, together with the fact that TDLDA does not account for electronic thermal effects, clearly rules out the thermal origin of the observed exponential slope.
The experimental results from [@Kje10] in Fig. \[fig:campbell1\] (see Sec. \[sec:PES\]) did show also a remarkable series of smooth exponential PES.
![ Experimental apparent electronic temperature as a function of laser fluence as extracted from PES for C$_{70}$ (squares) and C$_{60}$ (circles). The dotted line is a fit to the temperatures vs laser fluence obtained in the case of C$_{60}$ in [@Han03a]. Note that the laser fluence has an overall systematic uncertainty of 10%, which is not included in the present error bars. From [@Kje10]. \[fig:campbellT\] ](kjellberg-2010-fig8.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:campbellT\] gathers the apparent temperatures (inverse slopes) extracted from these PES. [Again we find rather large values in the range from 1 up to 1.6 eV, near the 1.8 eV of the previous example. The remaining excitation energy is not available for these experiments. Nevertheless, it is questionable that these exponential slopes should correspond to real temperatures of the system in thermal equilibrium. This is why one wisely has coined the notion “apparent temperature” for the slope of the PES, see Fig. \[fig:campbell1\] from [@Kje10]. The example of Fig. \[fig:pes\_I\] has shown that a smooth exponential pattern can also be explained by TDLDA calculations. In fact, the exponential profile can be nicely fully explained in terms of multiphoton perturbation theory [@Poh04a]. Any MPI yields an exponentially decreasing slope. The Coulomb shift increasing with ionization stage increasingly washes out the MPI peaks to yield eventually a purely exponential PES.]{}
[In order to check how far pure TDLDA (free of any thermalization) can describe exponential PES, we consider ${{\rm Na}_{93}}^+$ for which calculations can be compared with experimental data. In this experiment both total ionization and PES have been measured. The exponential shape of the PES was attributed to thermal effects [@Sch01]. The resulting apparent temperature (inverse slope) and total ionization are plotted as a function of laser intensity in Fig. \[fig:na93p-slope\].]{}
![Ionization characteristics of ${{\rm Na}_{93}}^+$ irradiated by lasers of increasing intensities (in W/cm$^2$) but fixed photon frequency at 3.1 eV and pulse FWHM at 200 fs. Calculations (red circles) are compared to experimental data (green squares) from [@Sch01]. Ionic dynamics has been included with a Maxwellian distribution of velocities according to a temperature of 100 K. Upper panel: total ionization in logarithmic scale. Lower panel: slope of the PES. Adapted from [@Poh04a]. \[fig:na93p-slope\] ](Na93p-nesc){width=".65\linewidth"}
[The experimental results are compared to standard TDLDA calculations performed under the same laser conditions. The theoretical results are surprisingly close to the data, which indicates that a purely thermal interpretation is not compelling. Consider the apparent temperatures (inverse of the slopes). They are in range 0.7–2 eV for TDLDA and 0.6–0.8 eV for the experiment. This would amount to about 300 eV intrinsic energy in case of full thermal equilibrium ($\approx$150 eV if only electrons were thermalized) : this is too much as compared to the typical cluster binding in ${{\rm Na}_{93}}^+$. Thus we are surely far from full thermalization in this case. On the other hand, there are small, but systematic, differences which may be a trace of thermal effects. The apparent temperature (lower panel) and the ionization (upper panel) is somewhat lower in the data than in TDLDA. This indicates that the data represent, in fact, a mixed situation, not fully thermalized yet, but somewhere on the way. ]{}
There still remains the task to distinguish direct from thermal electron emission. We have argued above that exponential PES are only a necessary condition, not a sufficient proof. Additional information for a better discrimination is delivered by the PAD. Isotropic PAD are another necessary, usually much more conclusive, condition for thermal emission. For example, the experimental PES/PAD in Fig. \[fig:c60-vmi\_xuv\] shows a larger inner spot of isotropic emission at low energies which can be associated with thermal electrons. At the theoretical side, a relevant description of thermalization requires dynamical correlations beyond TDLDA. This has been achieved at the semi-classical level, see Sec. \[sec:semiclassicalroute\]. It is still a great challenge for a fully quantum mechanical modeling, see Secs. \[sec:relax\_ansatz\] and \[sec:stdhf\]. In the following, we will briefly present a simple estimate for the contribution of thermal electrons which provides at least a first impression of the impact of thermal electrons on PAD.
The case of C$_{60}$, illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pad\_ati\], addresses the complementing PAD signal, which is expected to contain a significant isotropic component if strong thermal effects are present.
![Comparison of experimental photoangular distribution from C$_{60}$ HOMO and HOMO$-1$ states (red dashed curve) in the multiphoton regime with total theoretical PAD. One calculation takes into account only direct electronic emission (blue thin line) and the other one includes an estimate of the additional thermal component due to electronic temperature (green thick line), see text for details. From [@Bar14]. \[fig:pad\_ati\] ](PAD-thermal2){width="0.65\linewidth"}
We consider here the MPI regime, irradiated by a laser of frequency 1.55 eV, pulse FWHM of 20 fs and intensity of $1.25\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$. The experiments deliver a PAD energy-integrated over the HOMO, HOMO$-1$, and HOMO$-2$ and the theoretical results are integrated over the same interval [@Bar14]. Although both results have similar pattern, the TDLDA distribution is much more anisotropic than the experimental one. This reflects once again the fact that TDLDA underestimates electron-electron collisions which are the doorway to thermal effects. It is thus interesting to test whether thermal effects might explain the observed discrepancy. For a simple estimate, we proceed as follows. We assume that the residual electronic excitation energy which is found to be 1.8 eV is fully thermalized. Thermal energy is later on converted into a thermal electronic emission. The IP of C$_{60}$ is 7.8 eV. The 1.8 eV excitation energy thus suffices to emit about 0.22 electrons (when neglecting the possible C$_2$ dissociation channel which requires larger energy). We then add up the contribution of the extra 0.22 emitted electrons as a thermal, isotropic background to the PAD. This leads to the curve labeled “direct$+$thermal" in Fig. \[fig:pad\_ati\], which now agrees fairly well with the experimental curve. Of course, the reasoning basically provides an argument and does not constitute a theory by itself, but it once again confirms that bare TDLDA underestimates electronic collisions, while they are obviously non negligible in the MPI regime.
### The semi-classical route {#sec:semiclassicalroute}
As already discussed in Sec. \[sec:temperature\_theo\], thermal effects in finite systems can presently only be attained via a semi-classical approximation, leading to semi-classical kinetic equation such as VUU. The underlying Vlasov equation is the semi-classical limit of TDLDA. VUU employs additionally the Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision term which accounts for the dynamical electron-electron correlations. Ionization, as a basic dynamical mechanism, has been discussed within VUU in several papers [@Gig02; @Gig03; @Fen04; @Fen07; @Koe08]. The interesting point for the present discussion is to analyze the impact of VUU as compared to Vlasov. We shall discuss the point on the example of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$. We fix the pulse duration at a FWHM of 25 fs. We consider two laser intensities, $10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$ and $6\times10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$, and three frequencies, $\omega_\mathrm{las}=2.7$, 3.0, and 3.3 eV, around the plasmon frequency of the system (3 eV). The time evolution of the ionization is shown in Fig. \[fig:na41p\_vuu\_example\].
![Comparison of the time evolution of the total ionization in Vlasov (brown lines) and VUU (light green lines) approaches. The system is ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ irradiated by lasers of cos$^2$ profiles with FWHM of 25 fs. Intensities are 10$^{11}$ (left panels) and $6\times 10^{11}$ W/cm$^2$ (left panels). Frequencies are varied between 2.7 and 3.3 eV, which covers the dominant optical response peak located around 3 eV for this system. \[fig:na41p\_vuu\_example\] ](na41p-vuu_nesc){width="\linewidth"}
It strongly depends on $\omega_\mathrm{las}$, as expected at the passage of a resonance [@Gig01a]. The most interesting feature is the shape of the emission profile. In the Vlasov calculations, ionization grows very quickly in the early stages and levels off once the laser pulse is switched off. Note that the huge ionization blue-shifts the plasmon resonance such that the case $\omega_{\rm las}=3$ eV becomes off-resonant and subsequently emission is terminated after the pulse (see Sec. \[sec:basic\_ioniz\]). The VUU results look much different. Emission is suppressed in early stages. This is overcompensated by a steadily continuing emission later on. The pattern are very similar for all three laser frequencies, while the amplitude of the effect (and the relative values of Vlasov and VUU ionization at early times) depends sensitively on frequency. This is a long known effect that field amplification by the plasmon resonance naturally leads to enhanced emission [@Rei98b] in TDLDA and correspondingly in Vlasov [@Gig01a; @Gig03]. VUU shows the same resonant behavior, but modulates the time profile of emission. It reduces ionization in early stages because electron-electron collisions remove energy from the direct emission channel, and it enhances emission in later stages by releasing gently the stored energy.
The analysis of PES is of limited interest in Vlasov and VUU as at low energy neither can identify electron single particle energies because of their semi-classical nature. The obtained PES are thus always more or less exponentially decreasing, whatever the laser conditions. More interesting is the PAD which can be easily evaluated in Vlasov and VUU and which does not suffer so much from the semi-classical approximation. Furthermore, it is an ideal observable to identify thermal effects in terms of isotropy of the PAD, as we have seen in Sec. \[sec:dissipe\]. The point is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pad\_vuu\] for the same test case as in Fig. \[fig:na41p\_vuu\_example\], and for a few laser frequencies, again around plasmon frequency of ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$.
![Comparison of angular distributions in Vlasov (brown lines) and VUU (light green lines) approaches. Same system and laser conditions as in Fig. \[fig:na41p\_vuu\_example\]. \[fig:pad\_vuu\] ](na41p-vuu_pad.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Orientation averaging has not been performed, which is an acceptable approximation here because ${{\rm Na}_{41}}^+$ is large and close to sphericity. For all laser frequencies, the PAD from Vlasov exhibit strongly oriented emission along the laser polarization. The effect becomes larger when $\omega_\mathrm{las}$ comes closer and closer to the plasmon frequency. This is again a consequence of field amplification near the resonance. A similar trend with frequency is observed in the VUU calculations, although less pronounced. More striking is the fact that the PAD from VUU are much less peaked than the Vlasov ones. Very clearly, the VUU results have a strong isotropic component. The effect is especially clear far from the plasmon resonance but remains very visible close to it. We observe then a competition between field amplification (from resonance) and thermalization [@Gig01a]. In any case, we see a significant enhancement of ionization perpendicular to the laser polarization, as compared to Vlasov, a clear signature of isotropy.
Future directions {#sec:future}
=================
We have seen in the previous sections the richness and variety of observables today accessible in experiments and theory. Of course, there remain many open questions for future research. We want to illustrate in this section two lines of development which we consider as especially promising and which require dedicated efforts both from the experimental and theoretical side.
The first aspect again focuses on the analysis of dynamics in terms of PES and PAD from which we have seen that it is a powerful tool. We will now consider the analysis in terms of PES and PAD in connection with the short pulses delivered by a bypassing ionic projectile. As we shall see, PES and PAD can again provide useful insights into the underlying dynamics.
The second topic concerns electronic thermalization which was already addressed to some extent in Sec. \[sec:dissipe\]. The excitation energy deposited originally by the laser pulse is released in the first stages of the dynamics by direct electron emission. However, part of the deposited energy is progressively converted into incoherent electronic excitation of “thermal” nature. This takes place on a moderate time scale of some tens of fs. Analysis of such effects is difficult and requires detailed experiments (see Figs. \[fig:campbell1\] and \[fig:campbellT\]). From the theoretical point of view, the situation is even worse as it requires the development of deep extensions of available current theories such as real-time TDDFT. In the following, we address both these directions in more detail.
An excursion into irradiation by charged projectiles {#sec:projectile}
----------------------------------------------------
We briefly discuss in this section PES and PAD of “photo”-electrons emitted after collision with a fast charged projectile. We put the word “photo” in quotation marks because the electromagnetic pulse has not a well defined frequency here. Although rare, there exist data measured on atoms and mono-atomic dimers with a special focus at very high kinetic energies ($E_{\rm kin}>40$ eV) of the projectiles. This was first motivated by the observation of non-monotonous patterns in the PES after irradiation of O$_2$ and N$_2$ with photons in the 30–60 eV range [@Sam65], which were explained theoretically one year later [@Coh66] by Young-type interferences between electronic wave functions of electrons coherently emitted from identical atomic centers. Various experiments have been performed on H$_2$ bombarded by He$^+$ and He$^{2+}$ of 20 and 40 keV [@Fre05] or by 8 keV electrons [@Cha08; @Cha10], on N$_2$ colliding with 1–5 MeV H$^+$ [@Bar08b], and on O$_2$ colliding with 3.5 MeV/$u$ C$^{6+}$ ions [@Nan12] or 30 MeV O$^{5+}$ and O$^{8+}$ ions [@Win09]. Very recently, collisions of 3.5 MeV/$u$ C$^{6+}$ ions on uracile [@Agn13] and of 4.5 MeV/$u$ O$^{8+}$ ions on H$_2$O [@Nan13] have been reported. The kinetic energy of the ejected electrons ranges from a few eV up to 600 eV, and the emission is measured between 20$^\circ$ and 150$^\circ$.
The pulses from fast projectiles are extremely short and cover a very broad band of frequencies. At first glance, this looks like a disadvantage as there is thus no specific frequency information in the pulse. However, it has the advantage that it enables to extract unambiguously effects from the system’s modes. To illustrate this point, we start with two pedagogical examples which have a dominant dipole mode, namely the case of Na$_2$ and Cs$_2$. The Na$_2$ is described by explicit ions and pseudopotentials, while we use a deformed jellium background for the description of Cs$_2$. The interaction of the irradiated system with a very fast charged projectile can be modeled by an instantaneous boost of the electronic wave functions at $t=0$ [@Cal97b]. Note that this procedure is the same as the one we use for the calculation of an optical response, see Sec. \[sec:sic\_optresp\].
More precisely, we apply a boost $\mathbf p$ to each occupied s.p. wave function $\varphi_{j,{\rm gs}}$ of the ground state, and take the obtained wave functions as the initial states : $$\varphi_j(\mathbf{r},t\!=\!0)=\exp(\mathrm{i} \mathbf p \cdot \mathbf r)
\varphi_{j,\mathrm{gs}}(\mathbf{r})
\label{eq:boost}$$ This mimics the effect of the Coulomb field caused by a fast by-passing charged projectile. For simplicity, let us consider a boost in the $z$ direction only. If the projectile is fast enough, we can assume that it travels on a straight line with constant velocity $v_{\rm proj}$. Therefore, one can evaluate the net force integrated over the collision, and the latter exhibits a component only in direction to the point (here the $z$ axis) of closest impact [@Bae06a]. The induced boost for a projectile of charge $Z$ and an impact parameter $b$ then reads $$p= \frac{4Ze^2}{bv_{\rm proj}} \quad.
\label{eq:boost_p}$$ One can see that, for a given value of the boost, larger $b$ and/or $v_{\rm proj}$ can be compensated by increasing the charge $Z$ of the projectile. To derive Eq. (\[eq:boost\_p\]), the passage time of the projectile, which reads $b/v_{\rm proj}$, should be much smaller than a typical electron reaction time $\omega_\mathrm{el}^{-1}$. If one uses the value $\omega_\mathrm{el}=1$ Ry and an impact parameter $b=10$ a$_0$ for a rough estimate, we have the constraint $v_{\rm proj} \gg b \omega_{\rm el}=200$ a$_0$/fs. This lower value corresponds to a kinetic energy of 700 keV for a colliding proton. Inserting this value of $v_{\rm proj}$ in Eq. (\[eq:boost\_p\]) with $b=10$ a$_0$ and $Z=1$ yields a maximal value $_{\rm max}=0.08$/a$_0$, which is in the range of the boosts used in the following.
We now come back to the first two test cases that we have studied, namely Na$_2$ and Cs$_2$. Both systems exhibit a very clean plasmon peak at 2.1 eV and 1.4 eV respectively.
Fig. \[fig:pes\_coll\_pedago\] shows the obtained PES.
![Photoelectron spectra of Na$_2$ described by pseudopotentials (left) and Cs$_2$ described by a jellium background, excited by an instantaneous boost of 0.01 a$_0^{-1}$ applied to the wave functions at $t=0$. The vertical lines are positioned at energies corresponding to the single particle energy of Na$_2$ (of Cs$_2$), $\varepsilon_a=-3.23$ eV ($\varepsilon_b=-2.18$ eV), blue-shifted by multiples of the plasmon frequency $\omega_{\rm pl}^{(a)}=2.1$ eV ($\omega_{\rm pl}^{(b)}=1.4$ eV).[]{data-label="fig:pes_coll_pedago"}](pes_coll_pedago){width="\linewidth"}
On top of the exponential decrease emerge some peaks. One can identify the dominant ones as multi-plasmon excitations, similar to those already discussed in Sec. \[sec:las\_vs\_plasm\] : the energy given by the boost to the system is mainly stored in the dominant dipole mode, let us call it for simplicity the “plasmon”. Since the plasmon frequency is below the ionization threshold for each case, two or more plasmons are needed in order to ionize the system. And indeed, the double and triple plasmon processes are clearly visible in the PES. It becomes more difficult to disentangle higher orders from the background.
We now turn to a more involved case, that is the C$_5$ chain. It is described by an explicit ionic structure and the 20 valence electrons are shared among 8 different electronic levels. Note that the HOMO$-2$ and HOMO$-3$ are doubly degenerated. We distinguish longitudinal modes along the symmetry axis (elongated direction) and transversal modes perpendicular to it. The transversal optical response (not shown here) is suppressed by more than one order of magnitude with respect to the longitudinal response and it is substantially fragmented. Therefore, we do not expect that the peaks in transversal modes can significantly contribute to the PES. We concentrate the following discussion only longitudinal modes. The photoabsorption spectrum of C$_5$ in this direction is dominated by one single, strong and sharp resonance at $\omega_\mathrm{pl}=6.5$ eV. The notion plasmon is justified here because this is a truly collective oscillation in the sense of a Mie surface plasmon. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:c5boost\] shows the total PES stemming from all states, and the state specific PES of the HOMO (state 8), HOMO$-1$ (state 7) and HOMO$-2$ (state 6).
![Electron emission from C$_5$ chain after excitation by an instantaneous boost of 0.07 a$_0^{-1}$ along the chain direction of the electronic wave functions at $t=0$. Left panel : PES (in the longitudinal direction) of all states (black), of the HOMO (state 8, blue), HOMO$-1$ (state 7, green), and HOMO$-2$ (state 6, red). The vertical lines indicate the 2- and the 3-plasmon processes from these three least bound states, with a Coulomb shift (see Sec. \[sec:pes\_I\]) of 0.3 eV applied to account for the total ionization of 0.066 at the end of the simulation time. Right : Density maps of combined PES/PAD focused in the 2-plasmon excitation energy window of states 6, 7, and 8 respectively. The angle is measured with respect to the chain direction.[]{data-label="fig:c5boost"}](c5-pes-pad){width="\linewidth"}
The dominant peaks at low energies can be clearly identified as 2-plasmon excitations from states 6, 7, and 8, which are emphasized by vertical lines. The state-resolved PES confirm this interpretation. For instance, the peak in the total PES at 2.3 eV comes from the PES of state 7 (green curve). The same occurs in the two other peaks for states 6 and 8 excited by 2-plasmon processes. As for the 3-plasmon peaks, one can catch some of the peaks, especially that of state 7. We also observe other peaks which are most likely images of the s.p. spectrum but for frequencies different from the plasmon one. In contrast to a frequency-selective laser pulse, the boost excites here all possible modes. Due to the strength of the excitation, there might also be some cross-talk to the transverse modes. It is therefore expected that the present phenomenon can only be seen in systems with a rather “clean” dipole response characterized by sharp plasmon resonances in all directions and not too much a fragmented spectrum.
The right panels in Fig. \[fig:c5boost\] display the full combined PES/PAD zoomed onto the features corresponding to the doubly and triply excitations from states 6, 7, and 8. The angle is measured with respect to the longitudinal direction of C$_5$. The striking feature is that, although the boost is performed along the chain, the electrons are not exclusively emitted in this direction. For instance, states 6 and 8 exhibit in addition a sizable emission at 60$^\circ$ and 120$^\circ$. On the contrary, state 7 preferentially emits at 45$^\circ$, 90$^\circ$ and 135$^\circ$. Clearly, these combined PES/PAD allow one to relate the emission behavior to the symmetry of the depleted wave functions as in cases with lasers, see e.g. Fig. \[fig:na33m\_pespad\].
Towards quantum dissipative electron dynamics {#sec:qdissip}
---------------------------------------------
### From VUU to quantum world {#sec:vuu_2_q}
Although VUU (see Sec. \[sec:semiclassicalroute\]) provides a way to describe dissipation in dynamical scenarios, it is limited to large excitation energies and to simple materials as, e.g., alkaline clusters. Both limitations are direct consequences of the semi-classical nature of VUU. Simple metals can be described because their electron cloud comes close to a Fermi gas. Reducing the excitation energy or considering other systems (as e.g. C$_{60}$) requires to account for quantum effects which renders VUU inapplicable.
This calls for a quantum kinetic theory. This can be seen two ways, either as quantum counterparts of the VUU equation (\[eq:vuu\]) or as TDLDA complemented by a quantum generalization of the UU collision term (\[eq:UU\]). Anyway, such a theory deals with impure quantum states which are described at the level of the one-body density matrix . The corresponding dynamical equation for $\hat{\rho}$ reads $$\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial \hat{\rho}}{\partial t}
=
[\hat{h},\hat{\rho}]
+
I_\mathrm{coll}[\hat{\rho}]
\quad.
\label{eq:kineteq}$$ The commutator with the mean-field Hamiltonian $\hat{h}$ describes the mean-field evolution according to TDLDA. It is complemented by a collision term $I_\mathrm{coll}[\hat{\rho}]$ which, however, becomes awfully involved in the quantum case [@Goe86a]. There does not yet exist any routine solution to the problem in finite systems, in spite of the many investigations, particularly in nuclear physics [@Ber88; @Dur00; @Abe96]. So far, most practical solutions rely on a (partial or full) semi-classical treatment [@Ber88]. The many detailed experiments on cluster dynamics discussed in the previous sections revive the call for a manageable quantum kinetic theory. We discuss in this section two promising directions of research along that line.
### A relaxation time ansatz {#sec:relax_ansatz}
VUU in the semi-classical domain and stochastic TDHF/TDLDA (see Sec. \[sec:stdhf\]) describe dissipation in a very detailed, thus expensive, manner. In cases of moderate fluctuations, the system as such remains intact and the outcome is rather obvious : the dissipative dynamics drives steadily towards thermal equilibrium of a still compact system. This suggests a simplification in terms of the relaxation-time approximation which had been used since long in the homogeneous electron gas [@Ash76]. An implementation for finite fermion systems had been proposed in the nuclear context in [@Won83a]. But the computational limitations at that time did not allow realistic applications. Just recently, we have taken up this old idea of a relaxation time approximation and started to implement for cluster dynamics. We give here a brief preview of this ongoing work.
The relaxation-time approximation starts from Eq. (\[eq:kineteq\]). The collision term $I[\hat{\varrho}]$ is approximated by
\[eq:dissipTDLDA\] $$\mathrm{i}\partial_t\hat{\varrho}
-
\left[\hat{h},\hat{\varrho}\right]
=
\frac{1}{\tau_\mathrm{relax}}
\left(
\hat{\varrho}-\hat{\varrho}_\mathrm{equil} \left[\rho(\mathbf{r}),\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r}) \right]
\right)
\quad.
\label{eq:relaxtime1}$$ The right-hand-side is the effective collision term which forces the system to converge towards the equilibrium. Note that this employs the [*local*]{} equilibrium $\hat{\varrho}_\mathrm{equil}[\rho(\mathbf{r}),\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{r}),E]$ which depends on the instantaneous local density, current and energy $E$ from the given $\hat{\varrho}(t)$. It reads $$\hat{\varrho}_\mathrm{equil}
=
\sum_\alpha
|\varphi_\alpha\rangle n_\alpha^\mathrm{(equil)}\langle\varphi_\alpha|
\quad,\quad
n_\alpha^\mathrm{(equil)}
=
\frac{1}{1+\exp((\varepsilon_\alpha-\epsilon_\mathrm{F})/T)}$$ and can be computed with density- and current-constrained TDLDA [@Cus85b; @Uma06a]. The temperature $T$ is tuned iteratively such that the total energy matches the wanted value $E$. The key parameter is the local relaxation time $\tau_\mathrm{relax}$ for which we need a reliable choice. To that end, we recur to a semi-classical estimate of relaxation time [@Ber78a; @Dan84a; @Dan84b; @Dan84c]. It is based on the Fermi gas model in which the relaxation time becomes simply $$\frac{\hbar}{\tau_{\rm relax}}
=
\frac{16}{15} \frac{m}{\hbar}\sigma_\mathrm{ee} T^2
\quad,
\label{eq:rateFgas}$$
where $k_B=1$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{ee}$ is the effective in-medium cross section for electron-electron collisions. For metal clusters, we find $\sigma_{ee}\approx 4\pi r_s^2$ [@Gig02]. Eqs. (\[eq:dissipTDLDA\]) together constitute the dissipative TDLDA in relaxation-time approach.
Fig. \[fig:Na40-boost-short\] shows a first result from the newly developed dissipative TDLDA scheme.
![Time evolution of basic observables in Na$_{40}$ with soft spherical jellium background (\[eq:softJ\]) using $r_s=3.65$ a$_0$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{jel}=1$ a$_0$, after instantaneous boost with corresponding excitation energy $E^*$ as indicated : Ionization $N_\mathrm{esc}$ normalized to $E^*$ (bottom left), envelope of the dipole signal (top left), and single particle entropy $S$ normalized to the asymptotic entropy $S_\mathrm{asy}$ (bottom right). Compared are results from pure TDLDA (dashes) with those from TDLDA with dissipation in relaxation-time approximation (full curves). \[fig:Na40-boost-short\] ](Na40-boost-short){width="\linewidth"}
We consider as a test case Na$_{40}$ after instantaneous boost of its electron cloud at various boost energies. The s.p. entropy $S=\sum_\alpha\left(n_\alpha\log{n}_\alpha+(1-n_\alpha)\log(1-n_\alpha)\right)$ is shown on the right panel. It demonstrates most clearly the evolution towards thermal equilibrium. The global relaxation time shrinks visibly with increasing excitation. This is a general feature already well known from VUU. It is related to the fact that the phase space for transition opens up with increasing energy. The relaxation times deduced from this figure range from about 40 fs for low excitation down to few fs for very energetic cases. This is in range of measured values [@Kle97; @Leh00]. The time evolutions of the dipole envelope (top left) from pure TDLDA (dashed lines) are only very slowly decaying and look at the scale of this figure nearly constant. Activating dissipation leads to a clear decay of the signal : the higher the excitation, the stronger the decay (in accordance with the right panel). But note that this decay starts only after some delay while the evolution in the early stages is very similar to TDLDA. Finally, the left lower panel shows the time evolution of ionization. The ongoing dipole oscillations in case of TDLDA leads to ongoing electron emission. The case with dissipation shows a leveling off for the ionization. The dipole signals has been damped away and the excitation energy is converted to intrinsic, thermal energy. This energy later on leads to a thermal electronix emission at a much slower time scale, thus not visible here. After all, we see that dissipative TDLDA can provide a pertinent of the thermalization of an excited electron cloud.
### Stochastic Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock {#sec:stdhf}
An alternative route to kinetic theory is provided by stochastic methods describing the system as an ensemble of (pure) mean-field states. This leads to Stochastic Time-Dependent Hartree-Fock (STDHF), or Stochastic TDLDA (STDLDA) when combined with density functionals. It was originally formulated in the context of nuclear collisions [@Rei92c], whence the acronym TDHF, but it can formulated for whatever system in which a quantum mean field provides a sound description of the ground state and to low energy properties. In the case of clusters and molecules TDLDA provides the obvious effective mean field theory as a starting point, thus coming to STDLDA. For simplicity, we will use the notion STDHF further on. STDHF contains all the ingredients of a standard kinetic equation, complemented by proper statistical fluctuations. It accounts for collisional correlations (from electron-electron collisions). They are treated in incoherent manner and should not be mixed with coherent correlations as they typically dominate in low-energy processes.
The original formulation of STDHF started from the quantum Liouville equation for density matrices. The early studies could show that the ensemble description of STDHF can be reduced to a quantum Boltzmann equation complemented by a to the quantum Boltzmann Langevin equation [@Rei92c]. The latter was introduced in [@Bix69; @Zwa73] and has been particularly studied in the nuclear context [@Ayi88; @Ran92a; @Abe96; @Nap13]. STDHF is thus a well founded theory containing all the ingredients necessary for a description of dissipative electronic features. It has unfortunately never been explored at full quantum level because of its complexity. It is only recently that the first calculations were performed in model systems [@Sla14] with a proper reformulation of the theory. The first results are quite promising and we will thus discuss here briefly the formalism and typical results obtained in a simple system.
The STDHF describes the system by an ensemble of $\mathcal{N}$ Slater states $\{|\Phi^\alpha \rangle, \alpha = 1, \ldots,\mathcal{N}\}$. Each state $|\Phi^\alpha\rangle$ is associated with a set of single-particle (s.p.) states $\{\varphi^\alpha_i,i=1,\ldots,\Omega\}$. The labels $i=1, \ldots, N$ with $N<\Omega$ stand for the occupied (hole) states. We also include in the description a sufficient amount of unoccupied (particle) states $i=N\!+\!1,
,\ldots,\Omega$ which will serve as a “reservoir” of levels for transitions to come. With this ensemble of s.p. states we can now unfold hierarchy of $n$-particle-$n$-hole ($nph$) excitations. The first ones to be appear are $2ph$ excitations because $1ph$ excitations are already accounted for in the mean-field propagation (TDHF or TDLDA). The correlated wave function (starting from an uncorrelated situation) can then be expanded as $$|\Psi^\alpha(t)\rangle =
|\Phi^\alpha(t)\rangle+\sum_{pp'hh'}c^\alpha_{pp'hh'}(t)|\Phi^\alpha_{pp'hh'}(t)\rangle \quad,\\$$ with $$|\Phi^\alpha_{pp'hh'}\rangle
=
\hat{a}_p^\dagger\hat{a}_{p'}^\dagger
\hat{a}_{h'}^{\mbox{}}\hat{a}_{h}^{\mbox{}}|\Phi^\alpha\rangle.$$ Note that the $2ph$ states $|\Phi^\alpha_{pp'hh'}\rangle$ are also Slater states. Starting from an uncorrelated situation, one then propagates a correlated state $|\Psi^\alpha(t)\rangle$ up to a certain time $\tau$ at which it is sampled in terms of an ensemble $\{|\Phi^\alpha_\kappa\rangle,w^\alpha_\kappa\}$, where $\kappa\in\{0,pp'hh'\}$. The weight $w^\alpha_\kappa=|c^\alpha_{pp'hh'}|^2$ is the probability with which $|\Phi^\alpha_\kappa\rangle$ appear. It is evaluated by means of time-dependent many-body perturbation theory which finally leads to a transition probability following Fermi’s golden rule as [@Rei92c] $$w^\alpha_{pp'hh'}
=
\tau \left| \langle\Phi^\alpha_{\kappa}|\hat{W}|\Phi^\alpha\rangle \right|^2
\delta(\varepsilon^\alpha_{p}\!+\!\varepsilon^\alpha_{p'}\!
-\!\varepsilon^\alpha_{h}\!-\!\varepsilon^\alpha_{h'}) \quad,
\label{eq:jumprate}$$ where we have introduced the residual interaction $\hat{W}$ complementing the mean-field hamiltonian $\hat{h}$. The original state $|\Phi^\alpha\rangle$ itself has a weight $w^\alpha_0=1-\sum
w^\alpha_{pp'hh'}$ (attributing $w^{\alpha}_0$ to the “no transition” case) which is the complement of all the other transition probabilities. The Dirac $\delta$-function has to be taken with a word of caution. The full expression involves an operator $\delta$ function of the mean-field Liouvillean [@Rei92c]. The approximation (\[eq:jumprate\]) involves s.p. energies taken as expectation values over the s.p. states. These, however, are ambiguous to the extent that one has always the freedom of a unitary transformation amongst the occupied states. We define the $\varepsilon^\alpha_i$ uniquely by diagonalizing the actual mean-field hamiltonian $\hat{h}^\alpha$ separately amongst occupied states and unoccupied states. In practice, the Dirac $\delta$-function has to be augmented by a finite width to account for the discrete nature of spectra in finite systems [@Sla14]. The choice of $\tau$ and $\hat{W}$ also requires some caution as the scheme, being based on time-dependent perturbation theory, has to remain in the weak coupling limit as typical of standard kinetic theory. In particular the sampling interval $\tau$ should be long enough to allow a sufficient number of “collisions” to take place, which then justifies stochastic reductions and loss of coherence, but short enough to remain perturbative, namely with $w^\alpha_0\ll 1$ [@Hov55; @Rei92c].
The STDHF/STDLDA ensemble propagation can thus be summarized as follows. We define an initial state $|\Phi_0\rangle$ and each member of the ensemble is initially set to $|\Phi^\alpha(0)\rangle=|\Phi_0\rangle$. We then propagate each $|\Phi^\alpha(t)\rangle$ individually, first from $t=0$ to $\tau$ by TDHF/TDLDA. At time $\tau$, all $2ph$ states about $|\Phi^\alpha(\tau)\rangle$ are evaluated as well as the associated jump probabilities $w^\alpha_\kappa$ following Eq.(\[eq:jumprate\]). One state $|\Phi^\alpha_\kappa\rangle$ is then randomly selected according to its weight $w^\alpha_\kappa$. $|\Phi^\alpha_\kappa\rangle$ is then again propagated according to TDHF/TDLDA from $\tau$ to $2\tau$ up to $2\tau$ at which a similar sampling takes place, and so on. The above procedure is then restarted from initial time for each member of the ensemble separately. This altogether provides the STDHF ensemble $\{|\Phi^\alpha(t)\rangle, \alpha=1,\ldots,\mathcal{N}\}$ : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cccccc}
|\Phi^\alpha \rangle &\stackrel{\rm TDHF}{\longrightarrow} &\underbrace{ \{ |\Phi^\alpha_\kappa \rangle, w^\alpha_{\kappa} \} }& & &\\
&& \mathrm{Sampling} &&&\\
& & |\Phi^\alpha_{\kappa_0} \rangle & \stackrel{\rm TDHF}{\longrightarrow} &
\underbrace{\{ |\Phi^\alpha_{\kappa'} \rangle,w^\alpha_{\kappa'}\}} &\\
&&&&...&\\
t\!=\!0 && \tau_{} && 2 \tau_{} &...\\
\end{array}
\right\}
\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\alpha=1,\ldots,\mathcal{N}$}$$
The ensemble $\{|\Phi^\alpha \rangle,\alpha=1,\ldots,\mathcal{N}\}$ allows one to compute any observable by standard statistical averages. In particular, one-body or two-body operators (both correlated) can be directly constructed from the ensemble. The one-body density matrix reads $$\hat{\rho}
=
\frac{1}{\mathcal{N}}
\sum_{\alpha = 1}^\mathcal{N} \hat{\rho}^\alpha = \ \sum_{\alpha = 1}^\mathcal{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}
|\varphi_{i}^\alpha\rangle \langle\varphi_{i}^\alpha|
\equiv
\sum_{\nu=1}^\Omega
|\varphi_{\nu}^{(nat)}\rangle n_\nu\langle\varphi_{i}^{(nat)}|
\label{eq:rho_mat}$$ where the second representation employs the natural s.p. orbitals $|\varphi_\nu^{(nat)}\rangle$ diagonalizing $\hat{\rho}$ and immediately delivers the associated (fractional) occupation numbers $n_\nu$. The latter quantities provide a natural tool for analyzing thermal effects.
For a first test of STDHF, we use a simple 1D model simulating a dimer molecule. The mean-field hamiltonian reads (in $x$ representation and taking $\hbar$=1) : $$\hat{h}^\alpha
=
-\frac{\Delta}{2m} + V_{ext}(x) + \lambda \left(\varrho^\alpha(x)\right)^2.
\label{eq:hn}$$ It contains a self consistent term $\lambda
\left(\varrho^\alpha(x)\right)^2$ (with $\lambda=27.2$ eVa$_0^2$) involving the local one-body density $\varrho^\alpha(x)\varrho(x)=\sum_1^{N} |\varphi_i^\alpha(x)|^2$. This terms stands for the effect of a simple density functional. The external potential $V_{\rm ext}(x)$ has a Woods-Saxon shape : $V_{\rm ext}(x)=V_0/(1+\exp((x-x_0)/a))$ with $V_0=-68$ eV, $x_0=15$ a$_0$, $a = 2$ a$_0$. It is complemented, outside the well, by a confining harmonic oscillator ensuring soft reflecting boundary conditions. These boundaries allow one to avoid direct emission and to focus the analysis on the building up of thermal effects. Altogether, the model mimics a typical situation in clusters and molecules with a fixed external potential delivered by the ions and an energy scale typical of organic systems. The residual interaction is, in the present study, chosen schematically as a simple zero-range force $W(x,x') = W_0\delta(x-x')$ with $W_0= 40.8$ eV which delivers realistic relaxation times [@Sla14]. Actually, we use 9 physical particles (9 hole states) complemented by a reservoir of 8 (16 or 24 give similar results) particle states. The initial excitation is done by a random particle hole excitation delivering an excitation energy of about 25.8 eV. The sampling time is time $\tau$ = 1 fs (0.5 and 1.5 fs give similar results) and the dynamics is followed over 100 fs, which is much larger than the optical period (1.15 fs) and long enough to study thermal relaxation. We propagate an ensemble of ${\cal N}$=100 events.
Fig. \[fig:spe19bis\] shows the time evolution of s.p. energies for a typical STDHF event (bottom) and compares it to the corresponding pure TDHF evolution (top).
![Time evolution of single particle energies in a TDHF calculation (upper panel) and in one STDHF event (lower panel) for an initial excitation energy of 25.8 eV. Red lines correspond to occupied states, green ones to unoccupied ones (see text for details). In the STDHF case, five $2ph$ transitions actually occurred (were actually sampled) for this event, transitions which are indicated by faint vertical dashed lines. []{data-label="fig:spe19bis"}](spe19bis){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Each member of the ensemble will actually deliver a different sequence of transitions which will finally lead to the mixed state representing the correlated system. One can identify five $2ph$ transitions (indicated by faint dashed lines). It is also interesting to note that, up to minor mean field rearrangements, the TDHF evolution does preserve the arrangement of particle and hole states in the course of time evolution. Pure TDHF evolution more or less preserves initial occupations in time, hindering possible relaxation to a thermal state. STDHF overcomes overcomes this limitation as can be seen from the rearrangements in the lower panel.
Fig. \[fig:occupoft19\] displays snapshots of occupation numbers, extracted from the one body density matrix, see Eq.(\[eq:rho\_mat\]), at several times along a STDHF propagation.
![Snapshots of occupation numbers as a function of time in an example of STDHF calculation, with initial excitation $E^*$ of 25.8 eV and for a 100 event ensemble. []{data-label="fig:occupoft19"}](occupoft19){width="0.65\linewidth"}
The occupation numbers keep for some time a trace of the original excitation, in particular the initial hole around $-37$ eV (see red curve). This hole is gradually filled and the occupation numbers are soon washed out, leading asymptotically to an energy profile typical of thermal equilibrium. Note some unavoidable statistical fluctuations, still visible at very low energy. This figure therefore demonstrates the capability of STDHF to account for relaxation effects at the side of electrons in a purely quantum mechanical manner. One should also stress that STDHF enables to estimate fluctuations around average values as computed from one or two-body density matrix, which again represents a remarkable step forward. The major obstacle of STDHF lies in the high cost of handling large ensembles which becomes particularly demanding for low excitation energies where smaller transition probabilities require better statistics. This still more development work is needed to put STDHF fully into action.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
In this paper we have reviewed the analysis of electron emission following irradiation of clusters and molecules by light pulses. Observables from electron emission give detailed insight into the dynamical response of the irradiated species. Understanding the irradiation and emission process is also essential in view of the many applications in materials science, biology, and medicine. High-resolution studies of electron emission have made tremendous progress over the past few years, both experimentally and theoretically. In experiments, new developments in light sources now provide a broad choice of electromagnetic pulses with widely variable frequency, intensity, and time profile down to attosecond resolution in the range of electronic time scales. There is also great progress at the side of the measurement giving access to increasingly detailed properties of emitted electrons, high-resolution photo-electron spectra (PES) or angular distributions (PAD), often combined to velocity map imaging. As latest achievements, time-resolved PES/PAD are waiting in the wings. This remarkable experimental progress calls for elaborate theoretical treatments at the most microscopic level of description. In this respect, TDDFT, especially when solved in real time, constitutes an invaluable tool to simulate the various dynamical scenarios of irradiation of clusters and molecules. Therefore, many groups all over the world are heavily working on such approaches. In this review, we have presented a series of developments and results, mostly from the last decade, on irradiation of clusters and molecules by light pulses and subsequent detailed analysis of electron emission. Concerning the observables from emission, we consider total ionization, PES and PAD, also in connection with time-resolved measurements. At the theory side, we focus on a microscopic description in terms of time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT). This is practically handled at the level of the time-dependent local density approximation (TDLDA) augmented by a self-interaction correction (SIC). We have illustrated the capabilities of our approach on several systems, ranging from simple molecules like N$_2$ to fashionable nano-clusters such as C$_{60}$, and also studying archetypal metal systems such as Na clusters. We list below a few results that we consider as being emblematic of these studies.
The theoretical modeling is based on TDDFT which is known to provide a robust microscopic description of the system dynamics. It enables to include ionic motion at a classical level. The fully coupled dynamics is needed in cases of long laser pulses and for thermal ensembles. In most cases, we consider short pulses and keep ions frozen. Starting level for TDDFT is the time-dependent local-density approximation (TDLDA). However, in order to describe ionization dynamics properly, one needs a theory fulfilling Koopmans’ theorem which states that the ionization potential (IP) has to be identical with the single particle (s.p.) energy of the least bound state. This is violated by the self-interaction error in LDA. It can be cured by augmenting LDA with a SIC. The latter has been turned manageable by a handling in terms of two sets of occupied s.p. states, the 2setSIC scheme. A less expensive alternative is offered by averaged density SIC (ADSIC) which performs surprisingly well as long as the dynamics stays off the regime of fragmentation and/or huge ionization. ADSIC has thus been used here in most cases and it allowed us to obtain remarkably accurate results in good agreement with experiments.
The numerical handling of ionization dynamics is most efficient in a coordinate-space representation. To describe ionization, we augment the coordinate-space grid by absorbing boundary conditions. They allow one to trivially compute the observables of total ionization and ionization out of each s.p. state separately (level depletion). PAD are computed by collecting the electron loss in angular segments on the grid. A complication arises when comparing PAD with measurements, since clusters or molecules in gas phase have an undefined orientation. They represent, in fact, an isotropic ensemble of orientations. Theoretical calculations need thus to be complemented by orientation averaging. For the one-photon domain, we have worked out a compact formula which can live with only six reference orientations to be computed. Multi-photon processes require direct integration where we find that one can obtain reliable results with typically 18–36 integration points, depending on the symmetry of the cluster. PES are computed by recording the phase oscillations of outgoing wave functions close to the onset of the absorbing bounds, and by finally Fourier transforming the temporal oscillations to the energy domain. Special care has to be taken to cope with strong laser pulses. They may modify the phase of the wave functions at the sampling point. Fortunately, this effect can be evaluated analytically and allows us to derive a phase correction, thus rendering the scheme for computing PES reliable up to rather large laser intensities (typically $10^{14}$–$10^{15}$W/cm$^2$. Altogether, we have thus at hand powerful and versatile tools to simulate ionization dynamics and to evaluate the observables deduced thereof. In the following, we will briefly summarize the results for each observable separately.
The simple signal of total ionization is already useful when combined with systematics. For example, the frequency dependence of ionization maps the underlying dipole response. Ionization becomes the key signal in pump and probe (P&P) scenarios which constitute a well established tool for a time-resolved measurement of ionic motion. Clusters are rather complex systems where the motion of single ions is hard to track. P&P measurements at least enable to identify global properties of the ionic configuration, as radius and quadrupole deformation, which is already very useful information in studies of Coulomb explosion of clusters. On a first example, we could show how the now upcoming attosecond pulses allow time-resolved analysis at electronic pace.
The main body of the paper dealt with results on PES and PAD. Combined PES/PAD as obtained from velocity map imaging (VMI) contain a very rich amount of information, but are usually hard to appreciate as such. The energy- or angular-integrated versions thereof, delivering PAD and PES, are better suited for detailed analysis and comparisons between experiments and theory. A PES in a strictly one-photon domain delivers a map of the clusters s.p. spectrum. [In experiments,]{} this was limited previously to negatively charge cluster anions [due to a low ionization potential]{}. The availability of coherent high-frequency light sources now allows one to employ the one-photon analysis for neutral clusters and even cations. Multi-photon processes make PES more involved and richer. In the low-intensity regime, one can identify multiple copies of the s.p. spectra separated by the photon frequency. But PES goes beyond just mapping s.p. spectra. It delivers a picture of the whole dynamical processes. We have illustrated that by working out the impact of plasmon resonances which can directly drop its signatures in the PES themselves. Increasing intensity produces more ionization which Coulomb shifts the s.p. states gradually downwards, thus broadening the peaks in the PES. This eventually leads to totally smoothed PES with straightforward exponential decrease. [This kind of pattern suggests]{} at first glance an interpretation as purely thermal electron emission. A closer inspection from energetic considerations and TDLDA simulations reveals that it cannot be fully a thermal process. We probably encounter a mixed situation. Direct emission still prevails and electronic re-collisions add first thermal effects to the picture. We have also seen that PES alone cannot distinguish unambiguously between direct and thermal emission.
The unavoidable orientation averaging of PAD wipes out many details which were contained in before averaging. Fortunately, there remains a lot of useful information. Orientation averaged PAD in the one-photon regime can be characterized by one single parameter, the anisotropy $\beta_2$. A systematic survey of $\beta_2$ and its frequency dependence revealed that PAD are extremely sensitive to every detail of the modeling. This holds even more so for state-resolved anisotropies $\beta_2^{(i)}$ (where $i$ stands for a s.p. state or degenerated group thereof). No compromises are allowed. One must invoke the full machinery of TDLDA+SIC and a careful description of the detailed ionic structure to have a chance for a relevant description. For example, the $\beta_2(\omega_{\rm las})$ computed with smooth jellium background shows marked fluctuations which disappear when ionic background is used. However, there remains one remarkable exception in the low-frequency tail of $\beta_2(\omega_{\rm las})$ for the loosely bound anion ${{\rm Na}_7}^-$. This shows a deep dip towards one-photon emission threshold and it does so independent of the model for the ionic background. In the multi-photon domain, a PAD provides crucial information which helps to distinguish direct from thermal emission. This was nicely visible in the combined PES/PAD of C$_{60}$ where one could associate uniquely the region of low kinetic energy with thermal electrons while higher kinetic energies show clear sign of direct emission with the PAD being forward/backward dominated.
The collection of results presented in this review has several open ends which call for further development and investigation. We briefly quote a few of them which we consider to be important next steps. It was already mentioned above that it becomes increasingly possible to extend time-resolved analysis to the attosecond domain. Theoretical studies are required to explore the huge space of new possibilities and to find out the most promising experimental conditions. A further interesting perspective emerges if combining time-resolved analysis with PES and PAD. This enables, e.g., to track the branching between direct and thermal emission in the course of time. First studies in this direction are very promising. The discussion of PES and PAD left as a yet unsolved problem the distinction between direct and thermal processes in electron emission. This calls for a proper theoretical modeling of electron-electron collisions (dynamical electron correlations) and subsequent dissipation effects. Two promising development lines for such an extended TDLDA have been presented, that is the relaxation time approach which models dissipation phenomenologically and a stochastic mean field model which describes the system as an ensemble of mean-field states incorporating the electron-electron collisions as stochastic jumps between these states. The results summarized above prove that observables from electron emission are an extremely powerful tool to analyze irradiation processes on clusters and molecules. They allowed one in the past to reveal many interesting aspects of structure and dynamics of these systems. The future directions sketched in the previous paragraph show that we are not nearly at an end of the investigations. The field remains lively and highly interesting and challenging for the future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors gratefully thank K. Andrae, C. Bordas, F. Calvayrac, J.-M. Escartin, B. and M. Farizon, B. Faber, T. Fennel, C. Z. Gao, M. Ivanov, P. Klüpfel, F. Lépine, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, J. Messud, A. Pohl, P. Romaniello, J.-M. Rost, N. Slama, O. Smirnova, J. Tiggesbaümker, M. Vincendon, B. von Issendorff, Z. P. Wang, and F.-S. Zhang, for fruitful discussions during the realization of this work. The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from ANR-10-BLAN-0428, ANR-10-BLAN-0411, ANR-11-IS04-0003, ITN-CORINF, and the Institut Universitaire de France. The theoretical work was granted access to the HPC resources of IDRIS under the allocation 2013–095115 made by GENCI (Grand Equipement National de Calcul Intensif), of CalMiP (Calcul en Midi-Pyrénées) under the allocation P1238, and of RRZE (Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen).
[100]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
U. Keller, Nature 424 (2003) 831.
C. Rullière (Ed.), [Femtosecond Laser Pulses: Principles and Experiments, 2nd ed., Advanced Texts in Physics]{}, Springer, New-York, 2005.
R. Paschotta, [Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology, volumes 1 and 2]{}, Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2008.
N. Ishikawa, Y. Saitoh, T. Yamaki, F. Hori, M. Sasase, Nucl. Inst. & Meth. B 314 (2013) 1.
G. Garcia, M. C. Fuchs, Series in Biological and Medical Physics, Biomedical Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. J. Weber, Nucl. Inst. & Meth. B, vol 286, 2012.
B. Liu, S. B. Nielsen, P. Hvelplund, H. Zettergren, H. Cederquist, B. Manil, B. A. Huber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 133401.
G. Mie, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 25 (1908) 377.
U. Kreibig, M. Vollmer, Optical Properties of Metal Clusters, Vol. 25, Springer Series in Materials Science, 1993.
M. Brack, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 677.
W. A. de Heer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (1993) 611.
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Introduction to Cluster Dynamics, Wiley, New York, 2003.
U. [Saalmann]{}, C. [Siedschlag]{}, J. M. [Rost]{}, J. Phys. B 39.
F. Calvayrac, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, C. A. Ullrich, Phys. Rep. 337 (2000) 493.
T. Fennel, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, J. Tiggesbäumker, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 1793.
E. E. B. Campbell, K. Hansen, K. Hoffmann, G. Korn, M. Tchaplyguine, M. Wittmann, I. V. Hertel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2128.
C. Bartels, C. Hok, J. Huwer, R. Kuhnen, J. Schwöbel, B. von Issendorff, Science 323 (2009) 132333.
B. Boudaïffa, P. Cloutier, D. Hunting, M.-A. Huels, L. Sanche, Science 287 (2000) 1658.
I. Seideman, Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 53 (2002) 41.
M. Rohmer, M. Bauer, T. Leissner, C. Schneider, A. Fischer, G. Niedner-Schatteburg, B. von Issendorff, M. Aeschlimann, Phys. Status Solidi B 247 (2010) 1132.
M. A. L. Marques, N. T. Maitra, F. M. S. Nogueira, E. K. U. Gross, A. Rubio, Lect. Notes in Phys. vol 837, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012.
T. Brabec, F. Krausz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72 (2000) 545.
F. Krausz, M. Ivanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 163.
J. Feldhaus, J. Arthur, J. B. Hastings, J. Phys. B 38 (2005) 799.
L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP 20 (1964) 1307.
S. Augst, D. Strickland, D. D. Meyerhofer, S. L. Chin, J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 2212.
T. Seidemann, M. Y. Ivanov, P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 2819.
T. Zuo, A. D. Bandrauk, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995) R2511.
V. Véniard, R. Taïeb, A. Maquet, Phys. Rev. A 65 (1) (2001) 013202.
C. Siedschlag, J. M. Rost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 173401.
I. Last, J. Jortner, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999) 2215.
H. Wabnitz, L. Bittner, A. R. B. de Castro, R. Dohrmann, P. Gurtler, T. Laarmann, W. Laasch, J. Schulz, A. Swiderski, K. von Haeften, T. Moller, B. Faatz, A. Fateev, J. Feldhaus, C. Gerth, U. Hahn, E. Saldin, E. Schneidmiller, K. Sytchev, K. Tiedtke, R. Treusch, M. Yurkov, Nature 420 (2002) 482.
L. Köller, M. Schumacher, J. Köhn, S. Teuber, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3783.
L. Schweikhard, A. Herlert, S. Krückeberg, M. Vogel, C. Walther, Phil. Mag. B 79 (1999) 1343.
T. Döppner, S. Teuber, M. Schumacher, J. Tiggesbäumker, K. Meiwes-Broer, Appl. Phys. B 71 (2000) 357.
E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2296.
U. Saalmann, J. M. Rost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 223401.
T. Döppner, T. Fennel, T. Diederich, J. Tiggesbäumker, K. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 013401.
T. Döppner, T. Fennel, P. Radcliffe, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006) 031202.
C. Siedschlag, J. M. Rost, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 031401(R).
T. Bornath, P. Hilse, M. Schlanges, Laser Phys. 17 (2007) 591.
S. Zamith, T. Martchenko, Y. Ni, S. A. Aseyev, H. G. Muller, M. J. J. Vrakking, Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004) 011201.
Y. L. Shao, T. Ditmire, J. W. G. Tisch, E. Springate, J. P. Marangos, M. H. R. Hutchinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3343.
E. Springate, S. A. Aseyev, S. Zamith, M. J. J. Vrakking, Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003) 053201.
C. Bordas, F. Paulig, H. Heln, D. L. Huestis, Rev. Sci. Instr. 67 (1996) 2257.
O. Kostko, C. Bartels, J. Schwobel, C. Hock, B. v Issendorff, J. Phys. : Conf. Ser. 88 (2007) 012034.
M. Kjellberg, O. Johansson, F. Jonsson, A. V. Bulgakov, C. Bordas, E. E. B. Campbell, K. Hansen, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 023202.
O. Cheshnovsky, K. J. Taylor, J. Conceicao, R. E. Smalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 1785.
G. Wrigge, M. A. Hoffmann, B. von Issendorff, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 063201.
A. Pohl, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. B 37 (2004) 3301.
A. Rytkönen, H. Häkkinen, M. Manninen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3940.
K. Hansen, K. Hoffmann, E. E. B. Campbell, J. Chem. Phys. 119 (2003) 2513.
R. M. Young, M. A. Yandell, S. B. King, D. M. Neumark, J. Chem. Phys 136 (2012) 094304.
J. Wills, F. Pagliarulo, B. Baguenard, F. Lépine, C. Bordas, Chem. Phys. Lett. 390 (2004) 145.
Y. Yamaguchi, Y. Osamure, J. D. Goddard, H. Schaefer, A New Dimension to Quantum Chemistry: Analytic Derivative Methods in Ab Initio Molecular Electronic Structure Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.
P. Krause, T. Klamroth, P. Saalfrank, J. Chem. Phys. 127.
A. A. Vlasov, [Many Particle Theory and Its Applications to Plasma]{}, Gordon & Breach, New York, 1950.
G. F. Bertsch, S. [Das Gupta]{}, Phys. Rep. 160 (1988) 190.
A. Domps, E. Giglio, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. B 33 (2000) L333.
T. Fennel, G. F. Bertsch, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Eur. Phys. J. D 29 (2004) 367.
C. Sieber, W. Harbich, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, C. Félix, Chem. Phys. Lett. 433 (2006) 32.
L. Szasz, [Pseudopotential Theory of Atoms and Molecules]{}, Wiley, New York, 1985.
S. Kümmel, M. Brack, P.-G. Reinhard, Eur. Phys. J. D 9 (1999) 149.
S. Goedecker, M. Teter, J. Hutter, Phys. Rev. B 54 (1996) 1703.
N. W. Ashcroft, N. D. Mermin, [Solid State Physics]{}, Saunders College, Philadelphia, 1976.
W. Ekardt, Z. Penzar, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991) 1331.
B. Montag, T. Hirschmann, J. Meyer, P.-G. Reinhard, M. Brack, Phys. Rev. B 52 (1995) 4775.
P. Hohenberg, W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) 864.
W. Kohn, L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140 (1965) 1133.
R. G. Parr, W. Yang, [Density-Functional Theory of Atoms and Molecules]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.
R. M. Dreizler, E. K. U. Gross, [Density Functional Theory: An Approach to the Quantum Many-Body Problem]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
E. K. U. Gross, J. F. Dobson, M. Petersilka, Top. Curr. Chem. 181 (1996) 81.
A. D. Becke, Phys. Rev. A 38 (1988) 3098.
J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3865.
J. P. Perdew, S. Kurth, A. Zupan, P. Blaha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 2544.
A. K. Dhara, S. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. A 35 (1987) 442(R).
G. Vignale, W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2037.
C. Ullrich, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.
R. D’Agosta, G. Vignale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 016405.
N. T. Maitra, I. Souza, K. Burke, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 045109.
P. Bonche, B. Grammaticos, S. E. Koonin, Phys. Rev. C17 (1978) 1700.
J. Terasaki, P.-H. Heenen, H. Flocard, P. Bonche, Nucl. Phys. A 600 (1996) 371–386.
A. Castro, H. Appel, M. Oliveira, C. Rozzi, X. Andrade, F. Lorenzen, M. Marques, E. Gross, A. Rubio, Phys. Stat. Sol. B 243 (2006) 2465.
X. Andrade, J. Alberdi-Rodriguez, D. A. Strubbe, M. J. T. Oliveira, F. Nogueira, A. Castro, J. Muguerza, A. Arruabarrena, S. G. Louie, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. Rubio, M. A. L. Marques, J. Phys.: Cond. Matt. 24 (2012) 233202.
R. Y. Cusson, R. K. Smith, J. A. Maruhn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (1976) 1166–1169.
F. Calvayrac, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. B 52 (1995) R17056.
J. W. Eastwood, D. R. K. Brownrigg, J. Comp. Phys. 32 (1979) 24.
G. Lauritsch, P.-G. Reinhard, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 5 (1994) 65.
P.-G. Reinhard, R. Y. Cusson, Nucl. Phys. A 378 (1982) 418.
M. D. Feit, J. A. Fleck, A. Steiger, J. Comp. Phys. 47 (1982) 412.
V. Blum, G. Lauritsch, J. A. Maruhn, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Comp. Phys 100 (1992) 364.
K. T. R. Davies, S. E. Koonin, Phys. Rev. C23 (1981) 2042–2061.
B. Montag, P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Lett. A 193 (1994) 380.
T. Berkus, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 3 (2002) 69.
P. M. Dinh, F. Fehrer, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Eur. Phys. J. D 45 (2007) 415.
P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rep. 485 (2010) 43.
R. S. Varga, [Iterative Matrix Analysis]{}, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1962.
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, [Numerical Recipes]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
J. P. Perdew, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 23 (1981) 5048.
J. Messud, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. 324 (2009) 955.
M. R. Pederson, R. A. Heaton, C. C. Lin, J. Chem. Phys. 80 (5) (1984) 1972.
J. Messud, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 096404.
S. Kümmel, L. Kronik, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (2008) 3.
J. B. Krieger, Y. Li, G. J. Iafrate, Phys. Rev. A 45 (1992) 101.
R. T. Sharp, G. K. Horton, Phys. Rev. 30 (1953) 317.
C. Legrand, E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Phys. B 35 (2002) 1115.
I. Ciofini, C. Adamo, H. Chermette, Chem. Phys. 309 (2005) 67–76.
P. Klüpfel, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) 052501.
E. Fermi, E. Amaldi, Accad. Ital. Rome 6 (1934) 117.
Y. H. Yu, T. Zuo, A. D. Bandrauk, J. Phys. B 31 (1998) 1533.
U. [De Giovannini]{}, D. Varsano, M. A. L. Marques, H. Appel, E. K. U. Gross, A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 062515.
K. Boucke, H. Schmitz, H.-J. Kull, Phys. Rev. A 56 (1997) 763.
M. Mangin-Brinet, J. Carbonell, C. Gignoux, Phys. Rev. A 57 (1998) 3245.
T. Nakatsukasa, K. Yabana, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 024301.
J. L. Krause, K. J. Schafer, K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. A 45 (1992) 4998.
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Cluster dynamics in strong laser fields, in: M. A. L. Marques, C. A. Ullrich, F. Nogueira (Eds.), Time-dependent density functional theory, Vol. 706 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 2006, p. 391.
P.-G. Reinhard, P. D. Stevenson, D. Almehed, J. A. Maruhn, M. R. Strayer, Phys. Rev. E 73 (2006) 036709.
A. Pohl, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004) 023202.
A. Pohl, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 5090.
A. Pohl, Ph.D. thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, Erlangen/Nürnberg (2003).
P. M. Dinh, P. Romaniello, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 032514.
A. Gazibegovic-Busuladzic, E. Hasovic, M. Busuladzic, D. B. Milosevic, F. Kelkensberg, W. K. Siu, M. J. J. Vrakking, F. Lépine, G. Sansone, M. Nisoli, I. Znakovskaya, M. Kling, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 043426.
D. B. Milošević, G. G. Paulus, D. Bauer, W. Becker, J. Phys. B 39 (14) (2006) R203.
H. Stapelfeldt, T. Seideman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 543.
S. Pabst, R. Santra, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 065401.
S. Pabst, R. Santra, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 044901(E).
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Eur. Phys. J. D 34 (2005) 145.
P. Wopperer, B. Faber, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Lett. A 375 (2010) 39.
P. Wopperer, B. Faber, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 063416.
A. R. Edmonds, [Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1957.
K. Huang, Wiley, New York, 1963.
L. P. Kadanoff, G. Baym, Quantum Statistical Mechanics: Green’s Function Methods in Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Problems, Frontiers in physics, Benjamin, New York, 1962.
R. Balescu, [Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics]{}, Wiley, New York, 1975.
E.-A. Uehling, G.-E. Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. 43 (1933) 552.
D. Durand, E. Suraud, B. Tamain, [Nuclear Dynamics in the Nucleonic Regime]{}, Institute of Physics, London, 2000.
A. Domps, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5524.
A. Domps, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. (NY) 280 (2000) 211.
G. Chen, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
H. Uechi, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1988.
K. Husimi, Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jpn. 22 (1940) 264.
T. Körzdörfer, M. Mundt, S. Kümmel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (13) (2008) 133004.
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. (NY) 239 (1995) 193.
A. T. J. B. Eppink, D. H. Parker, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68 (1997) 3477.
M. Mundt, S. Kümmel, B. Huber, M. Moseler, Phys. Rev. B 73 (20) (2006) 205407.
T. Koopmans, Physica 1 (1934) 104.
P. M. Dinh, C. Z. Gao, P. Kluepfel, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, M. Vincendon, J. Wang, F. S. Zhang, submitted to Eur. J. Phys. D.
K. Yabana, G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. B 54 (1996) 4484.
F. Calvayrac, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. (NY) 255 (1997) 125.
P.-G. Reinhard, S. Weisgerber, O. Genzken, M. Brack, Lecture Notes in Physics 404 (1992) 254.
P.-G. Reinhard, O. Genzken, M. Brack, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 5 (1996) 576.
M. Vincendon, P. M. Dinh, P. Romaniello, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Eur. J. Phys. D 67 (2013) 97.
U. Ndongmouo-Taffoti, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Z. Wang, Eur. J. Phys. D 58 (2010) 131.
A. H. Zewail, [Femtochemistry, Vol. I & II]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.
B. M. Garraway, K.-A. Suominen, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58 (1995) 365.
T. Leisner, S. Vajda, S. Wolf, L. Wöste, J. Chem. Phys. 111 (1999) 1017.
R. Heinicke, J. Grotemeyer, Appl. Phys. B 71 (2000) 419.
M. Hartmann, J. Pittner, V. Bonacic-Koutecky, A. Heidenreich, J. Jortner, J. Chem. Phys. 108 (1998) 3096.
T. Döppner, J. P. Müller, A. Przystawik, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Eur. Phys. J. D 43 (2007) 261.
J.-H. Klein-Wiele, P. Simon, H.-G. Rubahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1997) 45.
J.-H. Klein-Wiele, P. Simon, H.-G. Rubahn, Optics Comm. 161 (1999) 42.
M. Merschdorf, W. Pfeiffer, A. Thon, S. Voll, G. Gerber, App. Phys. A 71 (2000) 547.
M. Perner, S. Gresillon, J. März, G. von PLessen, J. Feldmann, J. Porstendorfer, K.-J. Berg, G. Berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 792.
G. Seifert, M. Kaempfe, K.-J. Berg, H. Graener, Appl. Phys. B 71 (2000) 795.
F. Stienkemeier, A. F. Vilesov, J. Chem. Phys. 115 (2001) 10119.
T. Döppner, T. Fennel, P. Radcliffe, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Eur. Phys. J. D 36 (2005) 165.
K. Andrae, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. B 35 (2002) 1.
K. Andrae, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 173402.
F. Calvayrac, E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Phys. B 31 (1998) 1367.
T. Fennel, T. Döppner, J. Passig, C. Schaal, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 143401.
J. Passig, R. Irsig, N. Truong, T. Fennel, J. Tiggesbäumker, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 085020.
N. H. Damrauer, C. Dietl, G. Krampert, S.-H. Lee, K.-H. Jung, G. Gerber, Eur. Phys. J. D 20 (2002) 71.
V. Bonačić-Koutecký, R. Mitrić, T. Bernhardt, L. Wöste, J. Jortner, Adv. Phys. Chem. 132 (2005) 179.
N. Truong, P. Hilse, S. Göde, A. Przystawik, T. Döppner, T. Fennel, T. Bornath, J. Tiggesbäumker, M. Schlanges, G. Gerber, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 013201.
P. Johnsson, J. Mauritsson, T. Remetter, A. L’Huillier, K. J. Schafer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 233001.
X. M. Tong, P. Ranitovic, C. L. Cocke, N. Toshima, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 021404.
X.-M. Tong, N. Toshima, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 043429.
M. Murakami, S.-I. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 88 (2013) 043428.
P. Rivière, O. Uhden, U. Saalmann, J. M. Rost, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 053011.
G. Sansone, F. Kelkensberg, J. F. Pérez-Torres, F. Morales, M. F. Kling, W. Siu, O. Ghafur, P. Johnsson, M. Swoboda, E. Benedetti, F. Ferrari, F. Lépine, J. L. Sanz-Vicario, S. Zherebtsov, I. Znakovskaya, A. L’Huillier, M. Y. Ivanov, M. Nisoli, F. Martín, M. J. J. Vrakking, Nature 465 (2010) 763.
F. Kelkensberg, W. Siu, J. F. Pérez-Torres, F. Morales, G. Gademann, A. Rouzée, P. Johnsson, M. Lucchini, F. Calegari, J. L. Sanz-Vicario, F. Martín, M. J. J. Vrakking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 043002.
W. Siu, F. Kelkensberg, G. Gademann, A. Rouzée, P. Johnsson, D. Dowek, M. Lucchini, F. Calegari, U. De Giovannini, A. Rubio, R. R. Lucchese, H. Kono, F. Lépine, M. J. J. Vrakking, Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011) 063412.
C. Neidel, J. Klei, C.-H. Yang, A. Rouzée, M. J. J. Vrakking, K. Klünder, M. Miranda, C. L. Arnold, T. Fordell, A. L’Huillier, M. Gisselbrecht, P. Johnsson, M. P. Dinh, E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, V. Despré, M. A. L. Marques, F. Lépine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 033001.
P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Augé, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, P. Agostini, Science 292 (5522) (2001) 1689–1692.
H. Muller, Applied Physics B 74 (1) (2002) s17.
M. Magrakvelidze, O. Herrwerth, Y. H. Jiang, A. Rudenko, M. Kurka, L. Foucar, K. U. Kühnel, M. Kübel, N. G. Johnson, C. D. Schröter, S. Düsterer, R. Treusch, M. Lezius, I. Ben-Itzhak, R. Moshammer, J. Ullrich, M. F. Kling, U. Thumm, Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 013415.
Y. H. Jiang, A. Senftleben, M. Kurka, A. Rudenko, L. Foucar, O. Herrwerth, M. F. Kling, M. Lezius, J. V. Tilborg, A. Belkacem, K. Ueda, D. Rolles, R. Treusch, Y. Z. Zhang, Y. F. Liu, C. D. Schröter, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, J. Phys. B 46 (16) (2013) 164027.
P. Tzallas, E. Skantzakis, L. A. A. Nikolopoulos, G. D. Tsakiris, D. Charalambidis, Nat. Phys. 7 (2011) 781.
P. A. Carpeggiani, P. Tzallas, A. Palacios, D. Gray, F. Martín, D. Charalambidis, Phys. Rev. A 89 (2014) 023420.
A. Palacios, A. González-Castrillo, F. Martín, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111 (11) (2014) 3973.
P. Wopperer, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paul Sabatier (2013).
P. Wopperer, C. Z. Gao, T. Barillot, C. C. amd A Marciniak, V. Despré, V. Loriot, G. Celep, C. Bordas, F. Lépine, P. M. Dinh, E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
P. M. Dinh, S. Vidal, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, New J. Phys. 14 (2012) 063015.
A. Pohl, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. B 34 (2001) 4969.
P. Wopperer, P. M. Dinh, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys.: Conf. Series 438 (2013) 95.
H. Bethe, [Handbuch der Physik, Band 24/1]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1933.
J. Cooper, R. N. Zare, J. Chem. Phys. 48 (1968) 942.
J. Cooper, R. N. Zare, J. Chem. Phys. 49 (1968) 4252.
E. Maurat, P. A. Hervieux, F. Lépine, J. Phys. B 42 (2009) 165105.
J. Cooper, R. N. Zare, Photoelectron Angular Distributions, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1969.
A. D. Buckingham, B. J. Orr, J. M. Sichel, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series A 268 (1970) 147.
L. I. Schiff, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
P. Wopperer, P. M. Dinh, E. Suraud, P.-G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 015402.
C. Bartels, Ph.D. thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (2008).
A. V. Solov’yov, R. G. Polozkov, V. K. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 021202(R).
T. Barillot, C. Cauchy, P.-A. Hervieux, M. Gisselbrecht, S. E. Canton, P. Johnsson, J. Laksman, E. P. Mansson, J. M. Dahlström, E. Suraud, P. Dinh, P. Wopperer, K. Hansen, V. Loriot, C. Bordas, S. Sorensen, F. Lépine, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
L. Schweikhard, S. Krückeberg, K. Lützenkirchen, C. Walther, Eur. Phys. J. D 9 (1999) 15.
H. Haberland, T. Hippler, J. Donges, O. Kostko, M. Schmidt, B. von Issendorff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 035701.
R. Schlipper, R. Kusche, B. von Issendorff, H. Haberland, Appl. Phys. A 72 (2001) 255.
E. Giglio, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11 (2002) 291.
E. Giglio, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rev. A 67 (2003) 43202.
E. Giglio, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. B 34 (2001) 1253.
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Eur. Phys. J. D 3 (1998) 175.
J. A. R. Samson, R. B. Cairns, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55 (1965) 1035.
H. D. Cohen, U. Fano, Phys. Rev. 150 (1966) 30–33.
F. Frémont, A. Hajaji, A. Naja, C. Leclercq, J. Soret, J. A. Tanis, B. Sulik, J.-Y. Chesnel, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 050704.
S. Chatterjee, D. Misra, A. H. Kelkar, L. C. Tribedi, C. R. Stia, O. A. Fojón, R. D. Rivarola, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 052701.
S. Chatterjee, A. N. Agnihotri, C. R. Stia, O. A. Fojón, R. D. Rivarola, L. C. Tribedi, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 052709.
J. L. Baran, S. Das, F. Járai-Szabó, K. Póra, L. Nagy, J. A. Tanis, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 012710.
S. Nandi, A. N. Agnihotri, S. Kasthurirangan, A. Kumar, C. A. Tachino, R. D. Rivarola, F. Martí n, L. C. Tribedi, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 062705.
M. Winkworth, P. Fainstein, M. Galassi, J. Baran, B. Dassanayake, S. Das, A. Kayani, J. Tanis, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. B 267 (2) (2009) 373, proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Elementary Processes in Atomic Systems.
A. N. Agnihotri, S. Nandi, S. Kasthurirangan, A. Kumar, M. E. Galassi, R. D. Rivarola, C. Champion, L. C. Tribedi, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 032716.
S. Nandi, S. Biswas, A. Khan, J. M. Monti, C. A. Tachino, R. D. Rivarola, D. Misra, L. C. Tribedi, Phys. Rev. A 87 (2013) 052710.
M. Bär and B. Jakob and P.–G. Reinhard and C. Toepffer, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006) 022719.
K. Goeke, P.-G. Reinhard, H. Reinhardt, Ann. Phys. 166 (1986) 257.
Y. Abe, S. Ayik, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Phys. Rep. 275 (1996) 49.
C. Wong, K. Davies, Phys. Rev. C 28 (1983) 2321.
R. Cusson, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Maruhn, W. Greiner, M. Strayer, Z. Phys. A 320 (1985) 475.
A. Umar, V. Oberacker, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 021601R.
G. Bertsch, Z. Phys. A 289 (1978) 103.
P. Danielewicz, Phys. Lett. B 146 (1984) 168.
P. Danielewicz, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 152 (1984) 239.
P. Danielewicz, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 152 (1984) 305.
J. Lehmann, M. Merschdorf, W. Pfeiffer, A. Thon, S. Voll, G. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2921.
P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, Ann. Phys. (NY) 216 (1992) 98.
M. Bixon, R. Zwanzig, Phys. Rev. 187 (1969) 267.
R. Zwanzig, J. Stat. Phys. 9 (1973) 215.
S. Ayik, C. Gregoire, Phys. Lett. B 212 (1988) 269.
J. Randrup, G. F. Burgio, P. Chomaz, Nucl. Phys. A 538 (1992) 393.
P. Napolitani, M. Colonna, Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 382.
N. Slama, P. M. Dinh, P. G. Reinhard, E. Suraud, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., in press.
L. van Hove, Physica 21 (1955) 517.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Shlomo S. Razamat\
Department of Physics,\
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology,\
Haifa 32000, Israel\
E-mail:
title: On fluctuations of closed string tachyon solitons
---
Introduction
============
One of the most interesting features of string theory is the appearance, in some cases, of tachyons. Although much progress has been made in understanding the dynamics of open string tachyons [@Sen:2004nf; @Schnabl], and (semi)localized closed string tachyons (for an incomplete list of references see [@Adams:2001sv; @Headrick:2004hz; @Vafa:2001ra; @Okawa:2004rh; @Adams:2005rb; @Horowitz:2005vp; @Silverstein1; @Bergman:2005qf; @Berkooz1; @Ross1; @Berkooz2]), bulk closed string tachyons have remained a mystery.
Building on the success in the open string and localized closed string cases one can formulate a natural two-part conjecture for bulk closed string tachyons: 1. The ground state contains no degrees of freedom, and 2. solitons correspond to lower-dimensional sub-critical closed string backgrounds.[^1]
In [@Bergman:2006pd] we investigated the second part of the conjecture for the bulk closed string tachyon of the bosonic string. We claimed that a co-dimension one soliton solution of the 26-dimensional closed bosonic string theory describes the flat linear dilaton background of the 25-dimensional sub-critical bosonic string theory. To obtain this we formulated the problem in the low-energy effective theory of the tachyon, dilaton and graviton.[^2] To specify the action we have to know the form of the tachyon potential. However some general features of the soliton solution are independent of the specific potential.
The low energy effective theory of the gravity-dilaton-tachyon system in the closed bosonic string (or the NSNS sector of the Type 0 superstring) is given in the string frame by[^3] \[action\] S=d\^[D]{}x e\^[-2]{}(-R-4(\_)\^2+(\_T)\^2-2V(T)) , where $V(T)=\half m^2 T^2 + \cdots$. We can look for co-dimension one solitonic solutions supported by this action. These solutions are specified by a static tachyon profile $\bar{T}(x_{D-1})$, such that $\bar{T}(0)=0$ and $\bar{T}(x_{D-1})$ approaches a minimum of $V(T)$ as $x_1\rightarrow \pm\infty$. If there is a unique minimum, the soliton is a lump, and if there are degenerate minima the soliton is a kink. Further, assuming a simple form for the metric ($\mu,\nu = 0,1,\ldots,D-2$), \[metric\] ds\^2=-dx\_[D-1]{}\^2+a(x\_[D-1]{})\^2\_dx\^dx\^, one can show that the metric in the string frame should be flat, i.e. $a'=0$, and that the dilaton profile has to have the following form ($x_{D-2}$ is a direction transverse to the soliton) \[total\_dilaton\] |(x\_[D-1]{},x\_[D-2]{}) = D(x\_[D-1]{}) + qx\_[D-2]{} , for some $q$.[^4] The dilaton must therefore be linear in the soliton “world-volume” coordinates. In this case the equations of motion reduce to 2 D” - (|[T]{}’)\^2 &=& 0 \[gravity\]\
|[T]{}” - 2 D’ |[T]{}’-V’(|[T]{}) &=& 0 \[tachyon\]\
D” - 2(D’)\^2 - 2q\^2-V(|[T]{}) &=& 0 \[dilaton\]. This is an over-determined set of equations for the two fields and the constant $q$. Consistency of these equations and the assumption that there is only one solitonic solution (or a discrete set of solutions) supported by this system fixes the value of the constant $q$ in terms of the parameters of the tachyon potential.
Moreover, one can show that the qualitative behavior of the dilaton profile in the direction of the soliton, $x_{D-1}$, is generic and does not depend on the details of the tachyon potential. Interpreting the tachyon equation of motion above as an equation for a point particle in inverted potential, $-V$, with a friction term given by $-2D'$, and noting that the second derivative of the dilaton, $D''$, should be non-negative, one concludes that the dilaton has to grow as $x_{D-1}\rightarrow \pm\infty$. This implies that the Einstein frame metric vanishes away from the core of the soliton, and the space-time effectively localizes on the $(D-1)$-dimensional worldvolume of the soliton. The whole picture is consistent with the identification of the soliton as the flat linear-dilaton background of the $(D-1)$-dimensional string theory.
In this note we will analyze fluctuations around these solitons. For the soliton to describe a lower dimensional string theory one expects that the fluctuation spectrum will still contain a tachyon, since a lower dimensional string theory is still unstable. However, the mass squared of the tachyon living on the soliton should decrease in absolute value as the number of dimensions decreases. In what follows we will find that the mass of the would-be tachyon living on the soliton is essentially non tachyonic in the low energy effective field theory approximation.
This note is organized as follows. In section \[fluct\_sect\] we will discuss fluctuations around solitons for an unspecified, generic class of tachyon potentials. In section \[general\_sect\] we will discuss generic features of the fluctuations and we will illustrate these features on a simple model of quadratic tachyon potential in section \[quadratic\_sect\]. In section \[disc\_sect\] we will summarize and discuss the results. Finally, in appendix \[app\_quad\] we will discuss the quadratic tachyon potential neglecting the gravity fluctuations.
Fluctuations on the solitons {#fluct_sect}
============================
We will analyze the system of a graviton, dilaton and a scalar field which we will refer to as a tachyon although it does not have to posses a negative mass squared.[^5] The action in the Einstein frame is S&=&d\^Dx. We have defined &&M\_[11]{}=,M\_[22]{}=1,M\_[12]{}=M\_[21]{}=0,V(\_I)=e\^V(T). $\Phi_1=\phi_1+\varphi_1$ is the dilaton and $\Phi_2=\phi_2+\varphi_2$ is the tachyon. The $\phi_i$ are the background configurations of the fields and $\varphi_i$ are the fluctuations of the fields around that background. We will denote $$x_{D-1}=x,\qquad x_{D-2}=y.$$ The prime denotes a derivative with respect to $x$, and the dot denotes a derivative with respect to $y$. In all the models we deal with [@Bergman:2006pd]$$\phi_2=\phi_2(x),\qquad \frac{2}{D-2}\phi_1=A(x)+B(y),\qquad B(y)=\frac{2q}{D-2}\cdot y,$$ i.e. the dilaton background is linear in one of the directions, $y$, and has some profile in direction $x$. The tachyon background depends only on the coordinate $x$. General metric fluctuations in our background are given by ds\^2=e\^[-2S]{}(\_+2h\_)dx\^dx\^,where $S=A+B$. Define the fluctuations of the Christoffel symbols \^\_&=&\^[(0)]{}\_+C\^\_. These are calculated with an ansatz above to give \^[(0)]{}\_&=&-\_\^\_-\_\^\_+\^S\_,\
C\^\_&=&\^(\_h\_+\_h\_ -\_h\_)+2\^Sh\_-2\_S h\^\_In what follows we raise and lower indices with the flat metric. The fluctuations of the Ricci tensor and the stress tensors are given by R\_&=& D\^(\_h\_+\_h\_)-D\^\_h\_ -\_\_h+\^S\_h \_- 2D\_(\_S h\^)\_ -V h\_\
T\_&=&M\_[IJ]{}\_\_I\_\_J+M\_[IJ]{}\_\_I\_\_J-\_V\_I\_I-V h\_ where we have defined $$\tilde T_{\mu\nu}=T_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{D-2}g_{\mu\nu}T,\qquad D_\a=\d_\a-(D-2)\d_\a S.$$ To solve for the spectrum of fluctuations on the soliton we have to solve the Einstein equations of motion, $$\delta R_{\mu\nu}= \delta\tilde T_{\mu\nu},$$ as well as the equations of motion for the tachyon and the dilaton. We partially fix the gauge by setting (index $i$ runs over $0,1,...,D-3$) \[gauge\] h\_[ix]{}=0,h\_[xy]{}=0,\^i h\_[yi]{}=0,.The equation of motion for the fluctuations of the tachyon and the dilaton in this gauge are given by \[field1\] &&M\_[IJ]{}{ D\^\_\_J -2h\_[xx]{}D\_x\_x\_J-2h\_[yy]{}D\_y\_y\_J -2}=-V\_[IJ]{}\_J. The quantities appearing in the above equation are given by &&V\_1=V,V\_2= V’,V\_[11]{}=()\^2V,\
&&V\_[22]{}=V”,V\_[12]{}=V\_[21]{}=V’. The background field equations (\[tachyon\],\[dilaton\]), can be written as \[field0\] V\_I -M\_[IJ]{}(\_J”+\_J)+(D-2)M\_[IJ]{}(A’\_J’+B\_J)=0. We define the following useful quantities \[Rdef\] R\_y&&D\^yh\_[yy]{}-h - M\_[IJ]{}\_I\_J+ ,\
R\_x&&D\^x h\_[xx]{} -h’ - M\_[IJ]{}’\_I\_J+h’ . Using the definitions above the following components of the Einstein equations are given by \[hprop\] {x,y}&:& -( R\_x+R’\_y)=\_x\_y,\
{x,i}&:& \_i R\_x=-D\^h’\_[i]{}+ \_ih’,\
{y,i}&:& \_i R\_y=-D\^h\_[i]{}+ \_i+D\^\_h\_[iy]{}.One can verify that the two scalar equations imply that $R_x=R_y=0$. Thus, the $\{x,i\}$ equation becomes \[condEq\] -D\^h’\_[i]{}+\_ih’=0. We can use part of the residual gauge symmetry to set also \[condEq2\] -D\^h\_[i]{}+\_i[h]{}=0. Plugging this into the $\{i,y\}$ equation we obtain \[vector\] D\^\_h\_[iy]{}=0. Note that this is a simple laplacian of a scalar in our curved background. Using the above remaining components of the Einstein equations are \[GHF1\] {x,x}&:& D\^x h’\_[xx]{}-- M\_[IJ]{}\_I’\_J’- +D\_x (A’h\_[xx]{})+D\_y (B h\_[y y]{})=0,\
{y,y}&:& D\^y h\_[yy]{}-- M\_[IJ]{}\_I\_J- +D\_x (A’h\_[xx]{})+D\_y (B h\_[y y]{})=0,\
{i,j}&:& -D\^\_h\_[ij]{} + \_[ij]{}=0. Projecting on the traceless ( $\tilde h_{ij}=h_{ij}-\frac{1}{D-2}\,\tilde h\, \eta_{ij}$ ) part we get again \[graviton\] D\^\_h\_[ij]{}=0. This equation along with describe the tensor and the vector excitations on the soliton. For instance, the lowest component of describes a $25$-dimensional graviton confined to the soliton world-volume.
Further, using one can compute the following {i,i}-{x,x}-{y,y}=0,=0, in agreement with the first equation in . We can use the remaining residual gauge symmetry to set $h-\frac{2}{D-2} \tilde h=0$. Note that the above relation implies that the three scalars, $h_{xx}$, $h_{yy}$ and $h$, are linearly dependent. To find the fluctuations of the scalar modes we define Q=(D-2)h\_[yy]{}+h,P=(D-2)h\_[xx]{}+h. From here using and (\[GHF1\]) we get simple equations for $P$ and $Q$ D\^\_Q&=&0,\[finalQ\]\
D\^\_P &=& -2P’-2.\[finP\] In what follows we will be interested in the scalar spectrum on the soliton. To summarize, the tensor and the vector fluctuations on the soliton are given in terms of a simple laplace equation in our curved background, equations (\[vector\]) and (\[graviton\]). The spectrum of scalar fluctuations consists of two independent fields, which we can choose to be $P$ and $Q$. Thus to obtain the scalar spectrum of the soliton we have to solve (\[finalQ\]) and (\[finP\]).
General features of the spectrum {#general_sect}
================================
In this section we will derive some general features of the scalar spectrum of fluctuations. First, let us denote Q &=& e\^[-\_1-q y]{}Q,|P=e\^[-\_1-q y]{}P,\
H\_P&=&-\_x\^2+{(-\_1’)\^2-(-\_1’)’+ 2\_1”+q\^2},\
H\_Q&=&-\_x\^2+{(\_1’)\^2-”\_1+q\^2},F= 2()’. Using these definitions the equations (\[finalQ\]) and (\[finP\]) take the following form |P -&=& -H\_P |P-F Q,\
Q -&=& -H\_Q Q. To diagonalize these we write P=|P+L Q, where $\hat L$ is a linear operator that we demand to satisfy \[diag\_eq\] F=H\_PL-L H\_Q. In general this equation for $\hat L$ is hard to solve, but we will see an example for which the equation simplifies significantly. Finally, the diagonalized fluctuation equations take the following form \[PQdiag\] P -=-H\_PP, Q -=-H\_QQ. The mass spectrum is given by the eigenvalues of the Schrodinger-like operators $H_{P,Q}$. Note that the $Q$ equation is exactly the dilaton fluctuation equation if we neglect mixing completely [@Bergman:2006pd]. However, here $Q$ is a combination of the dilaton and the gravity fields.
Some general features of the fluctuation spectrum are easy to extract. One can immediately conclude from above that there is no tachyon on the soliton in our effective field theory for any kind of tachyon potential. Note that can be written as \[PQAAD\] &&P -=-P,\
&&Q -=-Q, where we have defined a\_P=+-\_1’,a\_P\^=-+-\_1’,a\_Q=+’\_1,a\_Q\^=-+’\_1. Note that this immediately implies that the expectation value of the hamiltonian $H_{P,Q}$ on any state is positive definite and thus there are no tachyons in the spectrum.
Another general feature is that if $\phi_1$ becomes large at $x\to\pm\infty$ we can obtain the ground state of the $\hat Q$ states. It is simply given by $a_Q\hat Q=0$ condition, giving $\hat Q=e^{-\phi_1}$. If the dilaton does not go to strong coupling at infinities one can not say anything about the ground state. However, as was noted in [@Bergman:2006pd] the dilaton diverges at $x\to\pm\infty$, and thus, this is always the $\hat Q$ ground state in the cases of the solitons.
Quadratic potential {#quadratic_sect}
===================
In this section we will discuss a simple example for which the diagonalization problem is exactly solvable and one can rigorously obtain the spectrum. We begin by setting ”\_2=0. Without loss of generality we set \_2(x)=2x.Then the diagonalization is very simple P =|P+QUsing the dilaton and tachyon equations of motion we find that the tachyon potential and the dilaton profile are V(T)=2-2q\^2-2 T\^2,\_1(x,y)=x\^2+qy. Note that the physical demand that the potential will vanish for $T=0$ implies $q^2=1$, but we won’t restrict to this in what follows. The fluctuation equations are diagonalized \[Quad\_diag\] &&P -=-,\
&&|Q -=-. The RHS are simple harmonic oscillator Hamiltonians which give evenly spaced towers of states with masses squared given by m\_Q\^2=4n+q\^2,m\_P\^2=4n+8+q\^2. Thus we have two massive fields with mass squared $q^2,q^2+4$ and doubly degenerate massive spectrum $4n+q^2+8$. There is no tachyon.
$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{0.0in}}c}
\epsfig{file=quadPot.eps, scale=0.57} &
\epsfig{file=quadFields.eps, scale=0.57} \\ [0.2cm]
\end{array}$
Summary and Discussion {#disc_sect}
======================
In this note we have investigated the spectrum of fluctuations on closed string tachyon solitons. Our motivation for investigating these objects is to interpret them as sub-critical strings. We have analyzed the low energy effective action describing the tachyon, dilaton and graviton. The main conclusion from the calculations is that there is no tachyonic instability on the solitons in our low energy models. There are two possible explanations of this. First, the tachyon might be restored when we take into account the massive fields in the string spectrum. If the mixing between the massive and the massless fields (or the tachyon) is strong enough, a negative mass squared fluctuation might re-appear. Another possible explanation comes from the observation that our final expressions describing the spectrum of the fluctuations do not depend on the number of space-time dimensions. Our analysis did not assume a specific number of dimensions and thus in particular it should be suitable for describing a co-dimension one soliton in three dimensions. Following our general expectations, we interpret this soliton as a $2d$ string. The tachyon of the $2d$ string is massless and this is consistent with our findings. Thus, the low energy analysis might be suitable only for this case for some reason. It would be very interesting to investigate all these issues further.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank Oren Bergman, Zohar Komargodski and Amos Yarom for useful discussions. I would especially like to thank Andreas Karch for a very useful correspondence. This work is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation under grant no. 568/05.
The naive fluctuation spectrum for a quadratic tachyon potential. {#app_quad}
=================================================================
In this appendix we will discuss the spectrum on the soliton of a quadratic tachyon potential without taking into account gravity fluctuations. Note that when we neglect gravity we first should specify in what frame we are working: the string frame or the Einstein frame. The fluctuation spectrum is different in the two frames if we neglect gravity, since changing frames involves non trivial field redefinitions involving metric. In what follows we will compute the spectrum in the string frame, where we can do it explicitly. In section \[quadratic\_sect\] we defined the model: \_1=x\^2,\_2=2x,V(T)=-2T\^2, q\^2=1 In the string frame the fluctuations are given by (see [@Bergman:2006pd] for details): \[fluctuation\_L\] L = and $\Delta = (\phi'_1)^2 - \phi''_1 + q^2$. Using the above model we obtain: &&=4x\^2-1,’(’\_1 + \_1)=4(x+). Define H\_0=(-\^2+4x\^2)=2a\^a+1,a=x+,a\^=x-,=1. We know that the spectrum of this Hamiltonian is E\_n=2n+1. Further, we note that the mixing term is simply $-8a$. Thus we can write: L . First, neglect the mixing and denote the eigenstates of the dilaton as $\psi^d_n$, each having energy \^d\_n=2E\_n-1=4n+1.Denote the tachyon eigenstates as $\psi^t_n$, each having energy \^t\_n=2E\_n-5=4n-3.We see that the tachyon has a mass squared $-3$ while the original tachyon had mass squared $-4$. Now remember that a\^[t,d]{}\_n=\^[t,d]{}\_[n-1]{},a\^\^[t,d]{}\_n=\^[t,d]{}\_[n+1]{} Next we incorporate the mixing. The lowest state of the dilaton $\psi^d_0$ does not mix with anything and has mass squared $\e=1$. Further, $\psi^d_{n+1}$ mixes only with $\psi^t_{n}$, and the mixing matrix takes the following form M\_n= Remember that the signs of the tachyon kinetic term and the dilaton kinetic term in the string frame are opposite and thus to find the spectrum we have to diagonalize the above matrix while keeping the kinetic term unchanged. In this case it means that we have to find a matrix $U$ such that U\^ U= U= We want to solve M\_n=U\_nU\_n This implies that: \_n=x\_nx\_n(a\_n+b\_n),\_n=a\_n+\^2 x\_n(a\_n+b\_n), \_n=b\_n+\^2 x\_n(a\_n+b\_n)From here we easily solve x\_n=,a\_n-b\_n=\_n-\_n, a\_n+b\_n=.Note that these equations imply that if $\biggl|\frac{\g_n}{\a_n+\b_n}\biggr |\leq 1$ the fields are real. Otherwise they are imaginary. We can make them real by multiplying with $i$. This will flip the sign of the kinetic terms of both fields. From here the spectrum is easily computed. It consists of two towers, $m^2_n=1+3n$ and $\tilde m^2_n=-2+5n$. We have a tachyon and thus we see that the disappearance of the tachyon is indeed due to the mixing with gravity which we neglected here.
[10]{}
A. Sen, “Tachyon dynamics in open string theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**20**]{}, 5513 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0410103\]; W. Taylor and B. Zwiebach, “D-branes, tachyons, and string field theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0311017. M. Schnabl, “Analytic solution for tachyon condensation in open string field theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 433 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0511286\]; I. Ellwood and M. Schnabl, “Proof of vanishing cohomology at the tachyon vacuum,” JHEP [**0702**]{}, 096 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0606142\].
A. Adams, J. Polchinski and E. Silverstein, “Don’t panic! Closed string tachyons in ALE space-times,” JHEP [**0110**]{}, 029 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108075\]. M. Headrick, S. Minwalla and T. Takayanagi, “Closed string tachyon condensation: An overview,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**21**]{}, S1539 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0405064\]; E. J. Martinec, “Defects, decay, and dissipated states,” arXiv:hep-th/0210231; J. A. Harvey, D. Kutasov, E. J. Martinec and G. W. Moore, “Localized tachyons and RG flows,” arXiv:hep-th/0111154.
C. Vafa, “Mirror symmetry and closed string tachyon condensation,” arXiv:hep-th/0111051. Y. Okawa and B. Zwiebach, “Twisted tachyon condensation in closed string field theory,” JHEP [**0403**]{}, 056 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0403051\]; O. Bergman and S. S. Razamat, “On the CSFT approach to localized closed string tachyons,” JHEP [**0501**]{}, 014 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0410046\].
A. Adams, X. Liu, J. McGreevy, A. Saltman and E. Silverstein, “Things fall apart: Topology change from winding tachyons,” arXiv:hep-th/0502021. G. T. Horowitz, “Tachyon condensation and black strings,” JHEP [**0508**]{}, 091 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0506166\]. G. T. Horowitz and E. Silverstein, “The inside story: Quasilocal tachyons and black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 064016 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0601032\].
O. Bergman and S. Hirano, “Semi-localized instability of the Kaluza-Klein linear dilaton vacuum,” Nucl. Phys. B [**744**]{}, 136 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0510076\]. M. Berkooz and D. Reichmann, “A short review of time dependent solutions and space-like singularities in string theory,” arXiv:0705.2146 \[hep-th\]; J. McGreevy and E. Silverstein, “The tachyon at the end of the universe,” JHEP [**0508**]{}, 090 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0506130\]; M. Berkooz, Z. Komargodski, D. Reichmann and V. Shpitalnik, “Flow of geometries and instantons on the null orbifold,” JHEP [**0512**]{}, 018 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0507067\].
S. F. Ross, “Winding tachyons in asymptotically supersymmetric black strings,” JHEP [**0510**]{}, 112 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0509066\].
M. Berkooz, Z. Komargodski and D. Reichmann, “Thermal AdS(3), BTZ and competing winding modes condensation,” arXiv:0706.0610 \[hep-th\]; M. Rangamani and S. F. Ross, “Winding tachyons in BTZ,” arXiv:0706.0663 \[hep-th\].
N. Moeller and M. Schnabl, “Tachyon condensation in open-closed p-adic string theory,” JHEP [**0401**]{}, 011 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0304213\]. H. Yang and B. Zwiebach, “A closed string tachyon vacuum?,” JHEP [**0509**]{}, 054 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0506077\]. H. Yang and B. Zwiebach, “Rolling closed string tachyons and the big crunch,” JHEP [**0508**]{}, 046 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0506076\].
S. Hellerman and I. Swanson, “Charting the landscape of supercritical string theory,” arXiv:0705.0980 \[hep-th\]; S. Hellerman and I. Swanson, “Cosmological unification of string theories,” arXiv:hep-th/0612116; S. Hellerman and I. Swanson, “Dimension-changing exact solutions of string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0612051; S. Hellerman and I. Swanson, “Cosmological solutions of supercritical string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0611317; O. Aharony and E. Silverstein, “Supercritical stability, transitions and (pseudo)tachyons,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 046003 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0612031\].
O. Bergman and S. S. Razamat, “Toy models for closed string tachyon solitons,” JHEP [**0611**]{}, 063 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0607037\].
T. Suyama, “Tachyon condensation with B-field,” JHEP [**0702**]{}, 050 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0610127\]; T. Suyama, “Non-trivial tachyon profiles in low energy effective theory,” \[arXiv:hep-th/0702147\].
O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 046008 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9909134\]; C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser and G. D. Kribs, “Radion dynamics and electroweak physics,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 065002 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0008151\].
[^1]: Indirect evidence for this conjecture was given in the context of p-Adic strings by Moeller and Schnabl [@Moeller:2003gg]. Consult [@Zwiebach1] for a string field theory approach for the problem, and [@Yang2] for time dependent solutions. See also [@hellerman] for a discussion of bulk closed string tachyon condensation in super-critical string.
[^2]: See [@Suyama] for similar calculations including the $B$ field
[^3]: Note that the metric notations in this note are $(+,-,...,-)$ and differ from [@Bergman:2006pd].
[^4]: Essentially, the equations of motion require that the product $q a' $ will vanish. However, as we want to interpret the soliton as the sub-critical string we take the solution with non-vanishing linear dilaton profile.
[^5]: Consult [@Karch] for similar calculations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The driving force behind deep networks is their ability to compactly represent rich classes of functions. The primary notion for formally reasoning about this phenomenon is expressive efficiency, which refers to a situation where one network must grow unfeasibly large in order to realize (or approximate) functions of another. To date, expressive efficiency analyses focused on the architectural feature of depth, showing that deep networks are representationally superior to shallow ones. In this paper we study the expressive efficiency brought forth by connectivity, motivated by the observation that modern networks interconnect their layers in elaborate ways. We focus on dilated convolutional networks, a family of deep models delivering state of the art performance in sequence processing tasks. By introducing and analyzing the concept of mixed tensor decompositions, we prove that interconnecting dilated convolutional networks can lead to expressive efficiency. In particular, we show that even a single connection between intermediate layers can already lead to an almost quadratic gap, which in large-scale settings typically makes the difference between a model that is practical and one that is not. Empirical evaluation demonstrates how the expressive efficiency of connectivity, similarly to that of depth, translates into gains in accuracy. This leads us to believe that expressive efficiency may serve a key role in the development of new tools for deep network design.'
author:
- |
Nadav Cohen\
Institute for Advanced Study\
`[email protected]`\
Ronen Tamari\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem\
`[email protected]`\
Amnon Shashua\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Nadav Cohen\
Institute for Advanced Study\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Ronen Tamari\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Amnon Shashua\
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem\
`[email protected]`\
- |
Nadav Cohen & Ronen Tamari & Amnon Shashua\
`[email protected] & {ronent,shashua}@cs.huji.ac.il`
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title:
- Boosting Dilated Convolutional Networks with Mixed Tensor Decompositions
- Boosting Dilated Convolutional Networks with Mixed Tensor Decompositions
- Boosting Dilated Convolutional Networks with Mixed Tensor Decompositions
- |
Boosting Dilated Convolutional Networks with\
Mixed Tensor Decompositions
---
*Deep Learning*, *Expressive Efficiency*, *Dilated Convolutions*, *Tensor Decompositions*
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
One of the key attributes fueling the success of deep learning is the ability of deep networks to compactly represent rich classes of functions. This phenomenon has drawn considerable attention from the theoretical machine learning community in recent years. The primary notion for formally reasoning about the representational abilities of different models is *expressive efficiency*. Given two network architectures $A$ and $B$, with size parameters (typically the width of layers across a network) $r_A$ and $r_B$, we say that architecture $A$ is expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} architecture $B$ if the following two conditions hold: *(i)* any function realized by $B$ with size $r_B$ can be realized (or approximated) by $A$ with size $r_A\in{{\mathcal O}}(r_B)$; and *(ii)* there exist functions realized by $A$ with size $r_A$ that cannot be realized (or approximated) by $B$ unless its size meets $r_B\in\Omega(f(r_A))$ for some super-linear function $f$. The nature of the function $f$ in condition *(ii)* determines the type of efficiency taking place – if $f$ is exponential then architecture $A$ is said to be exponentially expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} architecture $B$, and if $f$ is polynomial so is the expressive efficiency of $A$ over $B$.
To date, works studying expressive efficiency in the context of deep learning (e.g. ) have focused on the architectural feature of depth, showing instances where deep networks are expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} shallow ones. This theoretical focus is motivated by the vast empirical evidence supporting the importance of depth (see [@LeCun:2015dt] for a survey of such results). However, it largely overlooks an additional architectural feature that in recent years is proving to have great impact on the performance of deep networks – *connectivity*. Nearly all state of the art networks these days (e.g. [@Szegedy:2014tb; @he2015deep; @huang2016deep; @huang2016densely]) deviate from the simple feed-forward (chain) approach, running layers connected under various schemes. Whether or not this relates to expressive efficiency remains to be an open question.
A specific family of deep networks gaining increased attention in the deep learning community is that of *dilated convolutional networks*. These models form the basis of the recent WaveNet ([@van2016wavenet]) and ByteNet ([@kalchbrenner2016neural]) architectures, which provide state of the art performance in audio and text processing tasks. Dilated convolutional networks are typically applied to sequence data, and consist of multiple succeeding convolutional layers, each comprising non-contiguous filters with a different dilation (distance between neighboring elements). The choice of dilations directly affects the space of functions that may be realized by a network, and while no choice is expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} another, we show in this work that interconnecting networks with different dilations leads to expressive efficiency, and by this demonstrate that connectivity indeed bears the potential to enhance the expressiveness of deep networks.
Our analysis follows several recent works utilizing tensor decompositions for theoretical studies of deep learning (see for example [@Janzamin:2015uz; @sedghi2016training]), and in particular, builds on the equivalence between hierarchical tensor decompositions and convolutional networks established in and . We show that with dilated convolutional networks, the choice of dilations throughout a network corresponds to determination of the mode (dimension) tree underlying the respective decomposition. We then define the notion of a *mixed tensor decomposition*, which blends together multiple mode trees, effectively creating a large ensemble of hybrid trees formed from all possible combinations. Mixed tensor decompositions correspond to mixed dilated convolutional networks, [*i.e.*]{} mixtures formed by connecting intermediate layers of different dilated convolutional networks. This allows studying the expressive properties of such mixtures using mathematical machinery from the field of tensor analysis. We fully analyze a particular case of dilated convolutional arithmetic circuits, showing that a single connection between intermediate layers already leads to an almost quadratic expressive efficiency, which in large-scale settings typically makes the difference between a model that is practical and one that is not.
An experiment on TIMIT speech corpus ([@garofolo1993darpa]) evaluates the dilated convolutional network architectures covered by our analysis. We find that interconnecting intermediate layers of different networks improves accuracy, with no additional cost in terms of computation or model capacity. This serves as an indication that with the architectural feature of connectivity, similarly to the case of depth, expressive efficiency and improved accuracies go hand in hand. Accordingly, we believe expressive efficiency may serve a key role in the development of new tools for deep network design.
Summary of Our Analysis and Contributions {#sec:summary}
=========================================
Our analysis begins in sec. \[sec:dcn\], where we present the dilated convolutional network underlying WaveNet (fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]). We consider this to be the baseline architecture and, following , facilitate its study through tensor analysis. The key to introducing tensors into the framework is a discretization of the network’s input-output mapping. Namely, $f({{\mathbf x}}[t{-}N{+}1],\ldots,{{\mathbf x}}[t])$ – a function realized by the network ($t$ here stands for a natural time index), is conceptually evaluated on a finite (exponentially large) number of input points, generated from all possible assignments of the variables ${{\mathbf x}}[t{-}N{+}1],\ldots,{{\mathbf x}}[t]$ to each hold one of $M$ predetermined values. This gives rise to an $N$-dimensional lookup table, with length $M$ in each axis. We refer to this lookup table as a *grid tensor* (eq. \[eq:grid\_tensor\]). It is shown (app. \[app:base\_decomp\]) that grid tensors brought forth by the baseline dilated convolutional network can be expressed as a hierarchical tensor decomposition, referred to as the *baseline decomposition* (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]).
The baseline decomposition implicitly adheres to a particular tree over tensor modes (axes). This calls for a generalization, and we indeed define a general mode tree (def. \[def:tree\]), followed by a corresponding hierarchical tensor decomposition, referred to as the *tree decomposition* (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]). Different choices of mode trees lead to tree decompositions characterizing networks with different dilations. We focus on the tree that corresponds to the baseline network (fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\](a)), and on those corresponding to networks obtained by swapping dilations of different layers (fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\](b), for example).
Armed with a framework for representing different dilated convolutional networks through hierarchical tensor decompositions of different mode trees, we head on in sec. \[sec:mtd\] and introduce the notion of a *mixed tensor decomposition* (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]). The mixed decomposition of two mode trees $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ is based on a preselected set of nodes present in both trees, referred to as *mixture nodes*. Individual tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ are run in parallel, where at each mixture node, tensors from the two decompositions are swapped. If ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ are the dilated convolutional networks characterized by $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (respectively), the mixed decomposition characterizes a mixed (interconnected) network ${{\mathcal M}}$, formed by rewiring intermediate layers of ${{\mathcal N}}$ into ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$, and vice versa (see fig. \[fig:mix\_trees\_dcn\]).
The heart of our analysis is sec. \[sec:analysis\], where we study the expressive efficiency of the mixed network ${{\mathcal M}}$ over the individual networks ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$. Establishing expressive efficiency requires showing that any function realized by ${{\mathcal N}}$ or ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ can be realized by ${{\mathcal M}}$ with no more than linear growth in size, whereas the converse does not hold, [*i.e.*]{} there exist functions realizable by ${{\mathcal M}}$ that cannot be realized by ${{\mathcal N}}$ or ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ unless their size is allowed to grow super-linearly. From a tensor decomposition perspective, this translates to the following two propositions:
1. any tensor generated by a tree decomposition of $T$ or ${\bar{T}}$ can be realized by their mixed decomposition with no more than linear growth in size; and
2. there exist tensors realizable by the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ that cannot be realized by their individual tree decompositions without a super-linear growth in size.
We address both propositions through the notion of *hybrid mode trees* (def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]; fig. \[fig:hybrid\_trees\]), which are simply mode trees born from combinations of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. We prove (claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\]) that the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ can replicate, with no more than linear growth in size, the tree decomposition of any hybrid tree $H$. Since $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ are in particular hybrid mode trees of themselves, we obtain an affirmative answer to proposition *(i)*. For addressing proposition *(ii)*, we demonstrate a case (with convolutional arithmetic circuits) where there exists a hybrid tree $H$ whose tree decomposition generates tensors that require the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ to grow super-linearly. Since the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ can (by claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\]) replicate the tree decomposition of $H$ with no more than linear growth, proposition *(ii)* is established, and ${{\mathcal M}}$ is indeed expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ (corollary \[corollary:mix\_by\_tree\]).
The central tool for establishing proposition *(ii)*, or more specifically, for demonstrating the existence of a hybrid tree $H$ whose tree decomposition requires those of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ to grow super-linearly, is a tight analysis of tensors generated by a tree decomposition in terms of their ranks when arranged as matrices (theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\]). Matricization ranks under hierarchical tensor decompositions are of interest from a pure tensor analysis perspective ([*cf.*]{} [@Hackbusch-book]), as well as in the context of deep learning ([*cf.*]{} ). The bounds we provide are much tighter (exact in many cases) and far more general than those existing in the literature, and we expect them to prove useful in different applications. The key idea in deriving these bounds is to consider a matricized form of the tree decomposition, and recursively propagate outwards various matrices (for details see proof sketch following theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\], as well as the complete proof in app. \[app:proofs:tree\_decomp\_ranks\]).
To conclude this section, we list below the main contributions of the paper:
- We introduce the notion of a mixed tensor decomposition, and prove that it brings forth a representational advantage compared to the individual hierarchical decompositions it comprises. This development is of interest from a pure tensor analysis perspective, independently of convolutional networks, or machine learning in general.
- We provide the first formal evidence for the fact that interconnectivity – an architectural feature prevalent in state of the art deep learning, brings forth expressive efficiency.
- Our central theorem (theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\]) provides the most comprehensive characterization to date of matricization ranks brought forth by hierarchical tensor decompositions.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
The constructions and analyses delivered in this paper rely on concepts from the field of tensor analysis. Below we provide the minimal background required in order to follow our arguments.
The core concept in tensor analysis is a *tensor*, which for our purposes may simply be thought of as a multi-dimensional array. The *order* of a tensor is defined to be the number of indexing entries in the array, which are referred to as *modes*. The *dimension* of a tensor in a particular mode is defined as the number of values that may be taken by the index in that mode. For example, a $4$-by-$3$ matrix is a tensor of order $2$, [*i.e.*]{} it has two modes, with dimension $4$ in mode $1$ and dimension $3$ in mode $2$. If ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a tensor of order $N$ and dimension $M_i$ in each mode $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, the space of all configurations it can take is denoted, quite naturally, by ${{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times\cdots\times}M_N}$.
A fundamental operator in tensor analysis is the *tensor product* (also known as *outer product*), which we denote by $\otimes$. It is an operator that intakes two tensors ${{\mathcal A}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times\cdots\times}M_P}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_{P+1}{\times\cdots\times}M_{P+Q}}$ (orders $P$ and $Q$ respectively), and returns a tensor ${{\mathcal A}}\otimes{{\mathcal B}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times\cdots\times}M_{P+Q}}$ (order $P+Q$) defined by: $({{\mathcal A}}\otimes{{\mathcal B}})_{d_1{\ldots}d_{P+Q}}={{\mathcal A}}_{d_1{\ldots}d_P}\cdot{{\mathcal B}}_{d_{P+1}{\ldots}d_{P+Q}}$. In a generalization of the tensor product is defined, by replacing multiplication with a general operator $g(\cdot)$. Specifically, for a function $g:{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ that is commutative ($g(a,b)=g(b,a)$ for all $a,b\in{{\mathbb R}}$), the *generalized tensor product*, denoted ${\otimes_g}$, is defined to be the operator that for input tensors ${{\mathcal A}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times\cdots\times}M_P}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_{P+1}{\times\cdots\times}M_{P+Q}}$ (orders $P$ and $Q$ respectively), returns the tensor ${{\mathcal A}}{\otimes_g}{{\mathcal B}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times\cdots\times}M_{P+Q}}$ (order $P+Q$) given by: $({{\mathcal A}}{\otimes_g}{{\mathcal B}})_{d_1{\ldots}d_{P+Q}}=g({{\mathcal A}}_{d_1{\ldots}d_P},{{\mathcal B}}_{d_{P+1}{\ldots}d_{P+Q}})$.
An additional operator we will make use of is *mode permutation*. Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a tensor of order $N$, and let $\sigma(\cdot)$ be a permutation over $N$ (bijective mapping from $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ to itself). The mode permutation of ${{\mathcal A}}$ [w.r.t.]{} $\sigma(\cdot)$, which by a slight abuse of notation is denoted $\sigma({{\mathcal A}})$, is the order-$N$ tensor defined by: $\sigma({{\mathcal A}})_{d_1{\ldots}d_N}={{\mathcal A}}_{d_{\sigma(1)}{\ldots}d_{\sigma(N)}}$. In words, $\sigma({{\mathcal A}})$ is the tensor obtained by rearranging the modes of ${{\mathcal A}}$ in accordance with $\sigma(\cdot)$.
When studying tensors, it is oftentimes useful to arrange them as matrices, a procedure referred to as *matricization*. Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be a tensor of order $N$ and dimension $M_i$ in each mode $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and let ${{\mathcal I}}\subset\{1,\ldots,N\}$ be a set of mode indexes, whose complement $\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus{{\mathcal I}}$ we denote by ${{\mathcal I}}^c$. We may write ${{\mathcal I}}=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}\right\rvert}}\}$ where $i_1<\cdots<i_{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}\right\rvert}}$, and similarly ${{\mathcal I}}^c=\{j_1,\ldots,j_{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}^c \right\rvert}}\}$ where $j_1<\cdots<j_{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}^c \right\rvert}}$. The matricization of ${{\mathcal A}}$ [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$, denoted ${\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}\rrbracket}_{{{\mathcal I}}}$, is the $\prod_{t=1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}\right\rvert}}M_{i_t}$-by-$\prod_{t=1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}^c \right\rvert}}M_{j_t}$ matrix holding the entries of ${{\mathcal A}}$ such that ${{\mathcal A}}_{d_1{\ldots}d_N}$ is placed in row index $1+\sum_{t=1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}\right\rvert}}(d_{i_t}-1)\prod_{t'=t+1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}\right\rvert}}M_{i_{t'}}$ and column index $1+\sum_{t=1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}^c \right\rvert}}(d_{j_t}-1)\prod_{t'=t+1}^{{\left\lvert{{\mathcal I}}^c \right\rvert}}M_{j_{t'}}$. If ${{\mathcal I}}=\emptyset$ or ${{\mathcal I}}=\{1,\ldots,N\}$, then by definition ${\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}\rrbracket}_{{{\mathcal I}}}$ is a row or column (respectively) vector of dimension $\prod_{t=1}^{N}M_t$ holding ${{\mathcal A}}_{d_1{\ldots}d_N}$ in entry $1+\sum_{t=1}^{N}(d_t-1)\prod_{t'=t+1}^{N}M_{t'}$.
To conclude this section, we hereinafter establish notational conventions that will accompany us throughout the paper. We denote tensors with uppercase calligraphic letters, [*e.g.*]{} ${{\mathcal A}}$, and in some cases, with the Greek letters $\phi$, $\varphi$ or $\psi$. Subscripts are used to refer to individual tensor entries, [*e.g.*]{} ${{\mathcal A}}_{d_1{\ldots}d_N}\in{{\mathbb R}}$, whereas superscripts indicate the location of a tensor in some annotated collection, for example ${{\mathcal A}}^y$ stands for the $y$’th tensor in the collection ${{\mathcal A}}^1\ldots{{\mathcal A}}^r$. Vectors are typically denoted with boldface lowercase letters, [*e.g.*]{} ${{\mathbf a}}$, where again subscripts refer to an individual entry ([*e.g.*]{} $a_\alpha\in{{\mathbb R}}$), and superscripts to the identity of a vector within some annotated collection ([*e.g.*]{} ${{\mathbf a}}^{l,j}$ is the $(l,j)$’th vector in the set $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{l,j}\}_{l=1{\ldots}L,j=1{\ldots}N}$). We use non-boldface lowercase or uppercase letters ([*e.g.*]{} $l$ or $L$) to denote scalars, and in this case, both subscripts and superscripts distinguish between objects in an annotated set ([*e.g.*]{} $l_i,l^i,L_i,L^i\in{{\mathbb R}}$). Finally, for a positive integer $N\in{{\mathbb N}}$, we use $[N]$ as shorthand for the set $\{1,\ldots,N\}$.
Dilated Convolutional Networks {#sec:dcn}
==============================
*Dilated convolutional networks* are a family of convolutional networks ([@lecun1995convolutional]) gaining increased attention in the deep learning community. As opposed to more conventional convolutional architectures (see for example [@Krizhevsky:2012wl]), which are applied primarily to images and videos, dilated convolutional networks thrive in sequence processing tasks. For example, they underlie Google’s WaveNet ([@van2016wavenet]) and ByteNet ([@kalchbrenner2016neural]) models, which provide state of the art performance in audio and text processing tasks.
Baseline Architecture {#sec:dcn:base}
---------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
The dilated convolutional network architecture considered as baseline in this paper is the one underlying WaveNet model, depicted in fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]. The input to the network is a sequence of vectors $({{\mathbf x}}[t])_t\subset{{\mathbb R}}^{r_0}$, where $t$ is a natural time index. A size-$2$ convolutional layer with dilation-$1$, [*i.e.*]{} with contiguous filters, maps this input into the hidden sequence $({{\mathbf h}}^{(1)}[t])_t\subset{{\mathbb R}}^{r_1}$. Specifically, entry $\gamma\in[r_1]$ of ${{\mathbf h}}^{(1)}[t]$ is obtained by applying the filter formed by ${{\mathbf a}}^{1,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{1,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_0}$ to time points $t{-}1,t$ of the input: $h^{(1)}[t]_{\gamma}=g({\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{1,\gamma,{\text{I}}}},{{{\mathbf x}}[t{-}1]}\right\rangle},{\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{1,\gamma,{\text{II}}}},{{{\mathbf x}}[t]}\right\rangle})$. For reasons that will shortly become apparent, we use $g(\cdot)$ here to denote the binary function combining two size-$1$ convolutions into a single size-$2$ convolution with non-linearity. Different choices of $g(\cdot)$ lead to different convolutional operators, for example $g(a,b):=\max\{a+b,0\}$ leads to standard convolution followed by rectified linear activation (*ReLU*, [@nair2010rectified]), whereas $g(a,b)=a{\cdot}b$ gives rise to what is known as a *convolutional arithmetic circuit* (). Following the first hidden layer, $L{-}1$ size-$2$ convolutional layers with increasing dilations are applied. Specifically, for $l=2,{\ldots},L{-}1$, hidden layer $l$ maps the sequence $({{\mathbf h}}^{(l{-}1)}[t])_t\subset{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{l-1}}$ into $({{\mathbf h}}^{(l)}[t])_t\subset{{\mathbb R}}^{r_l}$ using filters with dilation-$2^{l{-}1}$, [*i.e.*]{} with an internal temporal gap of $2^{l{-}1}{-}1$ points: $h^{(l)}[t]_{\gamma}=g({\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}}},{{{\mathbf h}}^{(l{-}1)}[t{-}2^{l{-}1}]}\right\rangle},{\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}},{{{\mathbf h}}^{(l{-}1)}[t]}\right\rangle})$. The last convolutional layer maps $({{\mathbf h}}^{(L{-}1)}[t])_t$ into network output sequence $({{\mathbf o}}[t])_t\subset{{\mathbb R}}^{r_L}$ using filters with dilation-$2^{L{-}1}$: $o[t]_y=g({\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{L,y,{\text{I}}}},{{{\mathbf h}}^{(L{-}1)}[t{-}2^{L{-}1}]}\right\rangle},{\left\langle{{{\mathbf a}}^{L,y,{\text{II}}}},{{{\mathbf h}}^{(L{-}1)}[t]}\right\rangle})$.
Altogether, the architectural parameters of the network are the number of convolutional layers $L$, the convolutional operator $g(\cdot)$, the input dimension $r_0$, the number of channels $r_l$ for each hidden layer $l\in[L{-}1]$, and the output dimension $r_L$. The learnable parameters are the convolution weights ${{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{l-1}}$ for channel $\gamma\in[r_l]$ of layer $l\in[L]$.
Our interest lies on the representational abilities of the network, [*i.e.*]{} on the properties of the input-output mappings it can realize. As illustrated in fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\], for some fixed time point $t$, ${{\mathbf o}}[t]$ – network output at time $t$, is a function of ${{\mathbf x}}[t{-}2^L\text{+}1]\ldots{{\mathbf x}}[t]$ – network input over the last $2^L$ time points. Taking into account the temporal stationarity of the network, and denoting for brevity $N{:=}2^L$, we may write $o[t]_y=f_y({{\mathbf x}}[t{-}N{+}1],\ldots,{{\mathbf x}}[t])$ for every $y\in[r_L]$, where the functions $\{f_y(\cdot)\}_y$ are independent of the time index $t$. The latter functions, which obviously depend on the convolution weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{l,\gamma}$, completely characterize the input-output mapping realized by the network. We will study these functions through the process of *discretization*. Namely, $f_y(\cdot)$ – a function of $N$ vector-variables, will be represented by a lookup table (tensor) formed by varying each vector-variable over a finite number of possible values. The size of such a lookup table is exponential in $N$, thus treating it directly is intractable. However, as we shall see, the network admits a compact parameterization of lookup tables in terms of the convolution weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{l,\gamma}$. This parameterization (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\] below) entails an algebraic structure, and will be used to study the representational properties of the baseline dilated convolutional network.
For the discretization of $f_y(\cdot)$, we choose a collection of vectors ${{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\ldots{{\mathbf v}}^{(M)}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_0}$, and define the following tensor ${{\mathcal A}}^y$ of order $N$ and dimension $M$ in each mode: [[A]{}]{}\^y\_[d\_1[…]{}d\_N]{}:=f\_y([[v]{}]{}\^[(d\_1)]{},…,[[v]{}]{}\^[(d\_N)]{}) \[eq:grid\_tensor\] The vectors ${{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\ldots{{\mathbf v}}^{(M)}$ are referred to as *discretizers*. They generate the tensor ${{\mathcal A}}^y$ by assigning, in all possible combinations, the $N$ vector-variables of the function $f_y(\cdot)$. We refer to ${{\mathcal A}}^y$ as the *grid tensor* of $f_y(\cdot)$, reflecting the fact that it holds function values over a discrete grid.
The parameterization of $\{f_y(\cdot)\}_y$ discretizations mentioned above is in fact a hierarchical decomposition of the grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$. Accordingly, and for the sake of highlighting correspondence to the baseline dilated convolutional network (fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]), we refer to this parameterization as the *baseline decomposition*. For conciseness, we defer the derivation of the baseline decomposition to app. \[app:base\_decomp\], and hereby lay out its final form: &&\
&&\_ = \[v\^[(1)]{}\_,…,v\^[(M)]{}\_\]\^\
&&\
&&\_ = (\_[=1]{}\^[r\_[l-1]{}]{} a\_\^[l,,]{}\^[l-1,2j-1,]{}) [\_g]{}(\_[=1]{}\^[r\_[l-1]{}]{} a\_\^[l,,]{}\^[l-1,2j,]{})\
&&[[A]{}]{}\^y=\^[L,1,y]{} \[eq:base\_decomp\] $a_\alpha^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}}$ and $a_\alpha^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}$ here stand for coordinate $\alpha$ of the convolution weights ${{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{I}}}$ and ${{\mathbf a}}^{l,\gamma,{\text{II}}}$ respectively, while $v^{(i)}_\gamma$ stands for coordinate $\gamma$ of the discretizer ${{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}$. Notice that the tensor products here are generalized (see sec. \[sec:prelim\]) – based on the network’s convolutional operator $g(\cdot)$. Therefore, strictly speaking, the baseline decomposition is a *generalized tensor decomposition*, as defined in .
Dilations and Mode Trees {#sec:dcn:tree}
------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
The baseline decomposition (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]), corresponding to the baseline dilated convolutional network (fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]), implicitly adheres to a tree structure – for every $(l,j)$, there exists a group of tensors $\{\phi^{l,j,\gamma}\}_\gamma$, formed through combinations of tensors from its “child” groups $\{\phi^{l-1,2j-1,\gamma}\}_\gamma$ and $\{\phi^{l-1,2j,\gamma}\}_\gamma$. In this subsection we generalize the underlying tree structure, and show that the resulting decompositions capture networks with various dilations throughout their convolutional layers. We begin by defining a general (binary) tree over tensor modes:
\[def:tree\] Let $N\in{{\mathbb N}}$. A *binary mode tree* over $[N]$ is a full binary tree in which:
- Every node is labeled by a subset of $[N]$
- There are exactly $N$ leaves, labeled $\{1\}\ldots\{N\}$
- The label of an interior (non-leaf) node is the union of the labels of its children
If $T$ is a binary mode tree, we identify its nodes with their labels, [*i.e.*]{} with the corresponding subsets of $[N]$. The set of all interior nodes is denoted by $int(T)\subset2^{[N]}$, the children of an interior node $\nu\subset[N]$ are denoted by $C_{\text{I}}(\nu;T),C_{\text{II}}(\nu;T)\subset[N]$, and the parent of a non-root node $\nu\subset[N]$ is denoted by $P(\nu;T)$. Notice that by definition, the root node is labeled $[N]$.
Binary mode trees induce hierarchical decompositions of grid tensors. Recall the definition of grid tensors in sec. \[sec:dcn:base\] (eq. \[eq:grid\_tensor\]), and let $T$ be a binary mode tree over $[N]$. For every node $\nu\subset[N]$ in $T$, we define a collection of $2^{{\left\lvert\nu \right\rvert}}$-order tensors $\{\phi^{\nu,\gamma}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}$, where $r\in{{\mathbb N}}$ is a predetermined constant, referred to as the *size constant* of the decomposition. We also define, for each interior node $\nu{\in}int(T)$, two collections of weight vectors – $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}\subset{{\mathbb R}}^r$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}\subset{{\mathbb R}}^r$. The hierarchical grid tensor decomposition induced by $T$ traverses through the tree in a depth-first fashion, assigning the tensors of node $\nu$ ($\{\phi^{\nu,\gamma}\}_{\gamma}$) through combinations of the tensors of its children ($\{\phi^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu;T),\gamma}\}_{\gamma}$ and $\{\phi^{C_{\text{II}}(\nu;T),\gamma}\}_{\gamma}$). This is laid out formally in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\] below, which we refer to as the *tree decomposition*. &&\
&&\_ = \[v\^[(1)]{}\_,…,v\^[(M)]{}\_\]\^\
&&\
&&\_ = \^[(;T)]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(;T),]{}) [\_g]{}(\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(;T),]{}))\
&&[[A]{}]{}\^y=\^[\[N\],y]{} \[eq:tree\_decomp\] As in the baseline decomposition (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]), $v^{(i)}_\gamma$ here stands for coordinate $\gamma$ of the discretizer ${{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}$. The permutation $\sigma^{(\nu;T)}(\cdot)$, for an interior node $\nu{\in}int(T)$, arranges the modes of the tensor $\phi^{\nu,\gamma}$ such that these comply with a sorted ordering of $\nu$. Specifically, if we denote by $i_1<\cdots<i_{{\left\lvertC_{\text{I}}(\nu;T) \right\rvert}}$ the elements of $C_{\text{I}}(\nu;T)\subset[N]$, and by $j_1<\cdots<j_{{\left\lvertC_{\text{II}}(\nu;T) \right\rvert}}$ the elements of $C_{\text{II}}(\nu;T)\subset[N]$, the permutation $\sigma^{(\nu;T)}:[2^{{\left\lvert\nu \right\rvert}}]\to[2^{{\left\lvert\nu \right\rvert}}]$ is the one that sorts the tuple $(i_1,\ldots,i_{{\left\lvertC_{\text{I}}(\nu;T) \right\rvert}},j_1,\ldots,j_{{\left\lvertC_{\text{II}}(\nu;T) \right\rvert}})$ in ascending order. The final outcome of the decomposition, [*i.e.*]{} the generated grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$, are the tensors $\{\phi^{[N],\gamma}\}_{\gamma}$ corresponding to the root of $T$.
Compare the general tree decomposition in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\] to the baseline decomposition in eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]. It is not difficult to see that the latter is a special case of the former. Namely, it corresponds to a binary mode tree $T$ that is perfect (all leaves have the same depth $L=\log_{2}N$), and whose depth-$l$ nodes ($l\in\{0,1,\ldots,L\}$) are $(k-1)N/2^l+[N/2^l]$ for $k\in[2^l]$. This implies that such a mode tree, when plugged into the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), provides a characterization of the baseline dilated convolutional network (fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]), [*i.e.*]{} a network whose dilation in layer $l$ is $2^{l-1}$ (see illustration in fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\](a)). If we were to choose a different mode tree, the corresponding dilated convolutional network would change. For example, assume that $L=\log_{2}N$ is even, and consider a perfect binary mode tree $T$ whose depth-$l$ nodes ($l\in\{0,1,\ldots,L\}$) are as follows:
- Even $l$: depth-$l$ nodes are $(k-1)N/2^l+[N/2^l]$ for $k\in[2^l]$
- Odd $l$: depth-$l$ nodes are generated by splitting nodes of depth $l\text{-}1$, such that the first and third quadrants of a split node belong to one child, while the second and fourth belong to the other
In this case, the network characterized by the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) is obtained by swapping dilations of even and odd layers in the baseline architecture, [*i.e.*]{} it has dilation in layer $l$ of $2^{l-2}$ if $l$ is even, and $2^l$ if $l$ is odd (see illustration in fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\](b)).
Mixed Tensor Decompositions {#sec:mtd}
===========================
Let $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ be two binary mode trees over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]). Consider the tree decomposition of grid tensors induced by $T$ (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]). This decomposition iteratively assigns a group of tensors $\{\phi^{\nu,\gamma}\}_\gamma$ for each node $\nu$ in $T$, based on weight vectors $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_\gamma$ defined for each interior node $\nu{\in}int(T)$. The tree decomposition induced by ${\bar{T}}$ operates similarly, but for distinction we use $\{{\bar{\phi}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma}\}_\gamma$ to denote the tensor group of node ${\bar{\nu}}\in{\bar{T}}$, and $\{{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{I}}},{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_\gamma$ to denote the weights of interior node ${\bar{\nu}}{\in}int({\bar{T}})$. We will define a *mixed tensor decomposition*, blending together the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. The latter is obtained by choosing a collection of *mixture nodes* – $mix(T,{\bar{T}}){\subset}int(T){\cap}int({\bar{T}})$. These are nodes (subsets of $[N]$) that reside in the interior of both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, defining locations in the tree decompositions at which tensors will be exchanged. If $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ is chosen as the empty set, the mixed decomposition simply sums the output tensors generated by the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ ($\{\phi^{[N],y}\}_y$ and $\{{\bar{\phi}}^{[N],y}\}_y$ respectively). Otherwise, the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ progress in parallel, until reaching a mixture node $\mu{\in}mix(T,{\bar{T}})$, where they exchange half the tensors corresponding to that node (half of $\{\phi^{\mu,\gamma}\}_\gamma$ is exchanged for half of $\{{\bar{\phi}}^{\mu,\gamma}\}_\gamma$). The process continues until all mixture nodes are visited and the root node (of both trees) $[N]$ is reached. At this point tensors ($\{\phi^{[N],y}\}_y$ and $\{{\bar{\phi}}^{[N],y}\}_y$) are summed and returned as output.
The formal definition of the mixed decomposition is as follows: &&1: \
&&2: \^[{j},]{} = |\^[{j},]{} = \[v\^[(1)]{}\_,…,v\^[(M)]{}\_\]\^\
&&3: \
&&4: \
&&5: \^[,]{} = \^[(;T)]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(;T),]{}) [\_g]{}(\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(;T),]{})) \
&&6: \
&&7: |\^[[|]{},]{} = \^[([|]{};[|[T]{}]{})]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} [|[a]{}]{}\_\^[[|]{},,]{}|\^[C\_([|]{};[|[T]{}]{}),]{}) [\_g]{}(\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} [|[a]{}]{}\_\^[[|]{},,]{}|\^[C\_([|]{};[|[T]{}]{}),]{})) \
&&8: \
&&9: [[A]{}]{}\^y = \^[\[N\],y]{}+|\^[\[N\],y]{} \[eq:mix\_decomp\] As in the basic tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), the first step here (lines $1$-$2$) is to assign tensors corresponding to the leaf nodes ($\{1\}\ldots\{N\}$) via discretizers ${{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\ldots{{\mathbf v}}^{(M)}$. The outer loop in line $3$ traverses $\mu$ through mixture nodes and the root node in inclusion order, [*i.e.*]{} such that a node (subset of $[N]$) is always reached after all nodes strictly contained in it. Lines $4$-$5$ (respectively $6$-$7$) are the same as in the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), except that instead of running through the entire interior of $T$ (respectively ${\bar{T}}$), they cover a segment of it. This segment continues where the previous ones left off, and comprises only nodes (subsets of $[N]$) contained in $\mu$ (including $\mu$ itself). Line $8$ is where the mixing takes place – here half the tensors corresponding to node $\mu$ in the decomposition of $T$ ($\{\phi^{\mu,\gamma}\}_\gamma$), are exchanged for half the tensors corresponding to $\mu$ in the decomposition of ${\bar{T}}$ ($\{{\bar{\phi}}^{\mu,\gamma}\}_\gamma$). Finally, after $\mu$ has reached the root node $[N]$ and the decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ have concluded, line $9$ sums the output tensors of these decompositions ($\{\phi^{[N],y}\}_y$ and $\{{\bar{\phi}}^{[N],y}\}_y$ respectively), producing the grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$.
In terms of computation and memory, the requirements posed by the mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) are virtually identical to those of running two separate tree decompositions (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Specifically, if the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ correspond to input-output mappings computed by the dilated convolutional networks ${{\mathcal N}}$ and $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$ (respectively), the mixed decomposition would correspond to the computation of a *mixed dilated convolutional network*, formed by summing the outputs of ${{\mathcal N}}$ and $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$, and interconnecting their intermediate layers. The choice of mixture nodes $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ in the mixed decomposition determines the locations at which networks ${{\mathcal N}}$ and $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$ are interconnected, where an interconnection simply wires into ${{\mathcal N}}$ half the outputs of a convolutional layer in $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$, and vice versa. For example, suppose that ${{\mathcal N}}$ is the baseline dilated convolutional network (dilation $2^{l-1}$ in layer $l$ – see sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]), whereas $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$ is the network obtained by swapping dilations of even and odd layers (such that layer $l$ has dilation $2^{l-2}$ if $l$ is even, and $2^l$ if $l$ is odd). The mode trees corresponding to these networks, illustrated in fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\] (for the case $L{:=}\log_{2}N{=}4$), share interior nodes $(k-1)N/2^l+[N/2^l]$ for $l\in\{2,4,\ldots,L\}$, $k\in[2^l]$. We may therefore choose $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ to be all such nodes (excluding root), and get a mixed decomposition that corresponds to a mixed network interconnecting all even layers of ${{\mathcal N}}$ and $\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}$. Illustrations of such decomposition and network (again, for the case $L{=}4$) are given in fig. \[fig:mix\_trees\_dcn\].
The main advantage of the mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]), and the reason for its definition, is that it leads to expressive efficiency. That is to say, the mixed dilated convolutional network, formed by interconnecting intermediate layers of networks with different dilations, can realize functions that without the interconnections would be expensive, or even impractical to implement. We theoretically support this in the next section, providing a complete proof for a special case of convolutional arithmetic circuits ($g(a,b)=a{\cdot}b$).
{width="\textwidth"}
Expressive Efficiency Analysis {#sec:analysis}
==============================
As in sec. \[sec:mtd\], let ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ be two dilated convolutional networks whose input-output mappings are characterized by the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with mode trees $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ respectively. Consider the mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) resulting from a particular choice of mixture nodes $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ (subset of the nodes interior to both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$), and denote its corresponding mixed dilated convolutional network by ${{\mathcal M}}$. We would like to show that ${{\mathcal M}}$ is expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$, meaning: *(i)* any function realized by ${{\mathcal N}}$ or ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ can also be realized by ${{\mathcal M}}$ with no more than linear growth in network size (number of channels in the convolutional layers); *(ii)* there exist functions realizable by ${{\mathcal M}}$ that cannot be realized by ${{\mathcal N}}$ or ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ (or a summation thereof) unless their size (number of convolutional channels) is allowed to grow super-linearly. We study the representational abilities of networks through their corresponding tensor decompositions, which as discussed in sec. \[sec:dcn\], parameterize discretizations of input-output mappings (grid tensors). Through the lens of tensor decompositions, our objective is to address the following two propositions (stated informally):
\[prop:tree\_by\_mix\] Consider a tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with underlying mode tree $T$ or ${\bar{T}}$ and size constant $r=r_{tree}$. This decomposition can be realized by a mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) whose size constant $r$ is linear in $r_{tree}$.
\[prop:mix\_by\_tree\] Consider a mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) with size constant $r=r_{mix}$. This decomposition can generate grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ that cannot be generated by tree decompositions of $T$ or ${\bar{T}}$ (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), or a summation of such, unless their size constant $r$ is super-linear in $r_{mix}$.
Before heading to a formal treatment of prop. \[prop:tree\_by\_mix\] and \[prop:mix\_by\_tree\], we briefly convey the intuition behind our analysis. Recall from sec. \[sec:mtd\] that the mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) blends together tree decompositions (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) of different mode trees $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, by traversing upwards through the trees, while exchanging tensors at each of a preselected set of mixture nodes. We may think of each mixture node as a decision point that can propagate upwards one of two computations – that carried out by $T$ or that carried out by ${\bar{T}}$, where in both cases, the chosen computation is propagated upwards through both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Each combination of decisions across all mixture nodes gives rise to a computational path traversing between $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, equivalent to a tree decomposition based on a *hybrid mode tree* (see illustration in fig. \[fig:hybrid\_trees\]). The number of possible hybrid trees is exponential in the number of mixture nodes, and thus a mixed decomposition is comparable to an exponential ensemble of tree decompositions. The original tree decompositions, based on $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, are included in the ensemble, thus may easily be replicated by the mixed decomposition. On the other hand, many of the hybrid trees in the mixed decomposition are significantly different from $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, requiring large size constants from their tree decompositions.
As a first step in formalizing the above intuition, we define the notion of a hybrid mode tree:
\[def:hybrid\_tree\] Let $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ be binary mode trees over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]), and let $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ be a corresponding collection of mixture nodes, [*i.e.*]{} a set of nodes (subsets of $[N]$) contained in the interior of both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. We say that $H$ is a *hybrid mode tree* of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ [w.r.t.]{} $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$, if it is a binary mode tree over $[N]$, whose interior may be generated by the following process: &&int(H)=\
&&\
&&S=int(T)2\^{}\
&&[|[S]{}]{}=int([|[T]{}]{})2\^{}\
&&int(H)=int(H)S int(H)=int(H)[|[S]{}]{}In words, for every $\mu$ that is either a mixture node or the root node, $int(H)$ includes a *segment* from either $int(T)$ or $int({\bar{T}})$, where the segment comprises all descendants of $\mu$ (including $\mu$ itself) from which the path to $\mu$ does not cross any other mixture node (see illustration in fig. \[fig:hybrid\_trees\]).
Claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\] below states that with proper weight setting, a mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) with size constant $r{=}r_{mix}$ can realize any tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with size constant $r{=}r_{mix}/2$, if the underlying mode tree is a hybrid of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Since $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ are in particular hybrid mode trees of themselves, we obtain an affirmative answer to prop. \[prop:tree\_by\_mix\].
\[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\] Let $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ be binary mode trees over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]), and let $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ be a corresponding collection of mixture nodes (a set of nodes contained in the interior of both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$). Consider a mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ [w.r.t.]{} $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]), and denote its size constant $r$ by $r_{mix}$. Let $H$ be a hybrid mode tree of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ [w.r.t.]{} $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ (def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]), and consider the respective tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), with size constant $r{=}r_{mix}/2$. For any setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ leading to grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ in this tree decomposition, there exists a setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ and $\{{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{I}}},{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma}$ in the mixed decomposition, independent of the discretizers ${{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\ldots{{\mathbf v}}^{(M)}$ (see sec. \[sec:dcn\]), that leads to the same grid tensors.
We prove the claim constructively, by assigning weights to the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ such that it mimics the tree decomposition of $H$. For distinction, we add the relevant mode tree to our notation of weights, letting $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}}\}_{\nu{\in}int(T),\gamma\in[r_{mix}]}$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}}\}_{\nu{\in}int({\bar{T}}),\gamma\in[r_{mix}]}$ stand for the weights in the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, while $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}/2}\}_{\nu{\in}int(H),\gamma\in[r_{mix}/2]}$ represent the weights in the tree decomposition of $H$. We also denote by $t(\nu)$, for each node $\nu{\in}int(H)$, the source tree ($T$ or ${\bar{T}}$) from which it originated (see def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]).
The assignment of $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ proceeds as follows. All weights are initialized with zeros. Afterwards, for each $\nu{\in}int(H)$, $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$ (weights of $\nu$ in the tree decomposition of $H$) are copied into $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$ (weights of the respective node at the respective source tree in the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$). There are twice as many vectors in $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$ than there are in $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$, and each vector is of twice the dimension. The choices of which vectors to use, and which coordinates to use in the selected vectors, are made such that computations traverse properly between trees. Specifically, if $P(\nu;H)$ (parent of $\nu$ in $H$) originated from the same tree ($T$ or ${\bar{T}}$) as $\nu$, higher index vectors ($r_{mix}/2<\gamma\leq{r_{mix}}$) in $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$ are used, as they correspond to computations (tensors) that are not exchanged between trees (see eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]). On the other hand, if $P(\nu;H)$ originated from the tree opposite to $t(\nu)$, lower index vectors ($1\leq\gamma\leq{r_{mix}/2}$) in $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{t(\nu),\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\gamma}$ are used, in accordance with the fact that they realize computations (tensors) that will be transferred between trees. The second aforementioned choice – which coordinates to use in the selected vectors, is made analogously, based on the trees from which $C_{{\text{I}}}(\nu;H)$ and $C_{{\text{II}}}(\nu;H)$ (children of $\nu$ in $H$) came from.
{width="\textwidth"}
Claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\] not only addresses prop. \[prop:tree\_by\_mix\], but also brings forth a strategy for treating prop. \[prop:mix\_by\_tree\]. The strategy is to find a hybrid mode tree $H$ distinct enough from $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, such that its tree decomposition, easily realized by the mixed decomposition according to claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\], poses a significant challenge for the individual tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Hereinafter we pursue this line of reasoning, focusing on the particular case where the convolutional operator $g(\cdot)$ is a simple product – $g(a,b){=}a{\cdot}b$. In this case the tree and mixed decompositions (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\] and \[eq:mix\_decomp\] respectively) are standard (non-generalized) tensor decompositions (${\otimes_g}{\equiv}\otimes$ – see sec. \[sec:prelim\]), and the corresponding dilated convolutional networks are convolutional arithmetic circuits. We focus on this special case since it allows the use of a plurality of algebraic tools for theoretical analysis, while at the same time corresponding to models showing promising results in practice (see for example ). Full treatment of additional cases, such as $g(a,b){=}\max\{a+b,0\}$, corresponding to networks with ReLU activation, is left for future work.
For establishing the difficulty experienced by the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ in replicating that of a hybrid tree $H$, we analyze ranks of matricized grid tensors. Specifically, we consider the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) of a general mode tree, and derive tight upper and lower bounds on the ranks of generated grid tensors when these are subject to matricization [w.r.t.]{} a general index set ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$ (see sec. \[sec:prelim\]). The bounds we derive (theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] below) highly depend on both the underlying mode tree and the index set, and this allows finding index sets for which ranks tend to be higher with the hybrid mode tree $H$ than they are with the original mode trees $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Under such index sets, the only way for $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ to match ranks generated with $H$ is through a significant increase in the size constant of their tree decompositions – precisely the sought-after result.
{width="\textwidth"}
To crisply phrase our main theorem, we define the notion of an index set tiled by a mode tree:
\[def:tiling\] Let $T$ be a binary mode tree over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]), and let ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$ be a non-empty set of indexes. A *tiling* of ${{\mathcal I}}$ by $T$ is a collection of nodes in the tree, denoted $\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)$, which meets the following requirements:
- $\bigcup_{\nu\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)}~\nu={{\mathcal I}}$
- $\nu\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T){\implies}P(\nu;T)\not\subset{{\mathcal I}}$
In words, $\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)$ is a set of nodes in $T$ whose disjoint union gives ${{\mathcal I}}$, where each node is maximal, [*i.e.*]{} its parent in the tree is not a subset of ${{\mathcal I}}$ (see illustration in fig. \[fig:tiling\]).
It is not difficult to see that for any mode tree $T$ and non-empty index set ${{\mathcal I}}$, the tiling $\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)$ exists and is determined uniquely. As theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] below states, this tiling, along with that of ${{\mathcal I}}$’s complement (${{\mathcal I}}^c{:=}[N]{\setminus}{{\mathcal I}}$), characterizes the ranks of grid tensors generated by the tree decomposition of $T$ when these are matricized [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$.
\[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] Let $T$ be a binary mode tree over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]), and consider the corresponding tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with discretizers ${{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\ldots{{\mathbf v}}^{(M)}$ spanning ${{\mathbb R}}^r$. Assume that $g(\cdot)$ is the product operator ($g(a,b)=a{\cdot}b$), and suppose the generated grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ are matricized (see sec. \[sec:prelim\]) [w.r.t.]{} an index set ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$, $\emptyset\neq{{\mathcal I}}\neq[N]$, whose complement we denote by ${{\mathcal I}}^c:=[N]\setminus{{\mathcal I}}$. Then, the ranks of the grid tensor matricizations $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$ are:
- no greater than $r^{\min\{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T) \right\rvert},{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c;T) \right\rvert}\}}$
- at least $r^{{\left\lvert\{(\nu_1,\nu_2)\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)\times\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c;T):~\text{$\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are siblings in~$T$ with depth\textgreater$1$}\} \right\rvert}}$ almost always, [*i.e.*]{} for all configurations of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ but a set of Lebesgue measure zero
The proof proceeds in three stages. In the first stage we matricize the tree decomposition of $T$, [*i.e.*]{} transform it from a tensor decomposition generating $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ to a matrix decomposition generating $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$. In this transformation, instances of the tensor product $\otimes$ convert to a *Kronecker product* $\odot$. The second stage of the proof establishes the upper bound stated in the theorem, by showing that for each $y$, ${\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}$ is equal to a product of matrices, one of which has size $r^{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T) \right\rvert}}$-by-$r^{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c;T) \right\rvert}}$. The key idea in this stage is the propagation of elements out of the matrix decomposition, using the relation $(AA')\odot(BB')=(A{\odot}A')(B{\odot}B')$. The third and final stage of the proof establishes the lower bound stated in the theorem. Here again, elements are propagated out of the matrix decomposition, allowing the construction of a concrete configuration of weights ($\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$) for which the lower bound holds. The fact that the lower bound holds almost always is then a direct corollary of app. \[app:max\_ranks\], where it is shown that the tree decomposition admits maximal matricization ranks almost always when $g(\cdot)$ is the product operator.
The study of matricization ranks under hierarchical tensor decompositions is of significant interest, particularly in the context of deep learning. proved the lower bound in the theorem for the specific case where $T$ is the mode tree corresponding to the baseline dilated convolutional network (see fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\](a)), and ${{\mathcal I}}=\{1,3,\ldots,N{-}1\}$. The result was used to establish exponential expressive efficiency of deep convolutional arithmetic circuits [w.r.t.]{} shallow ones. later extended the analysis by deriving upper bounds for arbitrary index sets ${{\mathcal I}}$, using them to study the ability of deep convolutional arithmetic circuits to model correlations among regions of their input. The bounds used in were loose, and in fact trivial for many choices of index sets ${{\mathcal I}}$. We here treat arbitrary mode trees $T$ and index sets ${{\mathcal I}}$, proving upper and lower bounds that are tight, oftentimes exact. Such tight bounds are necessary for identifying expressive efficiency that is not exponential, as we do in this paper. The key to deriving the bounds is the aforementioned idea of propagating elements out of a matrix decomposition.
As stated previously, given two binary mode trees over $[N]$ (def. \[def:tree\]) – $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, with a corresponding collection of mixture nodes $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ (set of nodes interior to both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$), the bounds in theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] can be used to find an index set ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$ and a hybrid mode tree $H$ (def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]), such that the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) of $H$ generates grid tensors whose ranks under matricization [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$ are much higher than those brought forth by the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. Consider our exemplar mode trees illustrated in fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\]. Specifically, let $T$ be the mode tree corresponding to the baseline dilated convolutional network (dilation $2^{l-1}$ in layer $l{\in}[L]{=}[\log_{2}N]$ – see sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]), and let ${\bar{T}}$ be the mode tree corresponding to the network obtained by swapping dilations of even and odd layers (such that layer $l$ has dilation $2^{l-2}$ if $l$ is even, and $2^l$ if $l$ is odd). As described in sec. \[sec:dcn:tree\], $T$ is a perfect binary tree whose depth-$l$ nodes, $l\in\{0,1,\ldots,L\}$, are $(k-1)N/2^l+[N/2^l]$ for $k\in[2^l]$. ${\bar{T}}$ is also perfect and has the same even-depth nodes, but its odd-depth nodes differ – they are generated by splitting parents into children holding non-contiguous quadrants. Suppose we choose $mix(T,{\bar{T}})$ to include the set of nodes in $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ whose depth is $L{-}2$, and consider the hybrid mode tree $H$ formed by taking the segments (see def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]) of the first half of these nodes from $T$, and the rest of the tree from ${\bar{T}}$. An illustration of $T$, ${\bar{T}}$ and $H$ in this setting, for the case $L=4$, is given in fig. \[fig:trees\_tilings\]. Now, let the index set ${{\mathcal I}}$ consist of every second index in $[N/2]$, and every second pair of indexes in $N/2+[N/2]$, [*i.e.*]{} ${{\mathcal I}}:=\{2k-1:k\in[N/4]\}\cup\{N/2+4k-k':k\in[N/8],k'=2,3\}$. As illustrated in fig. \[fig:trees\_tilings\], the mode tree $T$ tiles (see def. \[def:tiling\]) the lower half of ${{\mathcal I}}$ into singletons, and its upper half into pairs. The same applies to $T$’s tiling of ${{\mathcal I}}$’s complement ${{\mathcal I}}^c:=[N]\setminus{{\mathcal I}}$. Moreover, for every node in the former tiling $\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)$, there exists a sibling in the latter $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c;T)$ (and vice versa). By theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\], this implies that the tree decomposition of $T$ generates grid tensors whose matricizations [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$ have rank $r^{N/4+N/8}$. A similar situation occurs with the mode tree ${\bar{T}}$, under which ${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal I}}^c$ are tiled into pairs in their lower halves and into singletons in their top halves (see illustration in fig. \[fig:trees\_tilings\]). This also leads to matricized grid tensors of rank $r^{N/4+N/8}$. On the other hand, the hybrid mode tree $H$ tiles ${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal I}}^c$ entirely into singletons (see illustration in fig. \[fig:trees\_tilings\]), leading (by theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\]) to grid tensor matricization ranks of $r^{N/2}$. This means that if we were to replicate grid tensors generated by the tree decomposition of $H$ using those of $T$ or ${\bar{T}}$ (or a summation thereof), we would need to increase the size constant $r$ super-linearly – by a power of $4/3$ (at least).
{width="\textwidth"}
The above example can be generalized, by considering swapping the dilations of more than two layers at once. In particular, if $T$ is the mode tree corresponding to the baseline dilated convolutional network (dilation $2^{l-1}$ in layer $l$), ${\bar{T}}$ is the mode tree corresponding to the network obtained by swapping dilations of groups of $k$ layers (dilation $2^{\lceil{l/k}\rceil{\cdot}k-1-((l-1){\text{~mod~}}k)}$ in layer $l$), and the set of mixture nodes includes all nodes of depth $L{-}k$, a hybrid mode tree $H$ and an index set ${{\mathcal I}}$ can be found, such that the tree decomposition of $H$ generates grid tensors whose ranks when matricized [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$ can only be matched by the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ if their size constant $r$ is increased by a power of $2/(1+2^{1-k})$. Since the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]) can realize the tree decomposition of $H$ with double the size constant (claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\]), we conclude that it can, with size constant $2r$, generate grid tensors whose matricization ranks ([w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$) require the tree decompositions of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ to have size constant $r^{2/(1+2^{1-k})}$ – super-linearly larger. Therefore, in this particular setting, prop. \[prop:mix\_by\_tree\] holds and the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ is indeed expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} their tree decompositions. Taking into account the fact that the mixed decomposition admits maximal matricization ranks almost always when $g(\cdot)$ is the product operator (see app. \[app:max\_ranks\]), we formalize the result in network terms:
\[corollary:mix\_by\_tree\] Let ${{\mathcal N}}$ be the baseline dilated convolutional network (dilation $2^{l-1}$ in layer $l$ – see sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]), and let ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ be the network obtained by swapping dilations of groups of $k$ layers (dilation $2^{\lceil{l/k}\rceil{\cdot}k-1-((l-1){\text{~mod~}}k)}$ in layer $l$). Denote by ${{\mathcal M}}$ the mixed dilated convolutional network obtained by summing the outputs of ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$, while interconnecting their $k$’th intermediate layer (and possibly additional layers). Assume the networks’ convolutional operator $g(\cdot)$ is a product. Then, besides a negligible set, all functions realized by ${{\mathcal M}}$ with $r$ channels in the layers of each interconnected network, cannot be realized by ${{\mathcal N}}$ or ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ (or a summation thereof) if the number of channels in each layer is less than $(r/2)^{2/(1+2^{1-k})}$.
Corollary \[corollary:mix\_by\_tree\] (along with claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\]) demonstrates that interconnecting intermediate layers of different dilated convolutional networks can bring forth expressive efficiency. That is to say, through cross-connections between networks, we are able to represent functions that would otherwise be expensive, or even impractical to implement. The lower bound in corollary \[corollary:mix\_by\_tree\] – $(r/2)^{2/(1+2^{1-k})}$, is essentially quadratic when $k\geq4$. For example, if $k=4$ and the number of channels $r$ in each interconnected network is $128$, the lower bound would imply that in order to maintain representational abilities with an individual network (or a summation of the networks), over $1500$ channels in each layer are required – far beyond acceptable practice in deep learning.
Experiment {#sec:exp}
==========
To assess the practical implications of the expressive efficiency brought forth by mixing dilated convolutional networks, a simple experiment was conducted. We trained a baseline dilated convolutional network ${{\mathcal N}}$ (dilation $2^{l-1}$ in layer $l\in[L]$ – see sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]) with architectural parameters similar to those used in WaveNet ([@van2016wavenet]), to classify individual phonemes in the TIMIT acoustic speech corpus ([@garofolo1993darpa]). In addition to the baseline model, we also trained a companion network ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$ obtained by swapping dilations of even and odd layers (such that layer $l$ has dilation $2^{l-2}$ if $l$ is even, and $2^l$ if $l$ is odd). As discussed in sec. \[sec:mtd\], the mode trees corresponding to these networks (illustrated in fig. \[fig:dilations\_trees\]) – $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, share interior nodes of even depth, thus any subset of those nodes may serve as mixture nodes for a mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]). We evaluate mixed dilated convolutional networks ${{\mathcal M}}$ corresponding to different choices of mixture nodes (see fig. \[fig:mix\_trees\_dcn\] for illustration of a particular case). Specifically, we consider choices of the following form:$$mix(T,{\bar{T}}):=\{\nu\in{int(T)}{\cap}int({\bar{T}}):\text{depth of~$\nu$ (in~$T$ and~${\bar{T}}$)~$\geq$~threshold}\}$$ Varying the threshold yields mixed networks with a varying number of interconnections. In the extreme case $mix(T,{\bar{T}})=\emptyset$ (high threshold), ${{\mathcal M}}$ simply sums the outputs of ${{\mathcal N}}$ and ${\bar{{{\mathcal N}}}}$. As the threshold decreases interconnections between hidden layers are added – starting from hidden layer $2$, then including hidden layer $4$, and so on. The intuition from our analysis (sec. \[sec:analysis\]) is that additional interconnections result in a larger ensemble of hybrid mode trees, which in turn boosts the expressive power of the mixed network ${{\mathcal M}}$. As fig. \[fig:exp\] shows, this intuition indeed complies with the results in practice – classification accuracy improves as we increase the number of interconnections, without any additional cost in terms of computation or model capacity.
It is important to stress that our objective in the experiment was to evaluate, in the most controlled setting possible, the exact models covered by our analysis. We did not compare to state of the art results, as all phoneme recognition rates reported in the literature deviate from our basic setting – they heavily rely on data pre-processing ([*e.g.*]{} Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients), prediction post-processing ([*e.g.*]{} Conditional Random Fields), or both. The recent DeepLab model ([@chen2016deeplab]) has demonstrated that when combined with other techniques, mixing dilated convolutions can lead to state of the art image segmentation performance. We are currently pursuing similar results in the context of sequence processing tasks.
{width="\textwidth"}
To conclude this section, we briefly convey implementation details behind the experiment. TIMIT dataset is an acoustic-phonetic corpus comprising $6300$ sentences manually labeled at the phoneme level. We split the data into train and validation sets in accordance with [@halberstadt1998heterogeneous], and as advised by [@lee1989speaker], mapped the $61$ possible phoneme labels into $39$ plus an additional “garbage” label. The task was then to classify individual phonemes into one of the latter categories. In accordance with WaveNet, the baseline dilated convolutional network had ReLU activation ($g(a,b){=}\max\{a{+}b,0\}$ – see sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]), $32$ channels per layer, and input vectors of dimension $256$ holding one-hot quantizations of the audio signal. The number of layers $L$ was set to $12$, corresponding to an input window of $N{=}2^L{=}4096$ samples, spanning $250$ms of audio signal – standard practice with TIMIT dataset. The framework chosen for running the experiment was Caffe toolbox ([@jia2014caffe]), and we used Adam optimizer ([@kingma2014adam]) for training (with default hyper-parameters: moment decay rates $\beta_{1}=0.9,\beta_{2}=0.999$; learning rate $\alpha=0.001$). Weight decay and batch size were set to $10^{-5}$ and $128$ respectively. Models were trained for $35000$ iterations, with learning rate decreased by a factor of $10$ after $80\%$ of iterations took place.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Nearly all state of the art deep networks these days ([*e.g.*]{} [@Szegedy:2014tb; @he2015deep; @huang2016deep; @huang2016densely]) deviate from the simple feed-forward (chain) approach, employing various connectivity schemes between their layers. In this paper we studied the representational implications of connectivity in the context of dilated convolutional networks, a family of deep models delivering state of the art performance in audio and text processing tasks, underlying Google’s WaveNet ([@van2016wavenet]) and ByteNet ([@kalchbrenner2016neural]). We formulated our study through the notion of expressive efficiency, which refers to a situation where one network must grow unfeasibly large to realize (or approximate) functions of another. Our analysis shows that interconnecting hidden layers of different dilated convolutional networks can bring forth a model that is expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} the individual networks it comprises. In particular, we show that a single connection between hidden layers can already lead to an almost quadratic gap, which in large-scale settings typically makes the difference between a model that is practical and one that is not. We empirically evaluate the analyzed networks, and find that the expressive efficiency brought forth by interconnectivity coincides with improved accuracies.
To date, formal analyses studying expressive efficiency have focused on the architectural feature of depth, showing instances where deep networks are expressively efficient [w.r.t.]{} shallow ones. These studies were motivated by the vast empirical evidence supporting the importance of depth. Our work thus provides a second exemplar of an architectural feature for which expressive efficiency and superior accuracies go hand in hand. This leads us to believe that expressive efficiency may serve a key role in the development of new tools for deep network design.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
[This work was supported by Intel grant ICRI-CI \#9-2012-6133, by ISF Center grant 1790/12, and by the European Research Council (TheoryDL project). Nadav Cohen was supported by a Google Doctoral Fellowship in Machine Learning.]{}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Derivation of the Baseline Decomposition {#app:base_decomp}
========================================
In this appendix we derive the baseline decomposition (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]) – a parameterization of grid tensors (eq. \[eq:grid\_tensor\]) discretizing input-output mappings of the baseline dilated convolutional network (fig. \[fig:base\_dcn\]). As discussed in sec. \[sec:dcn:base\], ${{\mathbf o}}[t]$ – the network output at time $t$, is a function of ${{\mathbf x}}[t\text{-}N\text{+}1]\ldots{{\mathbf x}}[t]$ – its input over the last $N:=2^L$ time points. We would like to show that for any $d_1{\ldots}d_N\in[M]$, entry $(d_1,\ldots,d_N)$ of a tensor ${{\mathcal A}}^y$ generated by eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\], is equal to coordinate $y$ of network output ${{\mathbf o}}[t]$ under the following input assignment: ${{\mathbf x}}[t\text{-}N\text{+}1]={{\mathbf v}}^{(d_1)},\ldots,{{\mathbf x}}[t]={{\mathbf v}}^{(d_N)}$. To achieve this, we prove by induction that under the latter assignment, for every $l\in[L]\cup\{0\}$, $j\in[N/2^l]$ and $\gamma\in[r_l]$, coordinate $\gamma$ of the network’s depth-$l$ sequence (input $({{\mathbf x}}[t])_t$ for $l=0$; hidden sequence $({{\mathbf h}}^{(l)}[t])_t$ for $l\in[L-1]$; output $({{\mathbf o}}[t])_t$ for $l=L$) at time $t-N+j{\cdot}2^l$, is equal to entry $(d_{(j-1)2^l+1},\ldots,d_{(j-1)2^l+2^l})$ of the tensor $\phi^{l,j,\gamma}$ in the baseline decomposition (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]). The desired result then follows from the case $l=L,j=1,\gamma=y$.
When $l=0$, the inductive hypothesis is trivial – coordinate $\gamma$ of the input sequence at time $t-N+j$, [*i.e.*]{} $x[t-N+j]_\gamma$, is by definition of our assignment equal to $v_\gamma^{(d_j)}$ – entry $d_j$ of the tensor $\phi^{0,j,\gamma}$ (see eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]). Assume now that the inductive hypothesis holds whenever $l=k$, and consider the tensor $\phi^{k+1,j,\gamma}$ for some $j\in[N/2^{k+1}]$ and $\gamma\in[r_{k+1}]$. From the baseline decomposition (eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\]): $$\phi^{k+1,j,\gamma} = \left(\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r_k} a_\alpha^{k+1,\gamma,{\text{I}}}\cdot\phi^{k,2j-1,\alpha}\right) {\otimes_g}\left(\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r_k} a_\alpha^{k+1,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\cdot\phi^{k,2j,\alpha}\right)$$ Focusing on entry $(d_{(j-1)2^{k+1}+1},\ldots,d_{(j-1)2^{k+1}+2^{k+1}})$ of the left-hand side, while recalling the definition of the generalized tensor product ${\otimes_g}$ (sec. \[sec:prelim\]), we may write: &\^[k+1,j,]{}\_[d\_[(j-1)2\^[k+1]{}+1]{},…,d\_[(j-1)2\^[k+1]{}+2\^[k+1]{}]{}]{} =&\
&g(\_[=1]{}\^[r\_k]{} a\_\^[k+1,,]{}\^[k,2j-1,]{}\_[d\_[(2j-2)2\^k+1]{},…,d\_[(2j-2)2\^k+2\^k]{}]{},\_[=1]{}\^[r\_k]{} a\_\^[k+1,,]{}\^[k,2j,]{}\_[d\_[(2j-1)2\^k+1]{},…,d\_[(2j-1)2\^k+2\^k]{}]{})& \[eq:base\_decomp\_entry\] By our inductive assumption: \^[k,2j-1,]{}\_[d\_[(2j-2)2\^k+1]{},…,d\_[(2j-2)2\^k+2\^k]{}]{} &=& h\^[(k)]{}\[t-N+(2j-1)2\^k\]\_\
\^[k,2j,]{}\_[d\_[(2j-1)2\^k+1]{},…,d\_[(2j-1)2\^k+2\^k]{}]{} &=& h\^[(k)]{}\[t-N+2j2\^k\]\_ where we overload notation in the case $k=0$, letting $({{\mathbf h}}^{(0)}[t])_t$ stand for the input sequence $({{\mathbf x}}[t])_t$. Plugging the latter into eq. \[eq:base\_decomp\_entry\], we obtain: &\^[k+1,j,]{}\_[d\_[(j-1)2\^[k+1]{}+1]{},…,d\_[(j-1)2\^[k+1]{}+2\^[k+1]{}]{}]{} =&\
&g( [,[[[h]{}]{}\^[(k)]{}\[t-N+(2j-1)2\^k\]]{}]{}, [,[[[h]{}]{}\^[(k)]{}\[t-N+2j2\^k\]]{}]{} )& By the definition of the baseline dilated convolutional network (sec. \[sec:dcn:base\]), the latter expression is precisely equal to coordinate $\gamma$ of the sequence $({{\mathbf h}}^{(k+1)}[t])_t$ (or $({{\mathbf o}}[t])_t$ if $k=L-1$) at time $t-N+j{\cdot}2^{k+1}$. This proves that our inductive hypothesis holds when $l=k+1$, and in general.
Deferred Proofs {#app:proofs}
===============
Proof of Claim \[claim:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\] {#app:proofs:hybrid_tree_by_mix}
----------------------------------------------
We initiate the proof by introducing notations that will allow a more compact presentation. Hereinafter, we let $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}/2}\}_{\nu{\in}int(H),\gamma\in[r_{mix}/2]}$ stand for the weights in the tree decomposition of the hybrid mode tree $H$ (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\] with size constant $r=r_{mix}/2$ and underlying mode tree given by def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]). Similarly, we use $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}}\}_{\nu{\in}int(T),\gamma\in[r_{mix}]}$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}}\}_{\nu{\in}int({\bar{T}}),\gamma\in[r_{mix}]}$ to denote the weights, corresponding to $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$ (respectively), in the mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\] with size constant $r=r_{mix}$). Recall that by construction (def. \[def:hybrid\_tree\]), $int(H)$ – the interior of $H$, consists of different segments (collections of nodes), each taken from either $int(T)$ or $int({\bar{T}})$. We define $t:int(H)\to\{T,{\bar{T}}\}$ to be the function indicating which tree an interior node in $H$ came from. Specifically, if the node $\nu{\in}int(H)$ originated from $T$ we have $t(\nu)=T$, and on the other hand, if its source is ${\bar{T}}$ then $t(\nu)={\bar{T}}$. By convention, feeding $t(\cdot)$ with an argument outside $int(H)$ yields something that is different from both $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$. For example, if $\nu{\in}int(H)$ is the root node, [*i.e.*]{} $\nu=[N]$, then $P(\nu;H)$ – its parent in $H$, is undefined and we have $t(P(\nu;H)){\neq}t(\nu)$. Similarly, if the child $C_{{\text{I}}}(\nu;H)$ of $\nu{\in}int(H)$ is a leaf, it is outside the domain of $t(\cdot)$ and thus $t(\nu){\neq}t(C_{{\text{I}}}(\nu;H))$.
Given a setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ for the tree decomposition of $H$, we would like to show that there exists a setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ for the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, such that the latter generates grid tensors identical to those of the former. More precisely, for any collection of discretizers $\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}/2}\}_{i\in[M]}$ fed into the tree decomposition of $H$, leading the latter to produce grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_{y\in[r_{mix}/2]}$, we would like the mixed decomposition to be such that when fed with the padded discretizers $\{[({{\mathbf v}}^{(i)})^\top~{{\mathbf 0}}]^\top\in{{\mathbb R}}^{r_{mix}}\}_{i\in[M]}$, the first $r_{mix}/2$ grid tensors it generates are equal to $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_{y\in[r_{mix}/2]}$. We prove existence of the sought after weight setting constructively, by presenting an explicit procedure for assigning $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{T,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ and $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{{\bar{T}},\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ based on $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{H,\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$: &&\
&&[[a]{}]{}\^[T,,,]{}=[[a]{}]{}\^[T,,,]{}=[[0]{}]{} int(T),\
&&[[a]{}]{}\^[[|[T]{}]{},,,]{}=[[a]{}]{}\^[[|[T]{}]{},,,]{}=[[0]{}]{} int([|[T]{}]{}),\
&&\
&&[[a]{}]{}\^[t(),,+r\_[mix]{},]{} = {
[ll]{} \^& ,t()=t(C\_(;H))\
\^& ,t()t(C\_(;H))
.\
&&[[a]{}]{}\^[t(),,+r\_[mix]{},]{} = {
[ll]{} \^& ,t()=t(C\_(;H))\
\^& ,t()t(C\_(;H))
.\
&&:\
&&\
&& \[eq:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\_assignment\] The idea behind this assignment is as follows. The computation corresponding to a node in the tree decomposition of $H$, is carried out, in the mixed decomposition of $T$ and ${\bar{T}}$, by the respective node in the respective source tree. That is to say, the computation of $\nu{\in}int(H)$ in the tree decomposition is carried out by $\nu{\in}int(t(\nu))$ in the mixed decomposition. $\nu{\in}int(t(\nu))$ uses half ($r_{mix}/2$) of its weight vectors, and in each used weight vector, half ($r_{mix}/2$) of the coordinates hold actual (non-zero) values – a copy of the respective weight from $\nu{\in}int(H)$. The choice of which weight vectors to use, and which coordinates to use in the active weight vectors, depends on the tree-transitioning scheme. If the parent of $\nu$ in $H$ came from the same tree as $\nu$, [*i.e.*]{} $t(P(\nu;H))=t(\nu)$, $\nu{\in}int(t(\nu))$ in the mixed decomposition uses weight vectors with higher indexes ($\gamma{\in}r_{mix}/2+[r_{mix}/2]$), as these relate to tensors that are not exchanged (see eq. \[eq:mix\_decomp\]). On the other hand, if $t(P(\nu;H)){\neq}t(\nu)$, weight vectors with lower indexes ($\gamma\in[r_{mix}/2]$) are used, so that the computations (tensors) will be sent to the opposite tree. The analogous rationale holds for the children of $\nu$ in $H$ ($C_{{\text{I}}}(\nu;H)$ and $C_{{\text{II}}}(\nu;H)$). If a child came from the same tree as $\nu$, upper coordinates of the appropriate weight vectors are used, so that computations (tensors) coming from the present tree are collected. On the other hand, if the child came from the opposite tree, lower coordinates are used and computations (tensors) from that tree are fetched. Altogether, the assignment in eq. \[eq:hybrid\_tree\_by\_mix\_assignment\] meets our requirements, and thus concludes the proof.
[$\blacksquare$]{}
Proof of Theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] {#app:proofs:tree_decomp_ranks}
------------------------------------------------
Since we are dealing with a single particular mode tree $T$, we omit it from our notations throughout the proof. Specifically, we denote by $C_{\text{I}}(\nu)$ and $C_{\text{II}}(\nu)$ (instead of $C_{\text{I}}(\nu;T)$ and $C_{\text{II}}(\nu;T)$) the children of an interior node $\nu{\in}int(T)$; by $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$ (instead of $\Theta({{\mathcal I}};T)$ and $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c;T)$) the tilings of ${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal I}}^c$ (respectively) [w.r.t.]{} $T$ (see def. \[def:tiling\]); and by $\sigma^{(\nu)}(\cdot)$ (instead of $\sigma^{(\nu;T)}(\cdot)$) the permutation corresponding to $\nu{\in}int(T)$ in the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]).
The first stage of the proof is to derive a matricized form of the tree decomposition, shedding light into the manner in which grid tensor matricizations $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$ are generated. As a preparatory step in this direction, we define the notion of an *index set reduction*. Let $\nu\subset[N]$ be a node in $T$, whose elements we denote by $i_1<\cdots<i_{{\left\lvert\nu \right\rvert}}$. The reduction of ${{\mathcal I}}$ onto $\nu$ is defined as follows: [[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}:={j:i\_j[[I]{}]{}} \[eq:reduction\] In words, it is the set of indexes corresponding to the intersection ${{\mathcal I}}\cap\nu$ inside $\nu$. Besides index set reduction, an additional tool we will be using is the *Kronecker product* – a matrix operator we denote by $\odot$. For two matrices $A\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times}M_2}$ and $B\in{{\mathbb R}}^{N_1{\times}N_2}$, $A{\odot}B$ is the matrix in ${{\mathbb R}}^{M_{1}N_{1}{\times}M_{2}N_{2}}$ holding $A_{ij}B_{kl}$ in row index $(i-1)N_1+k$ and column index $(j-1)N_2+l$.
Consider the central relation in the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]), while noticing that ${\otimes_g}\equiv\otimes$ in our setting ($g(\cdot)$ is the product operator – see sec. \[sec:prelim\]): \_ = \^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{})) \[eq:tree\_decomp\_main\] Suppose we would like to matricize the tensor $\phi^{\nu,\gamma}$ [w.r.t.]{} the reduction ${{{\mathcal I}}|_{\nu}}$. If all elements of $C_{\text{I}}(\nu)$ were smaller than those of $C_{\text{II}}(\nu)$, the permutation $\sigma^{(\nu)}(\cdot)$ would be the identity (see sec. \[sec:dcn:tree\]), and the following matrix relation would hold: [\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} &=& [(\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{})]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{}\
&=& [\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{} [\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}\
&=& (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) In general however, elements in $C_{\text{I}}(\nu)$ could be greater than ones in $C_{\text{II}}(\nu)$, and so eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_main\] includes a tensor mode sorting via $\sigma^{(\nu)}(\cdot)$. In matricized form, this amounts to rearranging rows and columns through appropriate permutation matrices $Q^{(\nu)}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}$ respectively: $${\llbracket\phi^{\nu,\gamma}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{\nu}}} = Q^{(\nu)}\left(\left(\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}}\cdot{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{I}}(\nu)}}}\right) \odot \left(\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\cdot{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{II}}(\nu),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{II}}(\nu)}}}\right)\right){\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}$$ We thus arrive at the following matrix form of eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\], referred to as the *matricized tree decomposition*: [&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = [\^]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} \
&&\
&&[\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} = Q\^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}))[|[Q]{}]{}\^[()]{} \
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=[\^[\[N\],y]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[\[N\]]{}]{}]{} \[eq:mat\_tree\_decomp\] ]{}
Next, we move on to the second stage of the proof, where we establish the upper bound stated in the theorem: rank[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{} r\^[{[([[I]{}]{}) ]{},[([[I]{}]{}\^c) ]{}}]{} \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_ub\] We begin by “propagating outwards” the permutation matrices $Q^{([N])}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{([N])}$ corresponding to the root node $[N]$ in the matricized tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:mat\_tree\_decomp\]). Namely, for every $\gamma\in[r]$, we replace the matrix ${\llbracket\phi^{[N],\gamma}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{[N]}}}$ by: [$$B^{[N],\gamma} := \left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{[N],\gamma,{\text{I}}}{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{I}}([N]),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{I}}([N])}}}\right) \odot \left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{[N],\gamma,{\text{II}}}{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{II}}([N]),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{II}}([N])}}}\right)$$ ]{} and accordingly move $Q^{([N])}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{([N])}$ to the assignments of $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$. This gives rise to the following decomposition: [&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = [\^]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} \
&&\
&&[\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} = Q\^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}))[|[Q]{}]{}\^[()]{} \
&&B\^[\[N\],]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{}) \
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=Q\^[(\[N\])]{}B\^[\[N\],y]{}[|[Q]{}]{}\^[(\[N\])]{} ]{} Consider now $C_{\text{I}}([N])$ – a child of the root node $[N]$, and suppose we would like to similarly propagate outwards its permutation matrices $Q^{(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}$. We may define, for every $\gamma{\in}[r]$: [$$B^{C_{\text{I}}([N]),\gamma} := \left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{C_{\text{I}}([N]),\gamma,{\text{I}}}{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{I}}(C_{\text{I}}([N])),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{I}}(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}}}\right) \odot \left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{C_{\text{I}}([N]),\gamma,{\text{II}}}{\llbracket\phi^{C_{\text{II}}(C_{\text{I}}([N])),\alpha}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{C_{\text{II}}(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}}}\right)$$ ]{} which in turn implies: [B\^[\[N\],]{} &=& (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}Q\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}B\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}[|[Q]{}]{}\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{})\
&=& (Q\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}(\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}B\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{})[|[Q]{}]{}\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{}) ]{} Now, for any matrices $A,A',B,B'$ such that $AA'$ and $BB'$ are defined, the following equality holds: $(AA')\odot(BB')=(A{\odot}A')(B{\odot}B')$ (see [@bellman1970introduction] for proof). We may therefore write: [&&B\^[\[N\],]{} =\
&&(Q\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}I) ((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}B\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{})) ([|[Q]{}]{}\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}[|[I]{}]{}) ]{} where $I$ and ${\bar{I}}$ are identity matrices of appropriate sizes. Propagating outwards the matrices $Q^{(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}{\odot}I$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{(C_{\text{I}}([N]))}{\odot}{\bar{I}}$ (while redefining $B^{[N],\gamma}$ appropriately), we arrive at the following decomposition: [&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = [\^]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} \
&&\
&&[\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} = Q\^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}))[|[Q]{}]{}\^[()]{} \
&&B\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[C\_(\[N\]),,]{}[\^[C\_(C\_(\[N\])),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(C\_(\[N\]))]{}]{}]{})\
&& (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[C\_(\[N\]),,]{}[\^[C\_(C\_(\[N\])),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(C\_(\[N\]))]{}]{}]{}) \
&&B\^[\[N\],]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}B\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[\[N\],,]{}[\^[C\_(\[N\]),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_(\[N\])]{}]{}]{}) \
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}= (Q\^[(\[N\])]{}(Q\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}I))B\^[\[N\],y]{}(([|[Q]{}]{}\^[(C\_(\[N\]))]{}[|[I]{}]{})[|[Q]{}]{}\^[(\[N\])]{}) ]{} Continuing this process, we propagate outwards the permutation matrices $Q^{(\nu)}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}$ of all nodes $\nu$ in the tree that are not members of the tilings $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ or $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$ (see def. \[def:tiling\]), and are not descendants of such. This brings forth the following decomposition: [&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = [\^]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} \
&&\
&&[\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} = Q\^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}))[|[Q]{}]{}\^[()]{} \
&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = [\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} \
&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{}) \
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=AB\^[\[N\],y]{}[|[A]{}]{} ]{} Consider now a node $\nu{\in}int(T)$ whose child belongs to a tiling – without loss of generality $C_{\text{I}}(\nu)$ belongs to $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$. Notice that in this case $B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu),\alpha}$ is a column vector for every $\alpha\in[r]$. We may thus define $B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu)}$ to be the matrix whose $\alpha$’th column is $B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu),\alpha}$, and get the following equalities: [$$B^{\nu,\gamma}
= \left(B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu)}{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}}\right) \odot \left(\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}B^{C_{\text{II}}(\nu),\alpha}\right)
= \left(B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu)}{\odot}I\right) \left({{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}} \odot \sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}B^{C_{\text{II}}(\nu),\alpha}\right)$$ ]{} where again, $I$ is an appropriately sized identity matrix. This implies that we can propagate outwards $B^{C_{\text{I}}(\nu)}{\odot}I$, just as we have done with permutation matrices. Applying this procedure to all nodes in the tilings $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$, we arrive at the decomposition below: [&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = [[e]{}]{}\^[()]{}\
&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = ([[e]{}]{}\^[()]{})\^\
&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{})\
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=AB\^[\[N\],y]{}[|[A]{}]{} ]{} Notice that for compactness in writing we made use of the fact that ${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}}=\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r} a_\alpha^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}{{\mathbf e}}^{(\alpha)}$, where ${{\mathbf e}}^{(\alpha)}$, $\alpha\in[r]$, is the vector in ${{\mathbb R}}^r$ holding $1$ in entry $\alpha$ and $0$ in the rest. Note also that in this decomposition, as opposed to the previous ones, the matrices $A$ and ${\bar{A}}$ are not global constants that depend only on $T$. Rather, they also depend on ${\llbracket\phi^{\nu,\gamma}\rrbracket}_{{{{\mathcal I}}|_{\nu}}}$ for tiling nodes $\nu\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}})\cup\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$, and thus are ultimately determined through a hidden computation that is not specified above. This hidden computation is outside our scope, as we are only interested in the size of the matrices $\{B^{[N],y}\}_y$. It is not difficult to see that this size is precisely $r^{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}) \right\rvert}}$-by-$r^{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c) \right\rvert}}$, meaning that the ranks of $\{B^{[N],y}\}_y$ are no more than $r^{\min\{{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}) \right\rvert},{\left\lvert\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c) \right\rvert}\}}$. Since these ranks are greater than or equal to those of $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$, the sought after upper bound (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_ub\]) indeed holds.
In the third and final stage of the proof, we establish the lower bound stated in the theorem, namely, that for all configurations of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ but a set of Lebesgue measure zero: rank[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{} r\^[[{(\_1,\_2)([[I]{}]{})([[I]{}]{}\^c): } ]{}]{} \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\] We reduce the problem in three successive steps:
- A tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) with a product operator $g(\cdot)$ admits maximal matricization ranks almost always (see app. \[app:max\_ranks\]). Therefore, to prove that eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\] holds for all weight settings but a set of Lebesgue measure zero, it suffices to find a particular weight setting for which the inequality holds.
- By assumption, the discretizers $\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\}_{i\in[M]}$ span ${{\mathbb R}}^r$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\}_{i\in[r]}$ are linearly independent, and consider the sub-tensors of $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ formed by restricting their indexes to the range $1{\ldots}r$ (instead of $1{\ldots}M$). The matricizations of these sub-tensors [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$ are sub-matrices of $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$, thus any lower bound on ranks of the former matricizations immediately translates to a lower bound on ranks of the latter. Since the sub-tensors are precisely the grid tensors that would have been generated by the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) had we omitted the trailing discretizers $\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\}_{i\in[M]\setminus[r]}$, establishing eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\] in the case $M=r$ proves that it holds in general ($M{\geq}r$).
- Bearing in mind that we assume $M=r$ (and linear independence of $\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\}_{i\in[r]}$), denote by $V$ the $r$-by-$r$ matrix holding ${{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}$ in its $i$’th row, [*i.e.*]{} $V:=[{{\mathbf v}}^{(1)}\cdots{{\mathbf v}}^{(r)}]^\top$. From the tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\]) it is evident that the discretizers affect generated grid tensors only through products of the form $V{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma{\text{I}}}$ or $V{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma{\text{II}}}$, where $\nu$ is a parent of a leaf node in $T$. Since $V$ is invertible ($\{{{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}\}_{i\in[r]}$ are linearly independent), its exact value has no effect on the class of representable grid tensors – any change it undergoes may be accounted for by the weights ${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma{\text{I}}}$ and ${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma{\text{II}}}$ that multiply it (these weights do not appear elsewhere in the decomposition). Accordingly, for establishing a lower bound on achievable grid tensor matricization ranks, the value of $V$ is irrelevant (so long as it is invertible), and we may assume, without loss of generality, that $V$ is the identity matrix, [*i.e.*]{} that ${{\mathbf v}}^{(i)}={{\mathbf e}}^{(i)}$ for all $i\in[r]$.
Taking into account the above reductions, our objective is to show that there exists a setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$, such that the following special case of the matricized tree decomposition (eq. \[eq:mat\_tree\_decomp\]) generates matricizations meeting the lower bound in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\]: [&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = [[e]{}]{}\^[()]{}\
&&\
&&[\^[{j},]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[{j}]{}]{}]{} = ([[e]{}]{}\^[()]{})\^\
&&\
&&[\^[,]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_]{}]{} = Q\^[()]{}((\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}[\^[C\_(),]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[C\_()]{}]{}]{}))[|[Q]{}]{}\^[()]{} \
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=[\^[\[N\],y]{}]{}\_[[[[I]{}]{}|\_[\[N\]]{}]{}]{} ]{} Similarly to the procedure carried out in the second stage of the proof (establishing the upper bound in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_ub\]), we now propagate outwards the permutation matrices $Q^{(\nu)}$ and ${\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}$ corresponding to all interior nodes $\nu{\in}int(T)$. This brings forth the following decomposition: [&&\
&&B\^[{j},]{} = [[e]{}]{}\^[()]{}\
&&\
&&B\^[{j},]{} = ([[e]{}]{}\^[()]{})\^\
&&\
&&B\^[,]{} = (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{}) (\_[=1]{}\^[r]{} a\_\^[,,]{}B\^[C\_(),]{})\
&&[\^y]{}\_[[I]{}]{}=AB\^[\[N\],y]{}[|[A]{}]{} \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\_reduce\_decomp\] ]{} The matrices $A$ and ${\bar{A}}$ in the assignments of $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$ essentially collect all permutation matrices $\{Q^{(\nu)}\}_\nu$ and $\{{\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}\}_\nu$ (respectively) that have been propagated outwards. Specifically, $A$ (respectively ${\bar{A}}$) is a product of factors, each of the form $I{\odot}Q^{(\nu)}{\odot}I'$ (respectively $I{\odot}{\bar{Q}}^{(\nu)}I'$) for a different interior node $\nu$ and appropriately sized identity matrices $I$ and $I'$. Since permutation matrices are invertible, and since the Kronecker product between two invertible matrices is invertible as well (see [@bellman1970introduction] for proof), we conclude that the matrices $A$ and ${\bar{A}}$ are invertible. Therefore, for every $y\in[r]$, the rank of ${\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}$ is equal to that of $B^{[N],y}$. It thus suffices to find a setting of weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ for which: rank(B\^[\[N\],]{}) r\^[[{(\_1,\_2)([[I]{}]{})([[I]{}]{}\^c): } ]{}]{} \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\_reduce\] Disregard the trivial case where there exist siblings $\nu_1\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and $\nu_2\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$ of depth $1$,[^1] and consider the following weight setting:
- $\nu$ is a node in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ or $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$, or a descendant of such: $${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}} = {{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}} = {{\mathbf e}}^{(\gamma)}\quad\forall\gamma\in[r]$$
- $\nu$ has one child in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and the other in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$: $${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}} = {{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}} = {{\mathbf e}}^{(\gamma)}\quad\forall\gamma\in[r]$$
- $\nu$ is the root node $[N]$: $${{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}} = {{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}} = {{\mathbf e}}^{(1)}\quad\forall\gamma\in[r]$$
- $\nu$ meets neither of the above (${{\mathbf 0}}$ and ${{\mathbf 1}}$ here denote the all-zero and all-one vectors in ${{\mathbb R}}^r$, respectively): &[[a]{}]{}\^[,1,]{} = {
[ll]{} [[1]{}]{} & ,\
[[e]{}]{}\^[(1)]{} & ,
.&\
&[[a]{}]{}\^[,1,]{} = {
[ll]{} [[1]{}]{} & ,\
[[e]{}]{}\^[(1)]{} & ,
.&\
&[[a]{}]{}\^[,,]{} = [[a]{}]{}\^[,,]{} = [[0]{}]{}{1}&
Plugging this into the decomposition in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\_reduce\_decomp\], one readily sees that:
- For every $\nu\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$, $\{B^{\nu,\gamma}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}$ are indicator column vectors (one entry holds $1$, the rest hold $0$) such that $B^{\nu,\gamma}{\neq}B^{\nu,\gamma'}$ if $\gamma\neq\gamma'$. The same holds for $\nu\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$, but with the vectors being rows.
- If $\nu$ has one child in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and the other in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$, $\{B^{\nu,\gamma}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}$ are indicator matrices, where both the row and column indexes of the active entry do not repeat as $\gamma$ varies.
- The matrices $\{B^{[N],\gamma}\}_{\gamma\in[r]}$ corresponding to the root node $[N]$ are equal to one another, given by a joint Kronecker product between all of the following:
- $B^{\nu,1}$ for every node $\nu$ in either $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ or $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$ which does not have a sibling in the other
- $\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^{r}B^{\nu,\alpha}$ for every node $\nu$ that has one child in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and the other in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$
According to the first observation above, $B^{\nu,1}$ has rank $1$ for every $\nu$ in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ or $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$. The second observation implies that $\sum_{\alpha=1}^{r}B^{\nu,\alpha}$ has rank $r$ for every node $\nu$ that has one child in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and the other in $\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$. In turn, and while taking into account the rank-multiplicative property of the Kronecker product ($rank(A{\odot}A')=rank(A){\cdot}rank(A')$ – see [@bellman1970introduction] for proof), the third observation implies: $$rank(B^{[N],\gamma})=r^{{\left\lvert\{(\nu_1,\nu_2)\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}})\times\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c):~\text{$\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are siblings in~$T$}\} \right\rvert}}
\quad\forall{\gamma\in[r]}$$ We thus have found weights $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ for which eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\_reduce\] holds.[^2] This establishes the sought after lower bound on matricization ranks (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\]), completing the proof of the theorem.
[$\blacksquare$]{}
Maximality of Matricization Ranks {#app:max_ranks}
=================================
In the proof of theorem \[theorem:tree\_decomp\_ranks\] (app. \[app:proofs:tree\_decomp\_ranks\]), and in the derivation of corollary \[corollary:mix\_by\_tree\] (sec. \[sec:analysis\]), we made use of the fact that a tree or mixed decomposition (eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\] or \[eq:mix\_decomp\] respectively), with a product operator $g(\cdot)$, admits maximal matricization ranks almost always. That is to say, for any index set ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$, the ranks of generated grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ when matricized [w.r.t.]{} ${{\mathcal I}}$, attain their maximum possible values (which depend on both the decomposition and ${{\mathcal I}}$) for all configurations of weights ($\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ for the tree decomposition, $\{{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{I}}},{{\mathbf a}}^{\nu,\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{\nu,\gamma}$ and $\{{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{I}}},{\bar{{{\mathbf a}}}}^{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma,{\text{II}}}\}_{{\bar{\nu}},\gamma}$ for the mixed decomposition) but a set of Lebesgue measure zero. Hereinafter we justify this assertion.
When equipped with the product operator ($g(a,b)=a{\cdot}b$), a tree or mixed decomposition generates grid tensors $\{{{\mathcal A}}^y\}_y$ whose entries are polynomials in the decomposition weights. Therefore, for any index set ${{\mathcal I}}\subset[N]$, the entries of the matricizations $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$ are, too, polynomials in the decomposition weights. Claim \[claim:max\_rank\] below implies that for a particular index $y$, the rank of ${\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}$ is maximal almost always, [*i.e.*]{} for all weight settings but a set of measure zero. Since the union of finitely many zero measure sets is itself a zero measure set (see [@jones2001lebesgue] for example), we conclude that the ranks of $\{{\llbracket{{\mathcal A}}^y\rrbracket}_{{\mathcal I}}\}_y$ are jointly maximal almost always, which is what we set out to prove.
\[claim:max\_rank\] Let $D,M_1,M_2\in{{\mathbb N}}$, and consider a polynomial function mapping weights ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^D$ to matrices $A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})\in{{\mathbb R}}^{M_1{\times}M_2}$ (“polynomial” here means that all entries of $A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})$ are polynomials in ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}$). Denote $R=\max_{{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^D}rank(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}))$, and consider the set $S:=\{{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^D:rank(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}))<R\}$. This set has Lebesgue measure zero.
We disregard the trivial case where $R=0$. Let ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}_0$ be a point at which $R$ is attained ($rank(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}_0))=R$), and assume without loss of generality that the top-left $R{\times}R$ minor of $A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}_0)$, [*i.e.*]{} the determinant of $A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}_0)_{1:R,1:R}$, is non-zero. The function $p:{{\mathbb R}}^D\to{{\mathbb R}}$ defined by $p({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})=\det(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})_{1:R,1:R})$ is a polynomial, which by construction does not vanish everywhere ($p({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}_0)\neq0$). The zero set of a polynomial is either the entire space, or a set of Lebesgue measure zero (see [@caron2005zero] for proof). Therefore, the zero set of $p(\cdot)$ has Lebesgue measure zero. Now, for every ${{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}{\in}S$: $$rank(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}))<R
\implies
rank(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})_{1:R,1:R})<R
\implies
p({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}}):=\det(A({{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}})_{1:R,1:R})=0$$ $S$ is thus contained in the zero set of $p(\cdot)$, and therefore too, has Lebesgue measure zero.
[^1]: In this case ${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal I}}^c$ are the children of the root node $[N]$, and the maximal rank of $B^{[N],\gamma}$ is $1$ for every $\gamma\in[r]$.
[^2]: This applies to all but the trivial case where ${{\mathcal I}}$ is such that there exist siblings $\nu_1\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}})$ and $\nu_2\in\Theta({{\mathcal I}}^c)$ of depth $1$ (${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal I}}^c$ are the children of the root node $[N]$). In the latter case the lower bound in eq. \[eq:tree\_decomp\_ranks\_lb\_reduce\] can be met trivially.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'School of Computational Science and Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, North Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30332'
- 'School of Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, North Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30332'
- 'Emu Technology, 270 West 39th Street, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10018'
- 'Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Blvd, Richland, WA 99354'
author:
- 'Jeffrey S. Young'
- Eric Hein
- Srinivas Eswar
- Patrick Lavin
- Jiajia Li
- Jason Riedy
- Richard Vuduc
- Tom Conte
bibliography:
- 'bib/refs.bib'
title: A Microbenchmark Characterization of the Emu Chick
---
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgments}
===============
This work was supported in parts by NSF Grant ACI-1339745 (XScala), NSF Grant OAC-1710371 (SuperSTARLU), an IARPA contract, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under agreement \#HR0011-13-2-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the sponsors.
The authors also gratefully acknowledge support by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at Sandia National Laboratories, a multi-mission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.
Finally, thanks to the Emu Technology team for their continued support and debugging assistance with the Emu Chick prototype and to the many reviewers with their helpful suggestions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'With the fast development of video and voice network applications, CDN (Content Distribution Networks) and P2P (Peer-to-Peer) content distribution technologies have gradually matured. How to effectively use Internet resources thus has attracted more and more attentions. For the study of resource pricing, a whole pricing strategy containing pricing models, mechanisms and methods covers all the related topics. We first introduce three basic Internet resource pricing models through an Internet cost analysis. Then, with the evolution of service types, we introduce several corresponding mechanisms which can ensure pricing implementation and resource allocation. On network resource pricing methods, we discuss the utility optimization in economics, and emphasize two classes of pricing methods (including system optimization and entities’ strategic optimizations). Finally, we conclude the paper and forecast the research direction on pricing strategy which is applicable to novel service situation in the near future.'
author:
- |
Huan He, Ke Xu, and Ying Liu\
Institute of Computer Networks\
Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University\
Email: {hehuan,xuke,liuying}@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
title: 'Internet Resource Pricing Models, Mechanisms, and Methods'
---
Internet, pricing strategy, service type, optimization, game theory.
Introduction {#intro}
============
Background
----------
Too many packets will incur network performance degradation, which is called congestion \[1\]. Congestion is caused by unbalanced resource and traffic distribution, and thus will not be automatically eliminated with the increase of network capacity. In packet switched network, the selfish nature of users makes this happen. As shown by Hardin \[2\], “tragedy of commons” occurs when many individuals share public resources and each holds a selfish objective, which means the loss they bring to others is larger than their own improved benefits. So, if the network is used as public goods, there always exists the possibility that the overall personal excessive usage will cause system performance decline and thus the congestion problem.\
In recent years, high bandwidth, low latency, low jitter and other higher applications are getting increasingly popular. Thus the surges of network traffic makes network congestion more frequent and serious. Accordingly, the novel content distribution technologies and mechanisms to ensure network QoS are constantly proposed and improved. For the former, commonly, a new layer of network architecture, the application layer network (Overlay Network \[3\]) is added in the existing Internet to realize the corresponding transmission and QoS control, such as P2P (Peer-to-Peer) \[4\] and CDN (Content Distribution Networks) \[5\]. For the latter, mechanisms are developed to work at all levels of QoS control, such as transport layer and network layer concerning network service structures. In short, they both serve network resource management and congestion control.\
However, on the one hand, network traffic surges and keeps increasing. As Valancius \[7\] shown in Fig. \[fig:1\], videos and P2P traffic occupy a large part of network resources and will become even more in the coming years. On the other hand, different application layer networks have their own selfish traffic demands and QoS control mechanisms. This makes network management and maintainence increasingly difficult \[6\]. As an earlier network service type, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) often meet the increasingly high QoS requirements by upgrading network infrastructure or increasing network capacity. However, in the long run, investments usually bring high cost and fail to satisfy the fast-growing network resource requirement, which is against the healthy network development. Therefore, QoS control technologies need to be introduced in network. From the perspective of improving network resource usage and management, network designers and ISPs usually passively conduct QoS control based on the existing network traffic, such as congestion control \[8\]-\[10\], and traffic engineering \[11\]. But these often complicate network protocol design and implementation. Proactively setting QoS levels of flows for simple QoS control (priority-based QoS mechanism \[13\]\[14\]) and designing network architecture to ensure QoS (such as IntServ \[15\] and DiffServ \[16\]) have also been studied extensively. But due to some technological limitations and lack of incentives, they have not been implemented throughout the network.
![Internet video content growth. \[7\][]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig/fig1.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
In fact, for network designers, it is very effective to improve network performance using the enhanced transport layer protocol design and related underlayer techniques \[9\]\[10\]. However, they do not care about the types of high-level applications. Thus the corresponding QoS differentiation is hard to ensure. As a result, promoting reasonable and efficient usage of network resources based on applications is more and more emphasized. And the related service types that can provide different QoS levels on different applications are also under in-depth study. Earlier, priority-based network service layering \[13\]\[14\] tries to achieve a certain level of packet transmission QoS differentiation based on distinguishing the high-level application characteristics of packets. Then, the proposed IntServ architecture \[15\] guarantees applications’ QoS by per-flow resource reservation, and DiffServ \[16\] modifies the IntServ architecture using priorities based on aggregated flow control. Theoretically, they can improve network resource-use efficiency, indicating a QoS guaranteed service era is coming. However, in addition to technical difficulty and deployment complexity, they are generally achieving high-priority service QoS guarantee at the expense of low-priority services without congestion elimination attempts in nature. Furthermore, due to the distributed management features of the Internet, ISPs lack adequate enthusiasm to collaboratively improve network performance and efficiency without appropriate incentives. Thus QoS guarantee is difficult to implement in the whole network.
Resource Pricing
----------------
From the above discussion, we note that design incentives at economical level to encourage ISPs in improving network performance and directing users to use the resources rationally, will be of great significance in effective network resource management and distribution \[39\]. Such methods are based on the utility optimization theory in economics, which affects users’ demand and belongs to active resource management mechanism. Simply speaking, ISPs can effectively influence users’ demands and network resource usage by choosing rational pricing strategies, thus prompting efficient network usage and ensuring network performance. Particularly, as an important auxiliary aspect of technological progress (economic incentives \[22\]), pricing mechanism studies suited to service type development are also important. Therefore, a complete picture of network pricing should include three aspects: basic pricing models, mechanisms to ensure pricing implementation, and methods determining optimal pricing levels.\
Specifically, first of all, pricing models decide which factors to charge, or how to evaluate network operating and maintaining costs. Mason and Varian \[18\]\[19\] analyzed the major fee component from users’ cost point of view. This includes: a fixed fee to provide basic service structure costs such as leased lines, routing equipment maintenance, and human resource utilities; marginal costs of access; network expansion costs; marginal costs of sending data packets into the congested network; and social costs that cause negative impact on other users. The authors believe a good price should reflect these costs. So, we introduce three basic pricing models concerning these costs: flat pricing \[18\], usage pricing\[21\]\[22\]\[25\] and congestion pricing \[18\]\[29\]-\[37\].\
As applications are simple and resources are sufficient at the beginning of the Internet, it is convenient to charge users using a static flat pricing model, where users have the same usage-irrelative fixed fees with equal access rates. The advantages are that complex audit and statistics are unnecessary, and thus facilitates network users. So, they increasingly enrich network contents. However, too many contents eventually causes network resources lacking.And the defects of flat pricing gradually emerge. For the system, due to lacking of incentives for efficient network resource usage \[20\] (a lot of bandwidth are wasted by non-critical applications), the overall network performance degrades. For users, the experience deteriorates and the fairness cannot be guaranteed. Obviously, flat pricing is no longer applicable. Thus, a more effective resource pricing model “usage-based pricing” was proposed \[21\]. It pointed out that if the charge is related with usage, fair and efficient use of resources will be promoted to some extent. However, with a further increase in network traffic, the aggravated congestion makes the related pricing a hot research area, resulting in a relatively dynamic pricing model “congestion pricing” \[18\]\[19\] which are studied extensively. Besides, these three pricing models can be used in any combination since they reflect different cost components.\
As for pricing mechanisms, they mainly aim to address the matching problem between network service types and pricing models. Namely, for different types of network services, we need to select and design suitable pricing models. Good pricing mechanism can set rational price structures for users and ensure pricing implementation with an acceptable technical complexity measure \[12\]. Generally, in network, ISPs always adjust the basic pricing model to promote the rational use of resources based on their network capacity, where no additional QoS control mechanisms are conducted. Odlyzko’s PMP (Paris Metro Pricing \[55\]) pricing aims to achieve QoS differentiation and thus enhances efficiency through dividing network into several subnets in network. However, with the increasing emphasis on applications’ QoS and network resource usage efficiency, network designers and ISPs both tend to serve different data streams with different QoS and price levels. Simple priority-based pricing was first proposed by Cocchi et al. \[13\] \[14\]. The authors suggested to implement prioritized service using priority field in IP packets, and thus they can conduct service layering and corresponding pricing. Similar thoughts can be found in \[42\]. With progressive development of various network service types, QoS guaranteed network architectures (such as IntServ and DiffServ) are gradually studied in recent years, followed by corresponding pricing models. QoS based network resource pricing mechanisms are thus formulated \[43\]-\[51\]\[56\]-\[60\]. We discuss pricing models suitable to various service types in Section 3.\
For the last aspect of pricing strategy, pricing methods applicable to pricing model/mechanism are still an important research aspect. It mainly determines how to set a reasonable price level. An ideal pricing method should be able to set price levels that can control resource usages so as to achieve its pricing objectives while achieving efficiency. Determining prices is usually based on relevant fields of pricing and utility optimization in economic theories under specific market environments. Such work is often based on different market structures (such as monopoly and competitive network) and network service mechanisms (such as and QoS guaranteed service network). After studying each entity’s utility, different theory models are used to describe their interactive optimization processes. The theoretical bases are mainly optimization theory and game theory. Thus there are two major research lines: (1) Studying pricing based on system optimization (Network Utility Maximization, NUM \[30\]\[31\]) always lies in optimization theory \[74\]; (2) Studying pricing based on strategic optimizations of ISPs and users. That is, when analyzing each player’s decision making, one should take into account effects from strategic behaviors of other players. This work is mainly based on two major theoretical branches of game theory: non-cooperative game theory \[75\]\[84\] (related models such as in \[77\]-\[82\]), and cooperative game theory \[83\]-\[85\] (related models such as in \[87\]\[91\]\[92\]).
Organizations
-------------
As shown in Fig.\[fig:2\], the remainder of the paper presents a detailed survey on Internet pricing development. In Section 2, we present three main pricing models proposed in earlier years. Then, integrated with pricing models, we introduce pricing mechanisms based on two types of services in Section 3. In Section 4, we introduce price level setting methods based on two classes of optimizations, including system optimization and entities’ strategic optimizations in different network marketing environments, which can economically incentivize technology development. We classify and compare typical pricing strategies in Section 5 based on different pricing models, serving mechanisms and pricing methods involved. Finally, in Section 6, we conclude the paper, predict the reasonable pricing strategies for new applications and network services, and point out several future research topics.
![The structure of pricing strategies.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig/fig2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Basic pricing models {#sec:basic}
====================
In the study of pricing models, the main idea is to decide pricing factors based on ISPs’ costs. In traditional network, three basic models can be used for network pricing based on cost analysis. The three models are also important factors in the pricing of subsequent QoS guaranteed network services. This section will inform the three basic pricing models which are gradually evolved in early Internet.
Flat pricing {#flat}
------------
At the early stages of Internet, users use a small quantity of network resources. Thus ISPs aim to attract a large number of users and occupy the market. They generally adopt unified price (or flat fee \[18\]) to charge users based on access costs, which means in a certain period of time, the users with the same access speed will be charged at the same price. This is especially common in broadband access market.\
The advantages are as follows. For ISPs, flat pricing is popular, since it is easy to implement and there is no need for complex statistical systems. And for users, the charges can be predicted. However, the more usage, the more obvious drawbacks. On the one hand, due to lack of effective interactions between users and ISPs, users have no incentives or ideas about adapting their usage patterns, making network resources over requested or used. On the other hand, ISPs do not count individuals’ resource consumptions and treat equally to users with the same access rate level. This means the overall cost is equally shared by users with different consumptions and thus fairness is hard to guarantee. Meanwhile, as there is no difference in charging users, ISPs lack impetus for upgrading infrastructure or improving QoS, which is not conductive to the progress of network technology and makes system performance degrade.\
As to the fairness, Edell and Varaiya studied users’ reactions on flat pricing through Internet Demand Experiment project (INDEX \[20\]). They concluded that light-load users compensate the heavy-load ones under flat pricing, which will cause resource waste too. The authors assumed unit usage cost is charged by $c$, and users request $D(c)$ unit resource according to demand curve. As using flat pricing model, the marginal usage cost for users is 0, which makes the demand changed from $D(c)$ to $D(0)$. Estimated by users’ practical utilities, the usage over $D(c)$ will cause ${\int}_0^c[D(c)-D(0)]dp$ value loss to users, as the shade shown in Fig. \[fig:3\] \[20\]. In addition, if the flat fee $C$ is charged based on average usage amount, then $C=c\times x_f(av)=c\times D(0)$. All users’ payments are shown as the rectangle area in Fig. \[fig:4\] \[20\]. Clearly, the light-load users’ payment is more than their gain, while the heavy-load users are on the contrary. This indicates that the former compensates the latter when they share resource costs on average.\
As discussed above, in network without additional QoS mechanism, flat pricing model is unable to achieve optimized resource allocation alone. And due to fewer ISPs, the marketization is not obvious, which worsen the situation that ISPs lack incentives to improve network performance. With the development of network applications and the increasingly complex Internet marketing environment, the model will no longer apply. But as one of the referential pricing factors, access charge can be used as a basic guarantee for recovering the fixed costs.
\[fig:subfig\]
Usage pricing {#usage}
-------------
As the usage and fixed costs have been distinguished and studied separately, usage-based pricing models come into being. Currence et al. \[22\] thought usage-based pricing can reflect actual use of network resources and is derived from traditional flat pricing. Simple usage-based pricing uses the amount of upload and download traffic to charge.\
In practice, China Education and Research NETwork (CERNET) uses full-rate accounting charges for international traffic \[24\]. In addition to such direct traffic statistics, ISPs in general can use statistical sampling methods to estimate usage, such as the $95^{th}$ percentile pricing which is used as an industry standard. This is in accordance with usage-based pricing, and the peak flow within 5% of the time (36 hours per month) is free of charge. Many ISP, such as MCI WorldCom and Level (3) Communications, have such peak flow rate based charging standards \[22\].\
Usage-based pricing is analyzed and studied by a lot of researchers at early stages of the Internet \[12\]\[21\]-\[25\]. The common point is that in general they used supply-demand balance models in economics to describe the interactions between users and ISPs. Edell and Varaiya \[20\] showed in their experiments that users are highly sensitive to pricing models and price levels. Usage-based charging, can not only enhance usage efficiency of network resource, but also play an important role in congestion control and fairness guarantee among users. Edell et al. \[21\] implemented a usage pricing system and gave experiments illustrating that dynamic usage pricing can prevent congestion and improve the average network performance. Courcoubetis et al. \[27\] proposed intelligent agents to decide network usage, based on network conditions and users’ payment willingness. This simplifies users’ utility optimization process.\
After analyzing the features of flat and usage pricing models, Altmann and Chu \[23\] proposed a hybrid pricing model that combines two. In this novel model, users enjoy basic services at a basic flat rate, while higher bandwidth demands will be charged by usage. The experimental data analysis indicates that such pricing model can improve network performance and increase ISP revenue. Obviously, such pricing concerning fixed and usage cost will benefit all the participants.\
Recently, with the continuous development of high-bandwidth required applications and P2P content distribution technologies, the overall users’ bandwidth demands increase dramatically. Consequently, increasingly differentiated usage patterns make the fairness problem even more serious, which indicates charging heavy-load users according to usage is more reasonable \[26\]. However, in terms of P2P applications’ providers who encourage users to participate in content sharing, such charging scheme will go contrary to their goals. So, more complicated interactions between P2P application providers and ISPs are to be carefully studied. In addition, other problems still need to be addressed, such as the privacy issues in processing audit and statistics \[22\] and the charging problem caused by users’ non-expected traffic (such as ads and spams).
Congestion pricing
------------------
The pricing models mentioned above cannot reflect individual traffic’s impact on network, such as packet loss and delay. An intuitive understanding is that, too many concurrent network users will easily degrade network performance. For those who have accessed in network, the higher system load, the higher possibility of congestion. This also means that more external cost will be caused by users \[18\].\
Researchers expect pricing can constrain this negative external effect which is also called social cost. And the corresponding pricing is named congestion pricing \[18\]. Congestion pricing dynamically sets price that can reflect approximate real-time network resource usage and represent current social cost. Thus it can encourage users to adjust traffic demand which may avoid excessive resource usage. Therefore, congestion can be relieved or eliminated \[29\]-\[37\].\
However, measuring such social cost is not trivial. It cannot be directly calculated or measured as fixed or usage cost but need to detect users’ perceived value of resources. In general network performance optimization articles, congestion cost is described by delay in M/M/1 queuing system \[79\]. In Mason and Varian’s smart market \[18\] pricing mechanism, an auction based pricing method was proposed to measure and price such social cost. As shown in Fig. \[fig:5\], the steps are as follows: (1) Users fill in bid fields for each packet on behalf of their willingness to pay for the packet transmission, e.g., P1(3) represents user 1’s willingness to pay for its packet is 3; P2(30) means user 2 is willing to pay 30 for its packet; P3(20) means user 3 is willing to pay 20. (2) The routing node (auction point) receives the packets and sorts the packets according to the bid values. (3) Checking available bandwidth, the routing node sets marginal bid value as the market clearing price or threshold price, and decides which packets to be transmitted (or discarded). In this example, we see that if the node can only process two packets, the packets from user 2 and user 3 will be transmitted at the price of 20 for each packet, otherwise discarded.
![ Smart market pricing.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](fig/fig5.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
This can prevent congestion to some extent. Since the limited resources are allocated to people with high willingness to pay, the allocation will be more efficient. However, periodic bidding process and threshold price setting require additional technical supports from network protocols and hardware, making the method more technically complex. MacKie-Mason \[35\] further studied the advantages of smart market using generalized Vickrey auction mechanism \[34\] (i.e., when willingness to pay is personal privacy of an auction participate, the person with the highest bidding value will get the item at the second highest bidding value) to allocate scarce resources. The author concluded that the mechanism can promote truthful expression of users’ utilities, and thus help network to attain service differentiation with different QoS levels. This kind of congestion pricing belongs to mechanism design (MD, \[77\]), which is always studied in incomplete information game theory area. We leave out more details here.\
There are also some pricing methods using congestion to set price levels (such as shadow pricing \[30\]\[31\] and congestion discount \[36\]) and the relevant specific implementation mechanisms (such as congestion feedback based on TCP explicit congestion notification ECN). All aspects involved aim to implement efficient price-aware network resource usage which can shift the traffic from peak time to non-peak time, and thus reduce congestion possibility. In fact, time varying usage-based pricing can also achieve a certain level of congestion control \[21\], though it may not base on the analysis of social cost. Ykusel and Kalyanarama \[37\] analyzed the relationship between time granularity of congestion pricing and the resulting congestion level through experiments. They concluded that when the price interval is more than 40 times of RTT, the price can hardly affect congestion. So they suggested 2-3 seconds to be the appropriate pricing interval. However, such fine granularity of congestion pricing is not easy to implement in the real Internet.
Discussion
----------
This section describes basic pricing models based on cost analysis in traditional network. They are gradually proposed and thoroughly studied along with the increase of network resource usage. Obviously, with the increasing importance of pricing in effective network resource management, pricing models will consider more factors and be more complex. From performance optimization perspective, this section describes pricing models with nearly different functions. In a flat pricing model, the fee is generally constant in a long period of time and is used to recover the fixed cost. Usage-based fee is charged to recover usage cost. It can be adjusted to reflect network congestion and thus plays a role in congestion control. Congestion pricing is proposed to measure and charge for congestion. It is a kind of dynamic pricing where price is dynamically adjusted to congestion.\
In fact, these three pricing models are not orthogonal, which means although they reflect different pricing factors, their functions can be overlapped to some extent. For example, “two part tariff” \[19\] was proposed as a combination of flat pricing and usage-based pricing. It can reduce congestion to some extent. In addition, congestion price mainly reflects the marginal cost of lacked resources. It can also be interpreted as the potential benefit increase of network users if there is one more resource unit. Therefore, congestion price is closely related to the timely network resources usage.
Pricing mechanisms based on service type
========================================
With more emphasis on QoS and network efficiency, services tend to be distinguished by data flow checking. This can help to achieve differentiated levels of QoS \[62\]. As a result, network service types can be divided into service and QoS mechanisms related services. Further, it is important that pricing models should be compatible with network service types \[38\]. This means that for different service types, pricing models should be suitable for charging. And there should have mechanisms to ensure the implementation of pricing. In this section, we describe pricing mechanisms to solve the above matching problem. And a brief analysis and evaluation will be given later.
service pricing
----------------
In network, as ISPs generally do not implement additional QoS control mechanisms, there is nearly no QoS difference. Thus, ISPs adjust basic pricing models to affect resource usage while optimizing economic benefit. Pricing is always done at network edge, known as edge pricing \[38\]\[39\]. It means that users’ fees are calculated by the access network but not directly concerned with intermediate networks along the whole transmission path.\
Supporters hold the following beliefs. On the one hand, Internet users located in different autonomous system are often managed and charged by local ISPs. Thus it is more realistic to charge users at the access side. On the other hand, as a service, ISPs provide no QoS guarantee to whatever traffic traversed through their networks. So pricing at network edge is more reasonable \[38\]\[39\].\
The basic pricing models suitable to edge pricing include flat pricing and usage pricing. For congestion pricing, because congestion could occur in any link along the transmission path, the price should be set according to path usage status. Thus it is not applicable to edge pricing. Moreover, for data packets, there may be multiple paths to select. But routing or path is not decided by users. So it is unfair to charge them for the path they use \[38\]. However, Shenker et al. \[38\] pointed out that edge pricing can still refer to approximate congestion and users’ expected paths.\
Clark \[39\] further discussed localization method for non-local accounting and pricing, such as setting price for multicast users and pricing for receiver-paid applications. The method is based on resource reservation protocol (see Section 3.2.2), where the sender first chooses how much it will pay or what portion of cost to share with receivers. In \[40\]\[41\], Clark suggested edge pricing could use estimated traffic instead of actual usage to charge users. And receivers can also state their willingness to pay. ISPs exchange traffic and revenue through agreements. Later, when bandwidth management devices \[42\] are added in the DiffServ architecture (see Section 3.2.3), the relatively dynamic edge pricing based on expectations or estimations is also being studied \[43\]. However, obviously, the edge pricing lacks influence on congestion control. Yuksel and Kalyanaraman \[44\] proposed a distributed dynamic pricing that is congestion sensitive and whose sensitivity and complexity are ranged between those of “smart market” and edge pricing.\
Overall, edge pricing is applicable to network. ISPs can negotiate with users at access network based on expected congestion through predicting network states. Thus they arrive at pricing agreements. The pricing is easy to implement and can prompt flexible interaction between ISPs and users (such as ISPs can dynamically adjust price based on network conditions and users can adjust their QoS requirements according to their expected utilities). However, edge pricing is unable to conduct congestion control in the whole network due to networks’ distributed characteristic. Although agreements exist, QoS guarantee or QoS differentiated services are hard to ensure.\
However, prioritized services can be implemented in network. Odlyzko proposed Paris Metro Pricing (PMP \[55\]) model, where a network is divided into several virtual transmission paths with different capacities and access prices. Thus users can expect to get differentiated services by accessing to different virtual paths. The main idea is that users can enjoy better performance at a higher possibility by paying more money. As shown in Fig. \[fig:6\], the network is logically divided into channels or virtual paths with different transmission capacity $C$ and corresponding price $P$. In principle, selecting channels at higher payment will get better service as less competitors.
![ PMP pricing.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](fig/fig6.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The advantages of PMP are described as follows. As an edge pricing, paying for access based on expected performance is easy to implement. Since network providers divide users into different categories through charging, it is natural to achieve a certain degree of network resource management and differentiated services. The disadvantages are that the network will not maximize its usage efficiency and cannot ensure QoS. In addition, since it is very likely that different subnets use different pricing strategies, PMP applies only to a monopolistic network. So, if the model is to be extended to a complex network environment with many small networks, the price setting and revenue sharing should be consulted by those subnets. As to implementation, Odlyzko stated that users can simply choose different edge network providers according to different service qualities they provided. And for ISPs, within the network, routers are used to identify priority bits in packets and conduct priority-based scheduling or packet processing.\
Similar to PMP, Dube et al. \[54\] proposed a service differentiation method based on queue management. For users, each chooses and joins a queue according to its price and length. And for network server, it implements a priority-based queue scheduling in order to achieve differentiated resource allocations. Unlike in PMP, users here can estimate network congestion through queue lengths, and choose a service queue based on estimated congestion and its price. It is a profit maximization dynamic pricing model. Dube et al. used Markov decision theory (MDP) to build up system model, and presented dynamic price adjustment algorithms.
QoS guaranteed service pricing
------------------------------
Facing unachieved QoS differentiation and corresponding low network resource usage efficiency, a lot of work has committed to study of differentiated services so as to enhance efficiency. Simple priority-based service and corresponding pricing were first introduced by Cocchi et al. \[13\]\[14\], which revealed the relationship between QoS differentiation and resource usage efficiency. They proposed to add priority field in IP packet and achieve QoS through priority-based queuing and scheduling. The corresponding service pricing is thus being wildly studied \[55\]-\[60\].\
Then, with the progressive development of various network service types, to achieve QoS guarantee, various in-depth studies were conducted regarding network architecture based on resource reservation \[15\] and flow aggregation \[16\]. Also, related pricing models are studied and integrated into such pricing mechanisms \[45\]-\[51\].
### Simple priority-based service pricing
To provide priority-based services, one reasonable way is to distinguish traffic by application’s characteristics, as shown in Fig. \[fig:7\]. QoS based services can be divided into several classes. Generally, packets are set to different levels of transmission priority and help to achieve service distinction. The simplest way is using Type of Service (ToS) fields in IP packets to set priority levels. Such model is more realistic and implementable though QoS may not be guaranteed.\
With priority-based QoS differentiated services (similar to DiffServ in Section 3.2.3), a network can provide different service prices for each service class. And users can decide which service class to purchase. Since packet transmission for priority-based service depends on cooperation along the whole network path, a reasonable revenue sharing scheme may be required.\
For example, Cocchi et al. \[13\]\[14\] believed that in a multi-class service coexisted network, if the resource is allocated based on applications’ characteristics (or users’ requirements), it will not only benefit users of all kinds of services, but also prompt an efficient network resource allocation. The basic idea is that for users to represent their utilities by filling priority fields in data packets. This will help network to implement user utility aware resource allocation (e.g., high priority packets will be processed earlier to avoid delay). Of course, packet transmission with higher priority will be charged at higher price.\
Specifically, here user utility is determined by price and QoS level $U=-V-C$, where transmission cost is represented by $C$, and $V$ measures the performance degradation (such as delay and packet loss rate). So applications such as FTP and Voice have different $V$ and thus will adopt different priorities. Therefore $p_{i,j}$ ($i=0,1$ and $j=0,1$) denotes four priority categories, where $i=1$ denotes using priority, and $j=1$ indicates the packet should not be discarded. Then if QoS is emphasized, the user will choose $p_{1,1}$ service class. And if the price is considered more, then $p_{0,0}$ service class will be more applicable. Obviously, for price levels, it will be $p_{0,0}<\{p_{0,1},p_{1,0}\}<p_{1,1}$. The corresponding relationships are: $\hbox{Email}\rightarrow p_{0,0}$, $\hbox{FTP}\rightarrow p_{0,1}$, $\hbox{Voice}\rightarrow p_{1,0}$ and the like. Simulation results show that differentiated service and pricing can incentivize users to choose appropriate service priorities. And the authors concluded that if revenue attained by such way is the same as what is gained without QoS differentiation, the former will achieve higher total utility. However, since service price is pre-set here, when idle resources exist, users will still pay more for prioritized services without QoS guarantee. So this is a preliminary work that uses ToS field to differentiate services and thus price differently.
![ Service class division based on QoS requirements. \[59\][]{data-label="fig:7"}](fig/fig7new.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Similar to Cocchi et al, Donnell and Sethu \[53\] also suggested setting priorities or service classes for data packets by end user systems. Then, routers allocate them into different queues to ensure various service priorities. As to pricing implementation, the price field of a packet is filled in, which represents the payment for such transmission. Then when the packet reaches its destination, the price information is copied to ACK and returned to the sender. So the user (sender) can determine its sending rate and dynamically select the service class based on the received price information in ACK.\
Gupta et al. \[56\]\[57\] proposed a more complex dynamic priority-based pricing mechanism, and designed a real-time external price calculation method based on the degree of congestion in multi-class service environment. Their simulation showed that dynamic pricing can significantly improve network performance and increase revenue. In order to avoid users to distribute traffics into non-matching service classes, \[57\] studied how to set appropriate price to encourage users in matching traffic type and service class in multi-class service network.\
Priority-based service pricing can achieve average performance differentiation if the price and traffic are relatively stable during a long time period. However, in the short term, it is likely that a high-priority service indeed experiences more packet loss, longer delay, serious congestion and so on. To solve this problem, \[59\]\[60\] studied the proportional differentiated service model which provides a relatively dynamic bandwidth division scheme. The main idea is that, as an expansion of service type, the model will not strictly set bandwidth for each service class. Instead, it will use proportional performance guarantee to achieve predictable and controllable QoS distinction (based on well designed packet scheduling and packet discard mechanism). Compared with the fixed priority service, the corresponding proportional pricing model is more applicable to such service models.
### IntServ-based service pricing
In network and simple priority-based service network, QoS is not guaranteed. Accordingly, pricing usually depends on actual cost or resource usage. In contrast, this section will describe Integrated Service (IntServ \[15\]) mechanism, which achieves QoS guarantee from the perspective of resource reservation. Thus the corresponding pricing is extended from edge network to the entire resource reservation or QoS guaranteed path.\
IntServ bases on end-to-end Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP \[17\]) to reserve resources for each flow. It is a single-flow based architecture that can provide end-to-end QoS guarantee. The overall mechanism needs all routers to process each flow’s signaling messages, maintain its path and resource reservation status on control path, and perform flow-based classification and scheduling on data path. More specifically, based on packet transmission control, routers convert IP packets to traffic flows first. Then routers establish or dismantle resource reservation status of each flow according to their judgments on whether the path has sufficient resources to meet each incoming flow’s QoS requirements. If met, based on packets’ statuses, they implement QoS routing, corresponding scheduling and other controls to ensure the required QoS.\
Karsten et al. \[45\] studied a pricing mechanism applicable to RSVP, as shown in Fig. \[fig:8\]. The main idea is to add price related information to regular RSVP messages and thus to achieve resource reservation and pricing conciliation. Specifically, the authors added Downstream Charging Policy Element (DCPE) in PATH message and Upstream Charging Policy Element (UCPE) in RESV message, where PATH and RESV are both regular RSVP messages (the description of DCPE and UCPE can be found in Fig. \[fig:8\]). Then, the mechanism works as follows: first of all, it is sender $S$ that describes the flow’s characteristics in PATH message and initiates DCPE to show its share of payment in the whole transmission (in $\left<\hbox{sender}\ \hbox{share}\right>$ field in DCPE). Then, each intermediate RSVP router (IS) who receives this information will modify DCPE by storing its local price into $\left<\hbox{total}\ \hbox{charge}\right>$, fill duration time information, and pass on PATH message. When PATH messages reaches $R1$ and $R2$, if any receiver accepts the service with such charging information, it sends RESV messages back with filled UCPEs. Specifically, the receivers calculate how much to pay based on the received DCPEs. They set $\left<\hbox{payment}\right>$ in UCPEs to show their cost sharing and copy the $\left<\hbox{total}\ \hbox{charge}\right>$ fields. When RESV reaches IS, IS reserves resources, modifies $\left<\hbox{sender}\ \hbox{payment}\right>$ information and passes on RESV. Upon sender $S$ receives RESV eventually, the $\left<\hbox{payment}\right>$ field carries the total charge paid by receivers. The $\left<\hbox{sender}\ \hbox{payment}\right>$ shows the fraction of charge on the sender, and $\left<\hbox{total}\ \hbox{charge}\right>$ carries the sum of all charges for this resource reservation. Obviously, this pricing mechanism has much flexibility in sharing cost between senders and receivers. And thus it can support pricing for many applications such as one or two side pay.
![Example of pricing session based on RSVP. \[45\][]{data-label="fig:8"}](fig/fig8.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Similarly, Clark \[46\] proposed a zone-based charging or cost sharing model. In this model, a willingness to pay information is inserted into an IP packet to show whether the two sides (sender and receiver) are willing to pay for high quality of services. However, it gave no more study on dynamic pricing and QoS class based pricing. Fankhauser et al. \[47\] proposed a RSVP-based accounting and charging protocol which is applicable to IntServ architecture. The authors showed such implementation can support local pricing models well using two pricing models. One is auction-based pricing model (adding bidding field in the RESV message), and the other is a congestion sensitive usage-based pricing model. However, it needs to assume that the network performs static routing which will not be affected by price, and each pricing node in the network prices at the same pace.\
In fact, flow-based resource reservation is hard to achieve. It needs to realize flow-based access control, QoS routing and related scheduling which will bring in huge system cost, and thus is very complex. Therefore, the realization of IntServ with QoS guarantee is not common, and only few applications exist. The improved IntServ and the corresponding pricing models are also under research.
### DiffServ-based service pricing
As IntServ architecture has high complexity and less scalability, Differentiated Services (DiffServ\[16\]) architecture is then proposed by IETF. Accordingly, the corresponding pricing is widely studied.\
In DiffServ architecture, complex flow control mechanism is realized at boundary nodes of the network. Thus service mechanism of network inward nodes is simplified. Specifically, the boundary nodes use users’ flow profiles and resource reservation information to conduct flow-classification, shaping and aggregation, resulting in flows divided into different flow aggregations. And the aggregation information is stored in DS (Differentiated Service) field of IP packets called Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP). Then the internal nodes schedule and forward IP packets in accordance with DSCP in which represent the specified QoS requirements or service levels. DiffServ is a hierarchical service structure. Each DS region adopts SLA (Service Level Agreement \[16\] , i.e., a service contract between a customer and a service provider that specifies the service a customer should receive) and TCA (Traffic Conditioning Agreement) \[16\] to conduct coordination and thus to provide cross-regional services. SLA clearly describes the supported service level and the allowed traffic volume in each service level, and TCA is used in detailed QoS negotiation.\
Pricing is usually based on SLA in DiffServ architecture. Since SLA can be a static or dynamic contract used to describe the specified QoS level on data path, the corresponding pricing can also change with SLA’s variation pace. In static SLA, regular consultations are needed. While in dynamic SLA, users need signaling protocol (e.g., RSVP) to help request service dynamically. And transformation is needed to match service requirements with DSCP value (no matter by user or edge router). Then, accordingly, the price for differentiated service depends on SLA and actual network resource usage. Fankhauser and Plattner \[48\] proposed an implementation profile to describe resource transactions in networks, which is based on bandwidth broker to act as an SLA trader or negotiator. The essence is that through negotiation between bandwidth brokers of each adjacent ISP, an ISP can provide its neighbors with its own network resources as well as the resources it purchased from other adjacent ISPs. Therefore the communication can be achieved. For example, in core network, as shown in Fig. \[fig:9\], there are six DS domains: A, B, C, D, E and F. Each DS domain represents an ISP. Then B may offer service with destination E to network A, if it has bought service to destination E from network C or D. And in access network, as shown in Fig. \[fig:9\], if user G (in network A) and network A arrive at an SLA that G will communicate with user H in network F, then an end-to-end service can be attained by building up bilateral agreements step-by-step in the form of SLAs between adjacent networks.
![Example of ISP networks at access and core levels. \[48\][]{data-label="fig:9"}](fig/fig9.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The above work mainly discussed how to conduct inter-domain resource transaction based on DiffServ architecture with SLAs. But it did not mention pricing individual users based on DiffServ and the exact price. Semret et al. \[49\] established a double-layer DiffServ-based market model which considered users, bandwidth brokers and bandwidth sellers in the market. Each service class has its own bandwidth broker which belongs to bandwidth seller. The authors concluded that competitions among bandwidth brokers will lead physical bandwidths to an effectively division for various classes of services. Users adopt SLAs to negotiate services and prices with bandwidth brokers. And driven by dynamic market, bandwidth division among various service classes will finally be stable and efficient.\
Similarly, Wang and Schulzrinne proposed a framework named Resource Negotiation and Pricing (RNAP) \[50\]. They pointed out that pricing for reserved resource should be conducted differently on two levels. In an edge network, users and ISPs negotiate based on single flow. And in the core network, users’ requests with the same service level and consultation interval are aggregated to process together. Finally, network resources are allocated based on single flow in the edge network. In \[51\], Wang and Schulzrinne built an optimization model to study pricing and the corresponding implementation which introduced access control to aid resource allocation. And they analyzed the resulting resource utilization in a differentiated service network. The authors concluded that pricing combined with traffic rate not only can achieve congestion control to a large extent, but also can guarantee QoS requirements of different service classes. Since all routers participate in congestion pricing along transmission path, their work is more complex than edge pricing by Yukesl \[44\].\
In \[52\], the authors proposed a pricing mechanism that differs the core/edge network pricing. They claimed to charge users in access side with a Time of Day (TOD) price which can dynamically reflect congestion degree in core networks. For core networks (as shown in Fig. \[fig:9\]), dynamic pricing based on congestion for differentiated services is studied, where adaptable prices are published as signs of core network congestion status. The advantages are as follows: (1) Since access control can be conducted in user end system or edge network, it reduces network control information transmission and simplifies the core network processes; (2) On the other hand, as this pricing is based on DiffServ and concerns economic objectives and resource usage efficiency, it is easy to achieve a certain level of economic efficiency when providing QoS differentiated services. So, it is a flexible, scalable and efficient pricing mechanism in DiffServ architecture.
Discussion
----------
Based on two types of network services considering QoS or not ( service and QoS guaranteed service), we introduce two kinds of pricing mechanisms in this section. For the former, edge pricing is a relatively suitable implementation, PMP has also been proposed as a variation. And for the latter, we introduce the pricing mechanisms proposed mainly within the scope of pricing, which serve two service architectures named IntServ and DiffServ.\
For service, Shenker et al. believed that if edge pricing uses expected congestion information, it can also achieve a certain degree of congestion control. Also, one can distinguish access bandwidths to achieve some kind of prioritized services. But both of them cannot assure the usage efficiency of resources and guarantee QoS or network performance.\
For service pricing, as QoS is differentiated by packet processing based on service classification or resource reservation, which often needs support from devices or networks on the entire transmission path, and thus is more complex than the former pricing mechanism. Especially for IntServ pricing, as QoS is guaranteed based on resource reservations where the service mechanism itself is complex, the corresponding ricing process can be even difficult with higher complexity. However, when it comes to service differentiation or DiffServ, from the perspective of efficiency, to a certain extent, we can conclude that it facilitates the efficient use of resources (high QoS requiring packets are prioritized processed) and ensures fairness among users (i.e., which service class or agreement is chosen by users), though there is no assured QoS guarantee. Indeed, combining IntServ (in edge network) with DiffServ (in core network) to provide differentiated services can have low complexity and improve efficiency with a certain degree of QoS guarantee.
Pricing methods
===============
The above sections introduced pricing models that decide price structure/factors and the service types based pricing mechanisms that decide how to match price models and services. In this section, we will introduce pricing methods which determine appropriate price levels.\
In microeconomics, the price level depends on market environments or structures (such as monopolistic or competitive network \[56\]), which is calculated based on related pricing theories in the field of microeconomics. In network research area, besides considering on the market, resource pricing is also affected by network service mechanisms, and price is settled through modeling of utility optimization interactions of various entities.\
We will introduce two main network pricing methods here: (1) System optimization models mainly based on network utility maximization (NUM \[30\]\[31\]) framework; (2) Strategic optimization models, i.e., when setting prices or making other decisions, consider strategic behaviors of the others.
Pricing based on NUM
--------------------
From an economic point of view, efficient market means total social surplus or the sum of service providers’ surplus and users’ surplus is maximized \[61\], which equals to the difference maximization between the value of resources to users and the cost of providers. Under different market environments, different conclusions can be drawn. We mainly introduce system utility (social surplus) optimization oriented pricing method for a single network based on the optimization theory. The system is consisted of users with different utility functions and a network with resource constraints \[29\]. In fact, this research line has a tremendous influence on communication networks. It prompted an in-depth understanding of network architecture and a guided protocol design for more efficient network resource usages.\
Kelly \[30\] proposed the concept of Network Utility Maximization (NUM) which is the initial work of Internet system optimization. In his work of pricing and resource allocation, the main object is to find the price that can make the total resource demand and supply in equilibrium. According to market pricing theory in \[56\], if a system is in equilibrium, the system utility or social surplus will be maximized. NUM framework can be described by three optimization problems. The system optimization is a radical problem which can be first modeled as: $\hbox{maxmize}\ \underset{s}{\sum}U_s(x_s)$ (the service provider’s cost is ignored), where $x_s$ denotes the traffic rate and $U_s$ denotes the value or utility of the traffic to the corresponding user. The constraints are: (1) $Hy=x$, where $H_{s\times r}$ denotes the pair $i\in\{1, 2, \cdots , s\}$ is served by path $j\in\{1, 2, \cdots , r\}$, and vector $y=\left\{y_1, y_2, \cdots , y_r\right\}^T$ denotes the resources distributed to all pairs on each feasible path. This constraint means the whole distributed resources equal to $x_s$ for any user; (2) $Ay\leq C$, where $A$ is a matrix telling whether the distributed resource is on the link, and the constraint means the sum of all the distributed resources will be no more than link capacity $C$; (3) $x,y\geq 0$. The above can be rewritten as the whole problem (A): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \hbox{SYSTEM}[U,H,A,C]:\\
\begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{maxmize} & \underset{s}{\sum}U_s(x_s) \\
\hbox{subsect to} & Hy=x,Ay\leq C \\
\hbox{over} & x,y\geq 0 \\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ As user utility is unknown to the system, solving (A) is equal to solving two problems. One is on the user side, based on the per unit traffic rate price $\lambda_s$. An user optimizes its surplus $U_s(m_s/\lambda_s)-m_s$ by deciding how much to pay $m_s$ (the rate can be indirectly decided by $x_s=m_s/\lambda_s$), shown in the following problem (B): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \hbox{USER}_{s}[U_s;\lambda_{s}]:\\
\begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{maxmize} & U_s(m_s/\lambda_s)-m_s \\
\hbox{over} & m_s\geq 0 \\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
The other sub-problem is on the network side. According to users’ feedbacks, the network conducts optimization process and refers to some fairness standards to allocate network bandwidth to different flows. Namely, given $m=\left(m_1, m_2, ... ,m_s\right)$, it tries to distribute bandwidth by maximizing $\underset{s}{\sum}m_s\log x_s$, which indicates dividing bandwidth based on weighted proportional fairness. Then the corresponding network optimization problem (C) is: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \hbox{NETWORK}[H,A,C; m]:\\
\begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{maxmize} & \underset{s}{\sum}m_s \log x_s \\
\hbox{subsect to} & Hy=x,Ay\leq C \\
\hbox{over} & x,y\geq 0 \\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$, $A$ and $C$ denote the network status with the same meaning in Eq. (1). The author pointed out that if $\forall s, U_s(\cdot)$ is concave function, then from \[30\] we know that this convex optimization problem has a unique optimal solution $x^*=\left(x_1^*, x_2^*, ... , x_s^*\right)$. And author showed for $\lambda^*=\left(\lambda_1^*, \lambda_2^*, ... , \lambda_s^*\right)$, and $m^*=\left(m_1^*, m_2^*, ... , m_s^*\right)$, $m_s^*=\lambda_s^* x_s^*$ holds for every $s\in S$. Then the three optimization problems are all solved with consistent solutions. The vector $x^*$ is the unique optimal allocating rate and $\lambda^*$ is the current optimal resource price vector.\
System optimization problem (A) can also be decomposed into other types of sub-optimal problems, but the essence is not changed. So we skip it here. Kelly \[31\] further discussed the stability of the above mentioned rate allocation algorithm when the system is added in random disturbance and time delay. As to concrete solutions to the problem, since Kelly mainly modeled the elastic system, where users’ utilities are all concave functions (reasonable when modeling traditional data services, such as file transfer, which is not very sensitive to delay), optimal solutions can be got based on the convex optimization theory. Similarly, some work \[31\]\[70\]\[73\] also use concave utility function to build models. Besides, the authors in \[32\] discussed a method that uses underlying buffer management to implement proportional resource allocation, which can support Kelly’s work.\
Unlike the centralized resource allocation method, Ozdaglar and Srikant \[74\] pointed out that if resources are distributively allocated like the above algorithm, then achieving system goals requires: (1) The end users should adjust their rates according to congestion feedbacks sent from the network (indicated by price); (2) The network routers should calculate the price which can reflect congestion status of each link starting from the router; (3) The network should be able to return the congestion information (price) to users. However, while the elastic flow rate can be adjusted according to network conditions (worked as TCP), in engineering, how to control rate based on the price is still not resolved. Practically, services with network feedback mechanisms are able to adopt such pricing method.\
In addition, users’ controlling rates based on network feedbacks are not easy to implement as discussed in \[74\]. Based on the fair congestion control mechanism proposed by Mo and Walrand \[10\], La and Anantharam \[63\] proposed a distributed algorithm where users can determine their rate adjustments according to their perceived network status. In their work, each user pays for queuing delay caused to others by its own packets. The authors proved the convergence of the algorithm, and showed it can solve this system optimization problem. It pointed out that packet loss rate can be used to formulate the optimization model as well.\
In this class of system (or users) utility maximization pricing work, rate allocation is based on user’s willingness to pay (concave utility function). However, in fact, such willingness will vary with different types of applications. For example, for video and voice applications, if transmission rate is less than a certain value, user’s experience will decline sharply (as shown in Fig. \[fig:9\]). This indicates that $S$-type utility function should be used to model user’s utility. And thus the convex optimization framework of NUM will no longer apply. The resulting system can be seen as a hybrid service system, as shown in Fig. \[fig:9\], which includes different flows described by various types of utilities. Therefore, the pricing and resource allocation problem becomes a difficult non-convex optimization problem which should deal with competitive flows with different service characteristics \[64\]\[72\].
![Hybrid service system with various utility types.[]{data-label="fig:10"}](fig/fig10.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Jang-Won et al. \[64\]\[65\] showed that in a real network environment (i.e., hybrid service systems), if the flows are all modeled by concave utility functions, then under the NUM framework, the resulting rate allocation will probably cause network congestion and high jitter. To achieve the optimal system resource usage when heterogeneous flows coexist, they studied distributed rate allocation and the corresponding pricing in a hybrid service system, and tried to design a reasonable incentive mechanism to incentivize users’ transmission cancellations. Such user behavior is called “self-regulate” which is similar to the end system access control. The distributed algorithm is described as follows. For users, based on current price per unit rate, it decides the total transmission rate to maximize utility each time. And for network links, based on aggregated transmission rate, it solves network optimization problem and calculates unit rate price in next iteration. Mathematically, as the primal problem is non-convex, the duality gap may exist. This means the primal problem may not converge to the optimal, so the authors further designed asymptotical optimal resource allocation algorithm.\
Unlike the approximate optimal solution in \[66\], Chiang et al. \[66\] and Hande et al. \[67\]\[68\] studied rate allocation optimization framework for inelastic flows, and presented the sufficient and necessary conditions for the convergence to the global optimum of the proposed distributed rate allocation algorithm. In contrast to the work by Jang-Won et al. \[64\], Chiang et al. \[66\] generalized the user utilities for different types of time-sensitive flows. They modeled them using non-convex optimization tools, and proposed heuristic access control algorithm and rate allocation algorithm. Similarly, considering the real-time flows, Hande et al. \[67\]\[68\] introduced price-based distributed access control method and proposed a fair resource distribution method when various types of flows coexist. It emphasizes QoS-guarantee for the elastic flows and is realized by a proposed heuristic algorithm.\
In fact, since some researchers considered the access resource is most scarce and should be the study focus \[70\], in edge pricing model, the NUM framework has also been expanded and applied. For example, based on NUM, Hande et al. \[70\] studied the edge pricing in a monopoly market when ISP aims to maximize its revenue, and the user utility is modeled by standard $\alpha$-fairness based on different demand elasticity, namely: $$u(x)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-\alpha)^{-1}x^{1-\alpha}, & 0\leq\alpha<1 \\
\log (x), & \alpha=1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Unlike Kelly’s work，the authors emphasized that in edge network, pricing structure can be a linear pricing combination composed by flat fee and usage fee (e.g., $g+h\cdot x$). They analyzed each part’s effect on ISP’s revenue or what if using non-linear pricing.\
Currently, taking into account that the traffic is actually delivered from sender to receiver, the sender and receiver (supplier and demander) may have different utilities to such traffic. So, ISPs need to set a supply-demand balanced price to maximize its revenue. Hande et al. \[69\] extended the NUM framework by adding content providers (CPs) to the system optimization model. They concluded that no matter under which network marketing environment (complete competition or monopoly), considering the supply-demand relationship, if CPs are charged to compensate users, the overall system revenue and the utility of CPs will be sure to increase. The paper also discussed network neutrality (NN \[94\], that is, ISPs should not charge CPs by differentiating service quality or bases on content types) issue. If NN is equivalent to a constrained pricing for CP, then charging CPs can also improve system efficiency.
Pricing based on game theory
----------------------------
Within a single ISP network, system equilibrium based on relationship can ensure optimal pricing which maximizes system utility in Section 4.1. This type of equilibrium is achieved through pricing where the ISP and users indirectly interact with each other. However, in real network, there are three types of relationships: ISP-ISP, ISP-users, and user-user. Most of them are modeled by considering their direct interactive effects.\
Game theory studies how individual decision is made considering others’ actions. And it also predicts whether there exists an equilibrium under such strategic behaviors. The utilities in this type of model are directly affected by the other participants’ strategies or preferences. Thus when studying the direct effects among network participates’ behaviors, game theory is always used as a basic theory. Based on whether a binding agreement can be formed, games are divided into non-cooperative games \[75\]\[86\] and cooperative games \[83\]-\[85\].
### Non-cooperative game model
Considering non-cooperative games in network resource pricing and allocation, three levels of such interactions can be identified. (1) Competition among Multi-ISPs in network market. As users will purchase services from the most attractive ISP, so when an ISP decides pricing, it should consider the other ISPs’ behaviors as well; (2) Leader-follower game between ISP and users. If ISPs consider users’ reflection directly (e.g., not based on resulting demand as shown in Section 4.1, but beforehand consider how the price will affect the resulting demand), then this type of interaction can also be regarded as a game between ISPs and users; (3) Resource competition among users. Due to the externality caused by individual user to others, such internal impact can also be abstracted as a non-cooperative game.\
Multi-ISP interaction research has great challenges. Besides modelling similarities and difference among ISPs, impacts to underlay user behaviors should also be considered. Therefore, mature research results are still lacking today. In this section, we will mainly introduce the other two kinds of non-cooperative games (i.e., the above mentioned (2) and (3)). Two basic models frequently used here are $n$-person non-cooperative game model and leader-follower game model. The former emphasizes dynamic processes of a game, and the latter mainly considers static game equilibrium.\
It is reasonable to study above mentioned relationships in a single ISP network, since there indeed exists monopoly network market and thus the interference from other ISPs can be largely avoided. Then for modeling relationship (2), in a monopoly network market, single leader-follower game model (such as Stackelberg \[77\]-\[81\]\[89\]) is always used. According to how much users’ utility information known by the ISP, such work can be divided into two kinds: pricing with complete or incomplete information. For modeling relationship (3), $n$-person game is always used. Here each one’s behavior affects the others’ utilities, which is similar to externality mentioned in the foregoing discussion on congestion pricing.\
Generally, in the leader-follower network resource pricing model, a leader (ISP) sets price strategically, and the followers (users) act as price takers, who decide how much resource to buy mostly based on the given price. The point here is that when the leader decides price, it sets one that can maximize its revenue based on predicted users’ reflections. In the $n$-person non-cooperative game, the stable state where none of participates wants to deviate from its behaviors when others’ strategies are known, or NE (Nash Equilibrium \[75\]) is the major concern. An instance that combines the two models is presented by Basar and Srikant \[78\]-\[81\].\
Specifically, in \[79\], the authors used non-cooperative game models to study pricing issues in a network. They built two layers of games: game related to resource competition among users and Stackelberg game where an ISP maximizes benefits within resource constraints based on predicting users’ reflection. In the first layer model, each user maximizes its goal described by the following Eq. (5) to decide rate: $$ F_i(x_i,x_{-i};p)=w_i\log(1+x_i)-\frac{1}{nc-\underset{j}{\sum}x_j}-px_i$$ where $x_i$ is user’s transmitting rate, $nc$ is link capacity, $w_i \log(1+x_i)$ is user’s utility function, $\frac{1}{nc-\underset{j}{\sum}x_j}$ represents congestion cost (i.e.,queuing delay computed using M/M/1 queuing model), and $p$ is the unit price charged by ISP.\
Using related theory, the authors prove that the users’ non-cooperative game has NE, i.e., for any user $i$, the solution $x_i^*$ holds: $$ \underset{0 \leq x \leq nc- x^*_{-i}}{\hbox{maxmize}}\ F_i(x_i,x^*_{-i};p)=F_i(x^*_i,x^*_{-i};p)$$ It means that the decision made is the optimal one corresponding to all the others’ optimal decisions.\
In the second layer game model, authors hypothesized that the ISP aims to maximize the benefits by solving Eq. (7), and thus obtain the unit resource price $p$. $$\underset{p\geq 0}{\hbox{maxmize}}\ L(p;\overline{x}^*(p)),L(p;\overline{x}):=p\cdot\overline{x}$$ where $\overline{x}^*(p):=\sum_i x^*_j(p)$ represents the sum of all individuals’ rates in NE of such game.\
The entire solving steps are as follows. Firstly, according to Eq. (5), it shows that adding up all utility functions of users will not change the NE point. The authors derived a user equivalent optimization problem in Eq. (8): $$ F(x_1,\cdots,x_n;p)= \overset{n}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}} w_j\log(1+x_j)-\frac{1}{nc-\overline{x}}-p\overline{x}$$ where all utilities are added together; Secondly, by solving the convex optimization problem, unique optimal solution $\overline{x}^*(p)$ can be obtained (notice that the solution is a function on price $p$). Thirdly, deduce the above solution to Eq. (7) as a single-variable optimization problem. And solve it directly can obtain the optimal price $p^*$. The authors then discussed what will happen for different link bandwidths here, and analyzed how the price, revenue and user’s utility related with each other. They claimed that if the ISP expands bandwidth in proportion to the user number, then it will increase its revenue accordingly. However, it indicates that the users are expected to conduct congestion control based on the price and achieved service. And under certain circumstances, the solution will be consistent with Kelly’s system optimal solution based on NUM model. The authors gave an extended discussion in the case of multi-link afterwards \[78\].\
Similar to the above mentioned game framework, Shen and Basar \[81\] extended the model to study optimal pricing in the cases of complete and incomplete information of users’ utilities. They concluded that in the complete information (users’ utilities are known by ISP) case, price can increase ISP’s revenue by 38% compared with revenue gained by linear price. While if users’ utilities are unknown (incomplete information), there is about 25% -40% of the benefit loss. Li, Huang and Robert Li \[71\] also considered optimal pricing in a monopoly market with incomplete information. But they did not directly model users’ non-cooperative behaviors.\
However, when an ISP prices users, in addition to considering the users’ response strategies, the market environment is also taken into account. For example, in a market, ISPs compete for users, and their price are affected by others. Thus the applicable game theory models will be very complex. Acemoglu and Ozdaglar \[82\] claimed that unlike in the monopoly case where system efficiency can be improved and the social optimal is achieved at the equilibrium, in the multi-ISPs competition game \[61\], the pure strategy NE may not exist (depending on cost function). And unlike the conclusions drawn from economics, the increasing competition will reduce system efficiency. Besides, the upper and lower bounds of possible loss are also discussed.
### Cooperative game model
Historically, the well-studied cooperation game models in network resource pricing are the Nash Bargaining Game \[83\]\[84\] and the Shapley value \[85\] model. These two models both belong to the axiomatic method, and thus their solutions satisfy certain properties. The former comes to Nash Bargaining Solution (NBS) with Pareto optimal property and a certain sense of fairness. The latter satisfies several good properties as well, which include well-formulated marginal contribution concept and the corresponding calculation methods. As a new trend, in recent years, such cooperative game models are studied and gradually applied to the modeling of network resource pricing.\
In \[87\], the authors assumed all network users have the same behavior characteristics and preferences. Therefore they simplified the problem as a game between a single user and one ISP. Based on theoretical analysis, they concluded that compared with the results in leader-follower game, Nash bargaining performed by ISPs and users can make the system operate at Pareto efficient (one cannot increase its utility without reducing others’ utilities) operation point. In \[88\], based on Nash bargaining game, the authors studied network resource pricing and distributed allocation within a network with multiple heterogeneous users. We briefly introduce it as follows:\
First, the ISP faces a centralized resource allocation problem, in accordance with the concept of Nash bargaining. Such problem can be formulated as the following constrained convex optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{maximize} &\overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}(x_i-{MR}_i)\\
\hbox{subsect to} & x_i\geq {MR}_i, \\
& x_i\leq {PR}_i,\\
& (Ax)_l\leq(C)_l.\\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i$ is resource (rate) assigned to user $i$, ${MR}_i$ and ${PR}_i$ are the minimum and peak rate requirements of user $i$. Based on optimization theory, it is easy to know that there is a unique optimal solution. However, such central solution always brings in a lot of network communication burdens. Therefore, the authors proposed a distributed model where each user optimizes its utility with an added penalty $\alpha_ix_i$, and the aggregated rate is expected to ensure that the system can operate at the optimal point (Pareto optimal). Thus, for each user, it optimize Eq. (10) for rate selection: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underset{x_i}{\hbox{maximize}} & \ln(x_i-{MR}_i)-\alpha_i x_i\\
\hbox{subsect to} & x_i\geq {MR}_i, \\
& x_i\leq {PR}_i.\\
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Similar to the leader-follower game in Section 4.2.1, the network here needs to solve the rate allocation problem which can maximize its revenue. Besides, the revenue is calculated by the sum of penalties, as shown in Eq. (11). The constraints conditions are the same as in Eq. (9). $$ \hbox{maximize}\ \overset{N}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\alpha_i x_i\\$$
The authors designed and implemented an asynchronous distributed algorithm with the corresponding information exchange method, and showed that the solutions of Eq. (11) by network and Eq. (10) by users are equal to Nash bargaining solutions of the centralized problem in Eq. (9). The point is that such distributed method can maximize users’ utilities as well as the network’s revenue.\
Shapley value is mostly used in modeling for cost sharing or revenue distribution among multiple ISPs. Different from pricing directly based on usage information (such as pricing of core network \[52\] in Section 3.2.3), Shapley value emphasizes revenue distribution based on the contribution of each entity in a group. As an axiomatic method which ensures a unique solution, it has some special characteristics and is gradually applied to network resource pricing \[92\]\[93\]. However, high calculation complexity is an obvious drawback (e.g., $N$ participants needs $2^N$ scale of computations). Besides, its requirements for a centralized allocation process also make it less scalable.
Discussion
----------
We classified and summarized typical pricing methods of network resources based on two main research lines. The main points are as follows:\
(1) System optimization model mainly based on the NUM framework. Considering network traffic characteristics, it can be divided into: i) Optimization model for elastic flow system; ii) Optimization model for hybrid system where inelastic and elastic flows coexist.\
This class of work is usually based on supply-demand relationship. It aims to find the optimal price and rate allocation with balanced supply and demand where the maximal system efficiency is achieved. As inelastic traffics (such as real-time video and voice flows) emerge and largely increase, system optimization for hybrid network has drawn more and more attentions. Compared with elastic flow system optimization which has unique optimal solution shown by convex optimization theory, inelastic flows are always described by utility function. Thus it turns the system problem into a complex optimization problem. Therefore, price-based access control is mainly introduced here to assist resource distribution. It generally includes two methods: users’ self-regulation \[65\] based on their own utilities and the network conducted access control based on network efficiency \[67\]. Hande et al. \[68\] considered elastic flow protection in hybrid system. They believed that the elastic traffics are less competitive than the inelastic flows.\
In short, optimization-based modeling for hybrid system has high complexity, and especially hard to solve in real systems. Also, as on a network transmission path, access control policies of each link may be different, there lacks distributed mechanisms which can ensure system convergence to the global optimal rate allocation.\
(2) Strategic optimization model based on game theory. Based on two major branches of game theory: non-cooperative game and cooperative game, we introduce some typical corresponding models used in network resource pricing.\
As modeling for strategic interactions, non-cooperative game model mainly discusses NE point and its characteristics. Cooperative game model we introduced here emphasizes the fairness criteria in sharing. The point is that the solution of the former may not be Pareto optimal, however, the latter sometimes needs constraints from a third party to ensure cooperation.\
Comparing the above system optimization model with the non-cooperative game model, it is obvious that different model ideas always need support from different theories. In NUM framework based system optimization, the equilibrium is achieved by indirect interactions between the network and users based on price. And in this process, ISP dynamically controls the system through pricing mechanism to help reach an optimal equilibrium. Non-cooperative game model directly analyzes pricing problem based on strategic behaviors of all participants, which can quickly determine whether the system has NE point or not. However, it is possible that the equilibrium point exists but is not achievable. Then, the uniqueness and stability of the existed NE will also be discussed mainly using optimization theory. In fact, if models have equal essential meanings for key parameters (e.g., revenue and cost), the results based on different basic theories (NUM or non-cooperative game) are nearly the same.
Classification and comparison of Pricing Strategies
===================================================
In this section, based on pricing models, service mechanisms and price level setting methods, we conduct classification and comparison of the introduced typical pricing strategies shown in Table 1. (In order to describe the pricing for QoS guaranteed service, we add QoS contract in pricing model, which represents the achieved service and price agreements between ISPs and users).\
Early pricing models lack of theory basis. Most of them are based on experiments, and cannot cover a complete decomposition and classification. Some articles focused on studying pricing methods, but consider less about the underlying types of services. Since there are no separated pricing for QoS, we generally assume they are applicable for network, and make no special mark for them in Table 1. In addition, the QoS guaranteed types of services correspond to what we have described in Section 3.2. For pricing models, if both usage and access are chosen, it means that the pricing model is combined by the two.\
Considering implementation, pricing for different types of services inherently have different complexities. For network, pricing is always done at network edge, and needs less overhead cost. For QoS guaranteed services, since pricing relates with QoS along the whole serving path, it involves higher audition and accounting cost. But it can also achieve a certain degree of cost sharing (i.e., the sender and receiver consult on cost sharing). In short, the latter generally has a better QoS and higher network efficiency though at the cost of complexity.
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------- -------------- ---------------
Access Usage Con- QoS Best System Example
gestion Contract Effort Priority IntServ DiffServ Model Non-co Co
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[21\]\[22\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[25\]\[27\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[23\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[26\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[19\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[30\]\[31\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ (MD) \[35\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[36\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[38\]\[39\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[55\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[54\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[13\]\[14\]
\[53\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[56\]-\[57\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[45\]\[46\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ (MD) \[47\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ (MD) \[49\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[51\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[52\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[63\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[64\]-\[68\]
\[72\]\[73\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[70\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ 69\]\[71\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[78\]-\[82\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[87\]\[88\]
$\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ $\checkmark$ \[91\]\[92\]
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------- -------------- ---------------
\
In this table, the symbol $\checkmark$ in each row represents a feature hold by the pricing strategy example in the last column , and the symbol (MD) means mechanism design.
Conclusion and future work
==========================
In recent years, with the continuous development of high-bandwidth applications, content distribution technologies (such as CDN and P2P) are increasingly mature, and the network traffic surges. Thus network service quality has drawn more and more attentions. However, the engineering resource management and congestion control tend to have high technical difficulties, making network performance guarantee and maintenance even harder. Therefore, as a method that alleviates or resolves this problem by affecting active resource demand and usage, network resource pricing has important research values other than for ISPs to achieve economic goals. Besides, as QoS guaranteed services are getting more mature, and thus the pricing acts as an important auxiliary to incentivize technological progress, it is equally important to study pricing mechanism that is applicable to continuous renewal service types.\
In addition to pricing models and the corresponding service mechanisms, a complete pricing strategy also includes pricing methods deciding how much to charge. As shown in Fig. \[fig:2\], we survey pricing issues from three different perspectives. We first introduce three basic pricing models: flat pricing, usage pricing and congestion pricing. And we conclude that with the development of network applications, research on pricing models turns more complex. Then, we introduce pricing mechanism which combines pricing model with service types. The mechanism aims to ensure pricing implementation under certain service types, such as transfer pricing information in DiffServ network. We notice that resource management for QoS differentiated networks with multi-class services mainly uses price-based access control. Then, from price level setting aspect, we highlight system optimization based on the NUM framework and strategic optimization based on game theory in a single ISP network. We conclude that the non-cooperative game models are often limited in related optimization theories to prove the existence of the Nash equilibrium. They are applicable only in part of (e.g., elastic flow system) models. And due to the incomplete information in such game, there is often a long distance from its actual application.\
To sum up, with the fast development of applications, service types, and corresponding theories, pricing related issues are constantly updated and studied. However, whichever pricing strategy we adopt, the basic pricing models and methods hardly change. For example, if the appropriate flat pricing brings in tolerable system efficiency loss, given its simplicity, such work should be revalued \[89\]. Through extensive study on network resource pricing strategies and deep analysis on the status quo, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. Network resource or service pricing can be used as an effective tool to prompt technical progress, support QoS improvement, and/or enhance network efficiency economically.
2. Economic oriented pricing strategy for network resource or service to price for QoS differentiation is still a hot research point, which also needs support from the corresponding complete service mechanisms.
3. Pricing is expected to be scalable and easy to implement. It requires that besides mature theoretical models, well-designed mechanisms should also be implemented to help achieve pricing goals (such as maximizing resource usage efficiency or economic efficiency).
4. As ISPs’ revenue division will indirectly affect service quality and pricing of network users. Fair and implementable cooperation mechanism with results among ISPs is also a hot topic for future research (e.g., in \[91\]\[92\], fair revenue sharing models based on cooperative game theory were preliminary studied).
What’s more, the models discussed above are unilateral market models whose network services include content provision. But if content providers and ordinary users (both have been modeled as users) are separately considered, then under such bilateral network market, pricing will involve more complex interactions. Also, the network neutrality concept \[93\] has been lately proposed, which causes more debates on whether the content should be charged differently. And we can infer that content-based pricing may also be discussed as part of pricing models in the near future.
Andrew S Tanenbaum, *Computer Networks.* 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall PTR, 2006. G. HARDIN, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” *Science.* vol. 162, pp. 1243–1248, 1968. D. G. Andersen, H. Balakrishnan, M. F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris,“Resilient overlay networks,” In *Proc. Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP).*, 2001, pp. 131–145. S. Androutsellis-Theotokis, and D. Spinellis,“A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies,” *ACM Computing Surveys.* vol. 36, no. 4, pp.335–371, Dec. 2004. Akamai, http://www.akamai.com. LiliQiu, Yang Richard Yang, Yin Zhang, and Scott Shenker, “On selfish routing in internet-like environments,” In *Proc.of the ACM SIGCOMM.*, Karlsruhe, Germany, Aug. 2003, pp. 151–162. V. Valancius, N. Laoutaris, L. Massoulie, C. Diot, and P. Rodriguez, “Greening the Internet with nano Data Centers,” In *Proc. ACM CoNEXT.*, 2009. Michael Welzl, *Network Congestion Control: Managing Internet Traffic.*,John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester,West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, 2005. S. H. Low, “A duality model of TCP and queue management algorithms,”*IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking.* vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 525–536, August. 2003. J. Mo and J. Walrand, “Fair end-to-end window-based congestion control,” *IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking.* vol. 8, pp. 556–567, Oct. 2000. N.Wang, K. H. Ho, G. Pavlou, and M. Howarth, “An overview of routing optimization for internet traffic engineering,” *IEEE CommunicationsSurveys and Tutorials.* vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 33–56, 2008. J. W. Roberts, “Quality of service guarantees and charging in multiservice networks,” *IEICE Transactions on Communications.* Vol. 81, pp. 824–831, 1998. R. Cocchi, D. Estrin, S. Shenker, and L. Zhang,“A Study of Priority Pricing in Multiple Service Class Networks,” In *Proc. SIGCOMM.*, Switzerland, Sept. 1991. R. Cocchi , Scott Shenker , Deborah Estrin, and Lixia Zhang, “Pricing in computer networks: motivation, formulation, and example,” *IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking.*, vol. 1 no. 6, pp. 61-4-627, Dec. 1993. S. Shenker, R. Braden, and D. Clark,“Integrated services in the Internet architecture: an overview,” Internet RFC 1633, June. 1994. S. Blake, et al, “An Architecture for Differential Services,” IETF RFC 2475, Dec. 1998. L. Zhang, S. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Shenker, and D. Zappala.“ RSVP: A NewResource ReSerVation Protocol.” *IEEE Network.* vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 8–18, Sept. 1993. J. MacKie-Mason and H. Varian,“Pricing the Internet,” *Public access to the Internet.* MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995, pp. 269–314. J. MacKie-Mason and H. Varian, “Pricing Congestible Network Resources,” *IEEE JSAC.* vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1141-1149, Sept. 1995. R. J. Edell and P. Varaiya, “Providing Internet Access: What we Learn from the INDEX Trial,” INDEX Project Report 99-010W, Apr. 1999. R. J. Edell, N. McKeown, and P. P. Variya, “Billing Users and Pricing for TCP,” *IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.* Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 1162–1175, 1995. M. Currence, A. Kurzon,D.Smud, and L.Trias, “A Causal Analysis of Usage-Based Billing on IP Networks,” University of Colorado, 2000. URL:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary? doi:10.1.1.41.2035. J. Altmann and K. Chu, “How to charge for network services: flat-rate or usage-based?,”*Computer Networks.* vol. 36, Issue 5-6, Theme Issue on Network Economics, pp. 519–531, 2001. http://www.cernet.edu.cn/20010912/3001298.shtml M. K. Honig and K. Steiglitz, “Usage-Based Pricing of Packet Data Generated by a Heterogeneous User Population,” In *Proc. IEEE Infocom.*, Boston, MA, Apr. 1995. Q. Wang, D.M. Chiu, John C.S. Lui, “ISP Uplink Pricing in a Competitive Market,”In *ICT.*, 2008. C. Courcoubetis, G. D. Stamoulis, C. Manolakis, and F. P. Kelly,“An intelligent agent for optimizing QoS-for-money in priced ABR connections,”Preprint, 1998. S. Floyd, “TCP and Explicit Congestion Notification,” *ACM Computer Communications Review.*, vol. 24, pp. 10–23, 1994. http://wwwnrg. ee.lbl.gov/floyd/ecn.html. R.J. Gibbens and F.P. Kelly,“ Resource pricing and the evolution of congestion control,” *Automatica.* vol. 35, no. 6, pp.1969–1985, 1999. F. P. Kelly, “Charging and rate control for elastic traffic,” *European Transactions on Telecommunications.* vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33–37, Jan. 1997. F. P. Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. H. Tan,“ Rate control in communication networks: shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,” *Journal of the Operational Research Society.* vol. 49, pp.237–252, 1998. J. Crowcroft and P. Oechslin,“Differentiated end-to-end Internet services using a weighted proportionally fair sharing TCP,” *ACM Computer Communications Review.* vol. 28, pp.53–67, 1998. S. Kunniyur and R. Srikant,“End-to-end congestion control: utility functions, random losses and ECN marks,” In *Proc. INFOCOM.*, Tel Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000. Paul Milgrom, *Putting Auction Theory to Work.* Cambridge University Press, 2004. J.MacKie-Mason, “A Smart Market for Resource Reservation in a Multiple Quality of Service Information Network,” Technical report, Universuity of Michigan, Sept. 1997. N. Keon and G. Anandalingam, “A New Pricing Model for Competitive Telecommunications Services Using Congestion Discounts,” http://mail3.rhsmith.umd.edu/Faculty/KM/papers.nsf/0/ d5ea3f525a84fc5485256d0c006f210d?OpenDocument (accessed July 2000). M. Yuksel, S.Kalyanarama,“Pricing granularity for congestion-sensitive pricing,” *Computers and Communication.* vol. 1 pp.169–174, Sept. 2003. S. Shenker, D. Clark, D. Estrin, and S. Herzog, “Pricing in Computer Networks: Reshaping the Research Agenda,” *ACM Computer Comm. Review.* vol. 26, pp. 19–43.1996. D. D. Clark,“A model for cost allocation and pricing in the Internet,” Technical report, MIT, Aug. 1995. D. D. Clark, “Internet Cost Allocation and Pricing,” *Internet Economics.*, L. W. McKnight and J. P. Bailey, Eds., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1997, MIT Press, pp. 216–252. D. D. Clark, “Combining Sender and Receiver Payments in the Internet,” presented at the Telecommunications Research Policy Conf., Oct.1996. K. Nichols, V. Jacobson, and L. Zhang,“ A two-bit differentiated services architecture for the Internet,” Internet request for comments. RFC2638, IETF, Jul. 1998. S. Kalyanaraman，T. Ravichandran，and R Norsworthy, “Dynamic Capacity Contracting: A framework for Pricing the Differentiated Services Internet,”In *Proc. 10th Annual Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS),* Australia, 2000. M. Yuksel and S. Kalyanaraman, “Distributed Dynamic Capacity Contracting: An overlay congestion pricing framework,” *Computer Communications.* vol. 26, pp. 1484–1503, 2003. M. Karsten, J. Schmitt, L. Woff, and R. Steinmetz,“An Embedded Charging Approach for RSVP,” presented at Int’l Workshop on Quality of Service, Napa, California, USA, May. 1998. D. Clark, “Combining Sender and Receiver Payments in the Internet,” http://www.gta.ufrj.br/DiffServ/csrp-ddc.ps.gz. G. Fankhauser, B. Stiller, C. Vogtli, and B. Plattner, “Reservation-Based Charging in an Integrated Services Network,” In *Proc. 4th INFORMS Telecommunications Conf.*, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, Mar. 1998. G. Fankhauser and B. Plattner, “DiffServ Bandwidth Brokers as Mini-Markets,” http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/ cati/paper/isqe99b.pdf. N. Semret, R. R.-F. Liao, A. T. Campbell, and A. A. Lazar, “Pricing, provisioning and peering: Dynamic markets for differentiated internet services and implications for network interconnections,” *IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.* vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 2499–2513, Dec. 2000. X. Wang and H. Schulzrinne, “An integrated resource negotiation, pricing, and QoS adaptation framework for multimedia applications,” *IEEE. Journal of Selected Areas in Communications.* vol. 18, no. 12,pp. 2514–2529,Dec. 2000. X. Wang and H. Schulzrinne, “Pricing network resources foradaptive applications in a differentiated services network,”In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.*, Anchorage, AK, Apr. 2001. T. Li, Y. Iraqi, and R. Boutaba, “Pricing and admission control for QoS-enabled Internet,” *Computer Networks.* vol. 46, no. 1, 16 pp. 87–110. Sept. 2004. J. O’Donnell and H.Sethu, “Congestion Control, Differentiated Services, and Efficient Capacity Management through a Novel Pricing Strategy,” *Computer Comm.* vol. 26, no. 13 ,pp. 1457–1469, Aug. 2003. P. Dube, V. Borkar, and D. Manjunath, “Differential Join Prices for Parallel Queues: Social Optimally, Dynamic Pricing Algorithms and Application to Internet Pricing,” In *Proc. INFOCOM.*, 2002. M. Odlyzko, “Paris Metro Pricing for the Internet,” In *Proc. 2nd Int’l Conf. on Information and Computation Economies (ICE).*, Nov. 1999. A.Gupta, D. Stahl, and A. Whinston, “Priority Pricing of Integrated Services,” In *Internet economics.*,MIT Press Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997, pp. 323–352. A. Gupta, D Stahl. and A.Whinston, “An economic approach to network computing with priority classes,” *Journal of Organizational omputing and Electronic Commerce.* vol. 6, no. 1, pp.71–95, 1996. Mostafa H. Dahshan and Pramode K. Verma,“Resource Based Pricing Framework for Integrated Services Networks,” *Journal of Networks.* vol. 2, no. 3 ,pp. 36–45, Jun. 2007. doi:10.4304/jnw.2.3.36-45. ConstantinosDovrolis and ParameswaranRamanathan,“ A case for relative differentiated services and the proportional differentiation model,” *IEEE Network.*vol. 13,no. 5, pp. 26–34, Oct. 1999. Constantinos Dovrolis, Dimitrios Stiliadis, and Parameswaran Ramanathan,“Proportional differentiated services: Delay differentiation and packet scheduling,”*IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.* vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 12–26, feb. 2002. Mankiw, N. Gregory. *Principles of economics.(Translated by XM Liang and L Liang)* 5th ed. Peking: Peking University Press, pp. 326, Apr. 2009. S. Shenker, “Some Fundamental Design Decisions for the Future Internet,” *IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Comm.* vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1176–1188, 1995. Richard J. La and Venkat Anantharam, “Utility-based rate control in the Internet for elastic traffic,” *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.* vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 272–286, Apr. 2002. J.-W. Lee, R. R. Mazumdar, and N. B.Shroff, “Non-convex optimization and distributed pricing based algorithms for optimal resource allocation in high speed networks,” presented in 17th IEEE Annual Computer Communications Workshop, 2002. J.-W. Lee, R. R. Masumdar, and N. B. Shroff, “Non-convex optimization and rate control for multi-class services in the internet,” *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.* vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 827–840, Aug. 2005. M. Chiang, S. Zhang, and P. Hande, “Distributed rate allocation for inelastic flows: Optimization frameworks optimaltiy condition, and optimal algorithms,” In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.* , Miami, FL, Mar. 2005. P. Hande, S. Rangan, and M. Chiang, “Distributed algorithms for optimal SIR assignment in cellular data networks,” In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.*, Apr. 2006. P. Hande, S. Zhang, and M. Chiang, “Distributed rate allocation for inelastic flows,” *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.* vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1240–1253, Dec. 2007. P. Hande, M. Chiang, A. R. Calderbank, and S. Rangan, “Network pricing and rate allocation with content provider participatio,” In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.*, Apr. 2009. P. Hande, M. Chiang, R. Calderbank, J. Zhang, “Pricing under Constraintsin Access Networks: Revenue Maximization andCongestionManagment” In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.*, Mar. 2010. S. Li, J. Huang, and S. Li “Revenue Maximization for Communication Networks with Usage-Based Pricing”,presented in IEEE Globecom, Hawaii, USA, Nov. 2009. S. Stidham, “Pricing and Congestion Management in a Network with Heterogeneous Users,” \[Online\]. Available: http://www.or.unc.edu/ sandy A. Ozdaglar and R. Srikant, “Incentives and pricing in communication networks,” In *Algorithmic Game Theory.* ch22, Cambridge Press, 2007, pp.571–591. D. P. Bertsekas, *Nonlinear Programming.* Belmont, MA: Athena Scientific,1999. J.F.Nash, “Noncooperative games,”*Annals of Mathematics.*vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 289–295, 1951. N. Nisan and A. Ronen,“Algorithmic mechanism design,” In *Proc. the 31stannual ACM symposium on Theory of computing.*, May. 1999. Atlanta, Georgia, United States, pp. 129–140. M. Simaan and J.B. Cruz, Jr, “On the Stackelberg Strategy in Nonzero-Sum Games,” *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications.* vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 533-555, May. 1973. T. Basar and R. Srikant, “A Stackelberg network game with a large number of followers,” *Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications.* vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 479-490, Dec. 2002. T. Basar and R. Srikant, “Revenue-maximizing pricing and capacity expansion in a many-users regime,” In *Proc. IEEE INFOCOM.*,2002. H.-X. Shen and T. Basar, “Differentiated Internet pricing using ahierarchical network game model,” In *Proc. 2004 American Control Conference.*, 2004, pp. 2322–2327. H.-X.Shen and T. Basar, “Optimal Nonlinear Pricing for a MonopolisticNetwork Service Provider with Complete andIncomplete Information,”*IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.* vol. 25, no. 6, pp.1216–1223, Aug. 2007. D. Acemoglu, A. Ozdaglar, “Competition and Efficiency in CongestedMarkets,”*Mathematics of Operations Research.* vol. 32, no. 1 pp. 1–31, Feb. 2007. J. F. Nash, “The bargaining problem,” *Econometrica.* vol. 28, pp. 155–162, 1950. X.-R. Cao, “Preference functions and bargaining solutions,” In *Proc. the 21st IEEE conference on Decision and Control.*, Orlando, Florida, Dec. 1982, pp. 164–171. A. Roth, *The Shapley value: Essays in honor of Lloyd S.Shapley.* Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988. R. B. Myerson, *Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict.* Harvard University Press, 1991. X.-R. Cao, H.-X.Shen, R. Milito, and P. Wirth, “Internet pricing with a game theoretical approach: concepts and examples,” *IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.* vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 208–216, Apr. 2002. H. Yaiche, R. R. Mazumdar, and C. Rosenberg, “A game theoreticframework for bandwidth allocation and pricing in broadband networks,” *IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw.* vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 667–678, Oct. 2000. S. Shakkottai, R. Srikant, A. Ozdaglar, and D. Acemoglu, “The Price of Simplicity,” *IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.* vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1269–1276, 2008. Sam C.M. Lee, Joe W.J. Jiang, D.M. Chiu, and John C.S. Lui,“Interaction of ISPs: Distributed Resource Allocation and Revenue Maximization,” *ITPDS.*vol. 19 ,no. 2, pp. 204–218, 2008. RTB Ma, D.M. Chiu, John C.S. Lui, V. Misra, and D. Rubenstein, “On Cooperative Settlement Between Content, Transit and Eyeball Internet Service Providers,” In *Proc. ACM CoNEXT.*, 2008. RTB Ma, D.M. Chiu, John C.S. Lui, V. Misra, and D. Rubenstein, “Interconnecting Eyeballs to Content: A Shapley Value Perspective on ISP Peering and Settlement,” In *Proc. ACM Network Economics (NetEcon).*, 2008. S. B. Robert Beverly and A. Berger, “The internet’s not a big truck: Toward quantifying network neutrality,” *Passive & Active Measurement (PAM).* vol. 4427, pp. 135–144, 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.